The Case for a Minimum 2.0 Standard for NCAA Division I Athletes<sup>1</sup>

Staurowsky, Ellen J.; Ridpath, B. David

doi:10.1123/jlas.15.1.113

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Article 13 in the NCAA operating bylaws is completely devoted to rule recruitment. Moreover, in sport management literature, eligibility has been usually analyzed in tandem with recruitment (Staurowsky & Ridpath, 2005). Not surprisingly, the vast majority of criticisms against college sports have focused on these very same three aspects: amateurism, eligibility, and recruitment (Benford, 2007;Sperber, 2001;Zimbalist, 1999).…”

Section: Institutional Rules Of Intercollegiate Athleticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…And by the end of the senior year, it raises to 100%. While the 90/95 rule does not mention a specific GPA, the benchmark of 2.0 standard for graduation used by most colleges and universities is frequently used as the 100% mark (Staurowsky & Ridpath, 2005). Therefore, students must have a 1.6 GPA by the end of the first year of enrollment, a 1.8 GPA by the end of the second, and a 1.9 by the end of the senior year and beyond, in order to keep their eligibility.…”

Section: Eligibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Naturally, eligibility rules have their critics and defenders in the literature. Staurowsky and Ridpath (2005), for example, have defended the minimum GPA as a form of preserving academic values among athletes. These authors have proposed that a minimum 2.0 cumulative GPA reaffirms the promise of higher education institutions to educating athletes.…”

Section: Eligibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These authors have proposed that a minimum 2.0 cumulative GPA reaffirms the promise of higher education institutions to educating athletes. Using legal arguments, Staurowsky and Ridpath (2005) asserted that even when the judicial system fails to condemn institutions that do not honor their duty to educate athletes, the society is still claiming for universities to educate athletes in agreement with their written academic missions. To these authors, the minimum GPA rule supports the fact that universities should have a duty to educate athletes.…”

Section: Eligibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Naturally, legal decisions do not eliminate the social and moral obligations of all actors involved in intercollegiate athletics. Staurowsky and Ridpath (2005) argued that faculty members have the duty and moral obligation of educating athletes, though. I would add that not only faculty members have the duty of educating athletes, but also athletic managers, coaches, and coaching staff have the moral obligation to allow athletes to graduate.…”

Section: Eligibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Patterns of Bureaucracy in Intercollegiate Athletic Departments

Rocha

Chelladurai²

2013

Journal of Sport Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The theoretical argument of the current research is that athletic departments have been effective in attaining their conflicting goals mainly because they have become highly effective in managing institutional rules. Neo-institutionalism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991), loose coupling (Meyer & Rowan, 1977), and patterns of bureaucracy form the theoretical cornerstone of the current research. Sport management investigations about goals and processes of intercollegiate athletics (Trail & Chelladurai, 2000) offer an unique opportunity to investigate these sociological theories of management in sport contexts. The initial endeavor of the current research was to explore and describe relationships between intercollegiate athletics goals and processes and coaches' perceptions about how institutional rules have been negotiated inside athletic departments (patterns of bureaucracy). To attain this aim, first, I proposed a scale to measure different patterns of bureaucracy in athletic departments and tested its psychometric properties. Then, I investigated the structural relationships among intercollegiate athletics goals, processes, and patterns of bureaucracy. I received back 382 questionnaires from Division I coaches (response rate of 38.2%), 326 from Division II (32.6%), and 359 from Division III (35.9%). From these questionnaires some had to be eliminated due to either the irresponsible nature of the responses. A final sample of 907 (n divI = 322; n divII = 277; n divIII = 308) was used to test the hypotheses. For controlling for non-response error, late respondents were compared iii to early respondents. Late respondents did not differ from early respondent in any variable for all three divisions. Initial confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) showed acceptable fit indexes, but some items did not load sufficiently high in their constructs.After some refining, the new proposed bureaucracy scale presented good psychometric properties, as did the goals and processes scales. Multiple-group CFA indicated fully measurement invariance for bureaucracy and goals scales, and partial measurement invariance for processes scale.Single-group structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses showed that the correlation between developmental and performance goals was large and significant for all three divisions (r divI = .654; r divII = .660; r divIII = .582). The regression coefficient of developmental processes on developmental goals was large and significant for all three divisions ( divI = .924; divII = .909; divIII = .853). Also, the regression coefficient of performance processes on performance goals was large and significant for all three divisions ( divI = .902; divII = .780; divIII = .933). For all three divisions, developmental process was a significant predictor of all three types of bureaucracy: mock bureaucracy ( divI = -.313; divII = -.392; divIII = -.406), representative bureaucracy ( divI = .289; divII = .414; divIII = .411) and discordant bureaucracy ( divI = .226; divII = .331; divIII = .282). Multiple-group SEM analyses showed...

show abstract

Section: Institutional Rules Of Intercollegiate Athleticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Eligibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Eligibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Eligibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Eligibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Patterns of Bureaucracy in Intercollegiate Athletic Departments

Rocha

Chelladurai²

2013

Journal of Sport Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The KUSF and the NCAA: a comparative study of national collegiate sport organizations' academic policies

Lee

Pond

Hums

et al. 2022

Educ Res Policy Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this comparative study was to investigate and compare the academic policies of the Korean University Sport Federation (KUSF) and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). A qualitative, multiple case study design was utilized for this study. Specifically, in-depth interviews were completed with current South Korean (N = 3) and US (N = 3) college women's tennis players to understand their experiences and perceptions linked to the KUSF's and NCAA’s academic policies. A total of three distinct themes emerged with US student-athletes: (a) academic advisor involvement, (b) academic regulations, and (c) study hall. One theme emerged with South Korean student-athletes: absence of academic support. The results of this study provide practical insights to administrators of South Korean intercollegiate athletics regarding their academic policies.

show abstract

Athlete–Student–Influencer: How the Introduction of Name, Image, and Likeness in Intercollegiate Athletics Further Complicates Applications of Role Theory

Fridley

Springer

Stokowski

et al. 2024

Sociology of Sport Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The revered tradition of amateurism has transformed due to legal and legislative challenges initiated by the name, image, and likeness landscape. In contrast to the traditional National Collegiate Athletic Association model, college athletes have now gained the opportunity to benefit financially from their notoriety by adopting an influencer role. The purpose of this manuscript was to explore the conceptual and theoretical shifts resulting from the introduction of the influencer role, considering the existing literature on athlete–student role theory. By achieving harmony between the athlete, student, and influencer roles, athletes should produce the most significant gains in each area, including academic performance, athletic achievement, and monetary benefit. However, greater psychological and sociological consequences may emerge for athletes if the influencer role further complicates the conflict between their athlete and student roles.

show abstract

The Case for a Minimum 2.0 Standard for NCAA Division I Athletes¹

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Patterns of Bureaucracy in Intercollegiate Athletic Departments

Patterns of Bureaucracy in Intercollegiate Athletic Departments

The KUSF and the NCAA: a comparative study of national collegiate sport organizations' academic policies

Athlete–Student–Influencer: How the Introduction of Name, Image, and Likeness in Intercollegiate Athletics Further Complicates Applications of Role Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The Case for a Minimum 2.0 Standard for NCAA Division I Athletes1

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Patterns of Bureaucracy in Intercollegiate Athletic Departments

Patterns of Bureaucracy in Intercollegiate Athletic Departments

The KUSF and the NCAA: a comparative study of national collegiate sport organizations' academic policies

Athlete–Student–Influencer: How the Introduction of Name, Image, and Likeness in Intercollegiate Athletics Further Complicates Applications of Role Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The Case for a Minimum 2.0 Standard for NCAA Division I Athletes¹