National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Letters = Media skews participation coverage
The NCAA News
|
The NCAA News
Editor’s note: The following letter from University of Arizona assistant professor John J. Cheslock is in response to articles published in the July 13 issue of USA Today: “Government report details rise in male college athletes,” “Title IX debate centers on conflicting numbers,” and “NCAA, government often differ on Title IX compliance statistics.” The articles covered a recent Government Accountability Office report: “Intercollegiate athletics: Recent trends in teams and participants in National Collegiate Athletic Association sports.”
The recent study of intercollegiate athletics by the Government Accountability Office adds to the growing body of research documenting a slight increase in men’s athletics participation over time. In reporting the findings of this study, USA Today highlights differences between NCAA data and Office of Postsecondary Education data on intercollegiate athletics participation and quotes several individuals who suggest these differences call into question the findings of the GAO study.
The differences between these two data sets are well known to researchers and are mostly due to the inconsistent reporting of multisport athletes to the OPE. Once you correct for this error in the OPE data set, the NCAA and OPE data are almost identical. My own research, included in a recent Women’s Sports Foundation report, uses OPE data and corrects for these errors. It produces results very similar to those found by the GAO study, which uses NCAA data.
In other words, all available data indicate the same thing: men’s athletics participation levels have increased over time.
To further elaborate on these points, let me provide some background on how athletics participation data are reported. When an athlete plays multiple sports, an institution is supposed to count this athlete for every sport in which he or she participates. So, if an athlete participates in cross country, indoor track and field, and outdoor track and field, he or she should count as three participants. When data are correctly reported in this way, the figures are referred to as “duplicated,” But when an institution incorrectly counts a multisport athlete as only one participant, it reports “unduplicated” figures.
The differences between the NCAA and OPE data are primarily caused by some institutions reporting “unduplicated” figures to the OPE and “duplicated” figures to the NCAA. The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, an institution highlighted by USA Today, provides a good example. Alabama reported 337 male participants to the NCAA but only 285 male participants to the OPE. If you inspect Alabama’s OPE data, you see that Alabama reported 48 athletes for the following three sports in 2005-06: cross country, indoor track and field, and outdoor track and field. But a quick perusal of Alabama’s Web site shows that it had 40 men participating in track and field and 14 participating in cross country in 2006-07. Because Alabama offers indoor track and field and outdoor track and field, and because most track athletes play both sports, the “duplicated” count of athletes in these three sports is likely close to 94 (40 plus 40 plus 14). In other words, Alabama incorrectly reported its unduplicated figure (48) to the OPE rather than the correct duplicated figure (close to 94).
The difference between the OPE and NCAA data appears to be almost entirely due to Alabama’s reporting of “unduplicated” counts to the OPE. Once you add the estimated difference between the duplicated and unduplicated figures for track and field/cross country (94 minus 48 equals 46) to the original OPE total (285), the estimated number of men’s participants for Alabama becomes 331. This revised OPE figure closely resembles the total men’s participation figure that Alabama reported to the NCAA (337). (The remaining difference of six athletes could simply be due to the use of 2006-07 roster sizes and 2005-06 EADA data in my analysis. I could not obtain 2005-06 roster information from Alabama’s Web site.)
Let me close this letter by stepping away from the trees so that the forest can again be seen. Colleges and universities sometimes report “unduplicated” figures to the OPE, which explains why OPE and NCAA data differ. My study examined OPE data and corrected for these errors. The GAO study used NCAA data, which does not require a similar correction. These two studies found extremely similar results: Men’s athletics participation levels slightly increased over time.
The reason for this letter is to advise the editor and the NCAA membership that the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics (NACDA) had the hazing issue on the radar for many years, including a session at the 2005 NACDA Convention.
The session was titled “Hazing — A Tradition That’s Worn Out its Welcome?” and was moderated by Lee McElroy, director of athletics at the University at Albany. It included a panel of experts, including Elizabeth Allan; Rick Farnham, former director of athletics at the University of Vermont; and Susan Lipkins, author of “The Perfect Storm Theory of Hazardous Hazing.”
Additionally, in the August 2005 issue of Athletics Administration, there was an article titled “Way Out of Bounds: Curtailing Athletics Hazing,” by Hank Nuwer, assistant professor at Franklin College and lecturer at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis.
I want to take this time to applaud the NCAA’s efforts in keeping the hazing issue alive by offering the Hazing Prevention Summit to its membership. NACDA would like to offer its continued support and is willing to help in any way possible.
Best wishes with the summit.
The recent study of intercollegiate athletics by the Government Accountability Office adds to the growing body of research documenting a slight increase in men’s athletics participation over time. In reporting the findings of this study, USA Today highlights differences between NCAA data and Office of Postsecondary Education data on intercollegiate athletics participation and quotes several individuals who suggest these differences call into question the findings of the GAO study.
The differences between these two data sets are well known to researchers and are mostly due to the inconsistent reporting of multisport athletes to the OPE. Once you correct for this error in the OPE data set, the NCAA and OPE data are almost identical. My own research, included in a recent Women’s Sports Foundation report, uses OPE data and corrects for these errors. It produces results very similar to those found by the GAO study, which uses NCAA data.
In other words, all available data indicate the same thing: men’s athletics participation levels have increased over time.
To further elaborate on these points, let me provide some background on how athletics participation data are reported. When an athlete plays multiple sports, an institution is supposed to count this athlete for every sport in which he or she participates. So, if an athlete participates in cross country, indoor track and field, and outdoor track and field, he or she should count as three participants. When data are correctly reported in this way, the figures are referred to as “duplicated,” But when an institution incorrectly counts a multisport athlete as only one participant, it reports “unduplicated” figures.
The differences between the NCAA and OPE data are primarily caused by some institutions reporting “unduplicated” figures to the OPE and “duplicated” figures to the NCAA. The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, an institution highlighted by USA Today, provides a good example. Alabama reported 337 male participants to the NCAA but only 285 male participants to the OPE. If you inspect Alabama’s OPE data, you see that Alabama reported 48 athletes for the following three sports in 2005-06: cross country, indoor track and field, and outdoor track and field. But a quick perusal of Alabama’s Web site shows that it had 40 men participating in track and field and 14 participating in cross country in 2006-07. Because Alabama offers indoor track and field and outdoor track and field, and because most track athletes play both sports, the “duplicated” count of athletes in these three sports is likely close to 94 (40 plus 40 plus 14). In other words, Alabama incorrectly reported its unduplicated figure (48) to the OPE rather than the correct duplicated figure (close to 94).
The difference between the OPE and NCAA data appears to be almost entirely due to Alabama’s reporting of “unduplicated” counts to the OPE. Once you add the estimated difference between the duplicated and unduplicated figures for track and field/cross country (94 minus 48 equals 46) to the original OPE total (285), the estimated number of men’s participants for Alabama becomes 331. This revised OPE figure closely resembles the total men’s participation figure that Alabama reported to the NCAA (337). (The remaining difference of six athletes could simply be due to the use of 2006-07 roster sizes and 2005-06 EADA data in my analysis. I could not obtain 2005-06 roster information from Alabama’s Web site.)
Let me close this letter by stepping away from the trees so that the forest can again be seen. Colleges and universities sometimes report “unduplicated” figures to the OPE, which explains why OPE and NCAA data differ. My study examined OPE data and corrected for these errors. The GAO study used NCAA data, which does not require a similar correction. These two studies found extremely similar results: Men’s athletics participation levels slightly increased over time.
John J. Cheslock
Assistant professor
Center for the Study of
Higher Education
University of Arizona
Assistant professor
Center for the Study of
Higher Education
University of Arizona
NACDA already a leaderin anti-hazing effort
I have had the opportunity to read, with interest, the recent NCAA News article on the Hazing Prevention Summit (July 16 issue).The reason for this letter is to advise the editor and the NCAA membership that the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics (NACDA) had the hazing issue on the radar for many years, including a session at the 2005 NACDA Convention.
The session was titled “Hazing — A Tradition That’s Worn Out its Welcome?” and was moderated by Lee McElroy, director of athletics at the University at Albany. It included a panel of experts, including Elizabeth Allan; Rick Farnham, former director of athletics at the University of Vermont; and Susan Lipkins, author of “The Perfect Storm Theory of Hazardous Hazing.”
Additionally, in the August 2005 issue of Athletics Administration, there was an article titled “Way Out of Bounds: Curtailing Athletics Hazing,” by Hank Nuwer, assistant professor at Franklin College and lecturer at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis.
I want to take this time to applaud the NCAA’s efforts in keeping the hazing issue alive by offering the Hazing Prevention Summit to its membership. NACDA would like to offer its continued support and is willing to help in any way possible.
Best wishes with the summit.
Michael J. Cleary
Executive director
National Association of
Collegiate Directors of Athletics
Executive director
National Association of
Collegiate Directors of Athletics
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy