Authors: Peter S. Finley and Jeffrey J. Fountain

H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Rising Star Southeast University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA

Corresponding author: Peter S. Finley, Ph.D. Carl DeSantis Building 3301 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 pfinley@nova.edu 954-262-8115

Dr. Peter S. Finley is an associate professor of sports and entertainment management at the H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship at Rising Star Southeast University. His research interests include university and youth sports issues.

Dr. Jeffrey J. Fountain is an associate professor of sports and entertainment management at the H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship at Rising Star Southeast University. His research interests include college sports issues, with a focus on financial issues and economic issues.

Purpose: The purpose of this research is to apply the means-end theory to determine whether the factors that promote female student athletes to choose a university remain stable for a long time in a university. Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted by two researchers with 25 NCAA II-level female student athletes from a university. Results: Determining the eight attributes, eight consequences, and four values ​​previously identified is still an important driving factor for university selection, which shows that the standards on which university selection depends are highly stable. Two other factors emerged; the team itself and the opportunity for personal improvement outside of sports are variables determined during the university selection process for this group of people. Conclusion: Previous studies on the selection of student athletes by universities lack any empirical replication or confirmation studies to examine similarly defined populations in the same university, because researchers sample different populations or apply different methods or surveys in each study. By determining the stability of these factors, practitioners can use this research when implementing strategies for successful recruitment efforts and base these efforts on the values ​​of attracting new employees. Application in sports: It is important to understand how future student athletes choose to be admitted to designated universities. Most notably, understanding that values ​​such as satisfaction, belonging, fun and enjoyment, and safety are essential for choosing a university as they were more than a decade ago, and can help coaches and recruiters use their skills more effectively. Time and resources, as they strive to attract potential customers who are best suited to their plans.

Keywords: Student Athlete Recruitment, NCAA Division II, Means-End Theory  

Recruiting the best student athletes is the lifeblood of college sports. The quality of the players selected by the item list may be the limiting or driving factor for the team's subsequent success. Few factors can promote the success of university teams more than the ability to attract and retain the best talents, thereby deepening the understanding of how to recruit more effectively that deserves academic attention (19). According to Klenosky, Templin, and Troutman (15), “the competition between universities to recruit talented student athletes is often as fierce as the actual competition between school sports teams” (page 95). Therefore, it is not surprising that the recruitment aspect of coaching duties accounts for 10-20% of their daily working hours (8).

As student athletes choose universities to gain attention in the academic world, various important factors representing different populations and research participants have emerged. The criteria considered by student athletes include competition opportunities (9, 16, 27), academic factors (2, 4, 6, 9, 20, 25, 27), the amount of scholarship provided (5, 24, 28), and the team owner The reputation and relationship of the coach (4,20,27), coaching staff (12,14) and competitive level (13). When comparing the athletes in the NCAA department, there are indeed differences. For example, compared to level I or II players, level III baseball players are more likely to emphasize academics (21), while level II and III lacrosse players pay more attention to academics than level I players (22). 

The research also shows that some potential clients do not limit themselves to the courses of the university itself, but consider their post-university life in their decision-making. Huffman and Cooper (11) found that some players in Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) schools believe that the most important criterion in college selection is the chance of a good career outside the football field. Similarly, perhaps because a softball career seems unlikely, academic factors account for a large part of the study of community college softball players (29). 

One disadvantage of the quantitative method that universities choose to study is that respondents often quote many variables as important variables, and the resulting list of criteria that affect their decision is a long list of factors, with no importance or weight to each factor. . To address the relative importance of these many factors, Chard and Potwarka (3) proposed an interesting method to check the weight of each variable. In a study of Canadian student-athletes at a university, they applied the priority theory, which showed that standards and sub-standards can be prioritized (26), and through the application of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), they determined the relative standard In other standards. Among this group of people, the most important influence is that the college has an ideal academic curriculum, which is almost twice the reputation of the school, while the value of scholarships, sports facilities, winning opportunities and academic achievements are more than twice as important. The reputation of the head coach (3).

Another potential disadvantage of the university selection literature when applied to student athletes is that it usually does not provide recommendations for better recruitment. A study on recruitment used a survey of 291 community college softball players and determined that the most prominent issues that guide them in choosing a university are the availability of head coaches, courses or majors, the social atmosphere of the team, career opportunities after graduation, and the cost of tuition ( 29). Vermillion and Stoldt suggest that coaches use the research results to 1) recognize that softball players are multifaceted and must recognize their other identities, because softball is not their only focus, 2) team chemistry and academics should be emphasized when recruiting athletes And the overall reputation of the school, the support network, physics and society, the experience potential customers will gain there and how this will promote their careers after college, and 3) the potential customers should integrate with other academic and social groups during their studies on campus Visit (29).

Finally, a shortcoming in all university selection literature is that no researcher has returned to a similarly defined population of the same university to determine whether the factors for university selection have stabilized over time. This research attempts to address this gap in the literature. 

The means-purpose theory developed by Gutman (10) aims to allow researchers to use semi-structured interviews to study consumer choice decisions at a deeper level, rather than simply identifying the surface factors that are important when choosing from multiple options . It is in the process of guiding participants through the selection level, from the attributes of the project to the positive consequences of choosing the project, to the personal value that the project will satisfy, that the researcher can get the answer to the question "why" instead of just " Which". For example, the location of a university may be important for choosing a university. This can be understood as the "which" criterion is important when choosing a university. If enough participants give high marks, standard survey data will record the importance of location. However, it is important for the means-end theory to determine the "why" position more deeply, what are the consequences of choosing a school in that position, and the value that may be achieved through the choice in the end.

Ladder technology is used to guide the interviewee, usually through the question "Why is this important to you?" This allows the researchers to delve into the deeper meaning behind the criteria that the interviewees say to guide consumer choice. In the case of a university selection interview, the step technique will be applied by asking the subjects what criteria led them to choose one university instead of another. From the answer, such as "position", the interviewer will ask, "Why is position important to you?" The response may be, "This position allows me to participate in my sports throughout the year." The next question is, "Why throughout the year? Is it important to play this sport?” Doing so will allow subjects to improve and respond to the pursuit of championships, showing that the importance of position is related to the value of achievement. Another theme might also say that location is important, but because it is close to the beach, this in turn guarantees a fun and enjoyable university experience. Although both subjects replied that position is important, this is to satisfy very different values. For one interviewee, location satisfies the value of achievement, while for another interviewee, it satisfies the value of fun and enjoyment in life.  

Klenosky, Templin, and Troutman (15) applied the means-purpose theory to the college selection of 27 NCAA first-level football players. Through interviews, researchers have shown that the examination of university selection factors can go beyond surveys and explore basic values. It is determined that players choose this university because of attributes such as facilities, coaching, schedule, and academics. Using means-purposes, the researchers found that these attributes are related to the results of getting a "good" job, personal progress as a player, playing on TV, and feeling comfortable. As the interviewers delved into why these consequences are important, they learned that in the player's mind, everyone is associated with four values: 1) feeling safe (safe), 2) feeling of accomplishment (achievement), 3) A sense of belonging (Belonging), and 4) A fun and enjoyable experience (Fun and Enjovement).

Finley and Fountain (7) use the same method to apply the means-end theory to understand the college choice of female student athletes in secondary colleges. An important finding is that although the participants in this study are quite different from I-level football players (15), the four values ​​that support the college selection process are the same; sense of accomplishment, sense of belonging, fun and enjoyment, and sense of security.

Because it is related to student athletes, there is currently a lack of empirical copying of previous work in any form of university selection research. Every piece of academic work is a one-off, and there is little evidence that the factors of similar populations will remain consistent over time. This study attempts to make a unique contribution to the literature by replicating the study of student-athlete college choice. The researchers replicated the final study of female student athletes by Finley and Fountain (7) at the same NCAA secondary university. Although the university has undergone major changes in the sports and academic fields, researchers are trying to determine whether the attributes, consequences, and values ​​that guided university choices more than a decade ago are consistent with current student athletes.

Although replication studies have received less attention because they do not necessarily provide new knowledge (17), they are valuable for increasing research transparency, including through empirical replication, in which the procedures of previous studies are repeated for new populations (1). Perhaps the most important thing is to accept that knowledge does not only come from testing new theories, designing and using new investigations, or inventing new structures. Instead, knowledge grows through confirmation (23).

When collecting data for the Finley and Fountain (7) study, the university used in the study has a reputation for sports and it is best to describe it as underperforming. In the ten years following the 2008 study, the university was clearly committed to improving sports performance, as evidenced by the sports department’s budget, which has more than tripled from $3.7 million per year to more than $12.8 million. Taking into account the inflation caused by the time difference, the two annual budgets are adjusted to 2008 U.S. dollars using the CPI index. Even taking into account inflation, the sports department’s annual operating budget has increased by $8.5 million. In addition to increasing the operating budget for track and field sports, the university’s financial commitment to building state-of-the-art sports facilities is also important; this includes a new basketball and volleyball arena with a capacity of more than 5,000 seats and the construction of a long swimming lane. New water sports facilities with diving wells, new tennis courts, a strength and conditioning facility dedicated to track and field sports, and the purchase of a private golf course with practice facilities, equipped with driving range, practice hole and swing monitoring technology. In recent years, with the increase in track and field teams, swimming teams and diving teams, the number of teams provided has increased.

Financial commitments brought on-site success. Overall, the sport has steadily improved in the Learfield IMG Academy Dean’s Cup ranking, which is based on the overall performance of the entire sports department in NCAA-level competitions. After never appearing in the top 20 universities between 2006 and 2012, the university entered the top 20 three times between 2013 and 2017 (the highest ranking is 9th). Before 2008, the university had never won a conference or NCAA championship in any sport, regardless of gender. Over the next ten years, the sports team won a total of 32 conference-level championships (22 women's teams from six different sports) and added 8 NCAA National Championships (5 won by women's teams) . In addition, since the 2008 study, the head coach of each sport has been changed, and the concept has changed significantly, from local recruitment, sometimes from high school teams, to national search, and hiring has a clear success at the NCAA level. Recorded coach. Most people led the college team to conference, regional and national success, trained national players, and often won praise from peers through the recognition of the "Best Coach of the Year". 

It is also worth noting that in the past 13 years, the university has created a large number of academic scholarship programs to attract high-achieving prospects by improving undergraduate admission standards, creating a dual admission program, retaining seats in the graduate school of medicine, and achieving national recognition in academics , Has made considerable progress. Law and business, and a large number of recruits from outstanding private high schools. During this period, the university has climbed from "ranking unannounced" to the top 200 national universities in the U.S. News and World Report rankings for several years.

The research questions are formulated to illustrate the length of time that has elapsed between studies. The population will constitute a new student-athlete, and the university’s sports department has undergone significant and measurable changes, leading to higher achievements. The results of this study provide the first confirming study on the subject of student-athlete college choice. By solving the question raised by Magnusen et al. (18), "How can the sports department improve recruitment efficiency?", the results can be directly applied to the sports department. (Page 1266).

RQ1: Despite the major changes in the university, will participants identify similar attributes, results and values ​​that support their university selection process as they defined similar groups of people in 2008?

RQ2: Compared with 2008, will new attributes, results and values ​​become equally important in this group's university selection process?

Copying the previous study (7), the new population also includes 25 female student athletes from the same NCAA secondary university, representing the complete physical education curriculum of the university, with at least one participant in each sport. This includes the sports offered in 2008, basketball, cross-country, golf, rowing, football, softball, tennis and volleyball, as well as two sports that were added in subsequent years, namely track and field and swimming.

To replicate the previous research, the same procedure was used during the interview. This includes 1) conducting semi-structured interviews in a small teacher library to ensure a quiet and unthreatening environment, 2) quickly establishing the student athlete as the only expert in her chosen university, 3) reiterating that there is no right or error 4) Show curiosity about their answers while demonstrating non-judgmental listening, 5) The researcher meets with each student-athlete at once, and 6) All participants have reviewed and signed the consent form, and all participants All adults. 

The process of creating the means-end chain is also the same as the previous research. This included 1) two researchers taking separate notes and then comparing them immediately after each interview, and 2) each interviewee was asked to list the universities they seriously considered when they finally chose a university. The subjects were then asked to list the factors that they considered important to distinguish the universities they chose from the universities they chose not to attend. 3) Then the researchers used the ladder technique as described above to study this issue in depth, "Why then? Is it important to you?" The interviewer moves from the attribute list to the perceived result, and finally to the value satisfied by each attribute. 4) Immediately after each interview, create a means-end chain, and the researcher refers to his own notes. The differences are resolved together, emphasizing the use of keywords and phrases used by student athletes. The attributes that did not lead to the complete means-end chain were excluded from consideration. The interview generally lasts about fifteen minutes.

A total of 109 means-end chains were created, with an average of 4.36 per participant. The coding method-purpose chain reveals nine attributes that are cited as important in the college selection process of NCAA Grade 2 female student athletes. These attributes led to nine results, and these results led to four values.

Using the encoded data, an implication matrix (IM) (see Table 1) was constructed to summarize the links between attributes, consequences, and values. The suggestion matrix provides the number of chains created through interviews and shows how they are related to each attribute, result, or value. For example, the position starts 24 different means-end chains. The number of chains can be greater than the number of participants in the study. A participant may choose a location for two completely different reasons, which will produce two different means-ends chains, one starts a chain related to nightlife and beaches, leading to value fun and enjoyment, and the other chain must be related to sports Performance is related to the opportunity to participate throughout the year, and then the value of achievement. The codes in the implication matrix represent the data of all 109 chains. From this implication matrix, we can see how close the connection between attributes, consequences and values ​​is. For example, among the 11 chains beginning with the value attribute of scholarship, 10 are related to the result of economic comfort, and 1 is related to feeling valued. These connections are then associated with the values ​​of achievement (four times) and safety (seven times). Then use the implication matrix to construct the traditional hierarchical value map (HVM).

Table 1: The influence matrix of female student athletes college choice (chain)

Constructing a readable hierarchical value map requires researchers to determine a cut-off value to prove how often connections must be established to ensure that the graphical representation of the connected line is displayed. Although all connections can be determined by the implication matrix, the hierarchical value map reduces confusion by eliminating carefully established connections. When transferring data from IM to HVM, the researchers chose the cutoff level of the five chains. The higher the frequency of establishing the association, the thicker the line, and the use of various shadings makes the frequency of the association more obvious. The thin gray lines represent fewer associations than the lines rendered with thick black ink. 

Consistent with the work of Klenosky, Templin and Troutman (15) and Finley and Fountain (7), HVM (see Figure 1) has the following structure: 1) Values ​​are displayed at the top to indicate their abstract nature, in triangles and all capital letters, 2) The result is indicated in the middle, indicated by a circle, and starts with a capital letter, and 3) The attribute is indicated at the bottom, indicating that it is only the starting point of the decision, with a rectangle and all lowercase. The first number in each shape represents the number of participants who mentioned the concept, followed by the number in parentheses, indicating how many times the concept has been mentioned in total; again, a single participant is allowed to mention a single concept multiple times.

Although the focus of this study is qualitative, the data does provide an overview of the differences between 2008 and current results. Although there were 25 NCAA second-tier female student athletes in both studies, the current data resulted in 32 additional means-end chains. In 2008, 25 participants had an average of 3.08 chain stores, a total of 77, while the current participants had an average of 4.36 chain stores, a total of 109 stores.

For a long period of time, the factors selected by the university have been extremely stable. All eight attributes, eight results, and four values ​​in the 2008 study appeared again through interviews.

Through current research, two new university selection factors have emerged. One is an additional attribute, called team factor, and the other is an additional result, called personal improvement. No new value was found.

Table 2: Differences between 2008 and current research results

The survey results of attribute variables do show that the attributes cited by the NCAA second-level female student athletes in the college selection process are similar to those of the female student athletes in 2008, and all eight attributes previously determined have been mentioned again. However, the current research has also produced a new, ninth attribute. Researchers label the newly discovered attributes as "team factors." Usually mentioned teams have a history of success and a promising future. Student athletes believe that they are integrated into the team and have achieved success in the team. It was mentioned by 13 participants, and 15 means-end chains were initiated. The new attributes accounted for 15 of the 32 additional means-end chains. The remaining 8 attributes differ in the number of means-end chains they initiate. For example, academic programs, coaches, and school factors have all seen a significant increase in the number of participants mentioning this attribute, and have initiated more means-end chains. In contrast, the four attributes of location, scholarship, friends in the team, and open location all saw a decrease in the number of participants who mentioned them, and a decrease in the average number of end-chains initiated.

The findings of consequence variables also indicate consistency, again mentioning all eight consequences of the 2008 study. However, like the result of attributes, a new consequence variable has also appeared. Researchers refer to the newly discovered results as "personal progress." This new result is different from the “improvable” result, which is strictly speaking of becoming measurable better in one’s exercise, whether it is better results, faster time, or greater The chance to compete at a higher level. The new result of personal progress mentioned by the four participants is to become a more mature person, experience personal growth, and accept challenges through university experience. This is about the different ways of personal transformation and sports improvement. The biggest difference in consequence variables between 2008 and the current study is that the consequences can be improved, and 10 other participants mentioned it, resulting in an additional 20 means-end chains. The consequences of feeling comfortable, feeling valuable, and finding a good job have also seen more participants and means-end chains. The consequences of economic comfort, adventure, friends and family, and game time lead to fewer mentions of participants and a decline in the means-end chain.

The results of the survey supporting the values ​​of choosing a university also showed consistency, with all four variables (achievement, sense of belonging, fun and enjoyment, and sense of security) repeated as the only value at the end of each means-end chain. The most significant difference between the 2008 population and the current population is the substantial increase in the number of participants and the means-end chain, leading to achievement as the value that the university will satisfy in choosing. Another 9 participants mentioned achievements, and the other 31 means-end chains ended with this value. The other six participants mentioned a sense of belonging, while the number of mentions of fun and enjoyment and a sense of security and the means-end chain decreased slightly.

The goal of this research is to determine whether the attributes, consequences, and values ​​that guide a university’s selection of NCAA secondary female student athletes are consistent, even if a large amount of money is invested in sports and an emphasis on increasing the academic profile of the university. The results of the study clearly show that although a new attribute and a new consequence have emerged, the original variables still affect the participant’s university selection process. Most importantly, all means-end chains continue to lead to the same four values: achievement, belonging, fun and enjoyment, and safety.         

Many of the differences between 2008 and the current results logically coincide with changes in the physical education department and the university. Achievement is the value that current student athletes want to satisfy most when choosing a university. This appearance is in stark contrast to 2008, when sports were quite mediocre, and participants were more interested in satisfying the value of having fun and enjoying the experience. In the 2008 study, one of the most common means-end chains linked location to the outcome of adventure and the value of fun and enjoyment. Fewer participants in this study mentioned all three variables. The biggest change is the number of participants who have chains that lead to achievement values, from 14 to 23 participants, and from 21 to 52 chains. It is only natural for the coaching staff to recruit potential customers with this value, which is closely related to the improvement of the sport. The results also clearly show that athletes are turning to athletes who want to improve their performance, feel comfortable and valued. The desire for improvement is in line with the sports department’s agenda for greater success in competitions at all levels, and will verify the expenditures made by the sports department. In addition, current coaches are likely to be actively recruiting potential clients who show a strong desire for improvement in the sports environment. Similarly, the general emphasis on recruiting high-achieving prospects, coupled with the university’s changing academic image, may explain the slight increase in the consequences of finding a good job after graduation.

The focus on academic reputation seems to be the best explanation for the increasing focus on schools and academic attributes as factors that drive university choice. In view of the recruitment practice of the sports department, in order to introduce coaches with a successful history, and then they have an impact in the university, it is not surprising that the attention to coaching is increased, and it is considered to be the ideal result of the university. However, given the huge financial investment in sports facilities, it is interesting that the importance of facility attributes has only slightly increased. Compared to 2008, only three participants mentioned the facility. 

With the progress of university selection research, there should be a connection between theory and practice, which will help the sports department’s recruitment strategy to succeed. For this reason, it is recommended that during the recruitment process, the sports department personnel should not discuss the attributes of universities, sports projects, teams, and facilities. Coaches, managers, and admissions consultants should help potential clients understand how these attributes will satisfy the values ​​of wanting to achieve, belong, have fun, and feel safe. For example, a traditional campus visit will include showing potential customers sports facilities; weightlifting and training rooms, locker rooms, and competition venues (whether it is an arena, field, court, swimming pool, etc.). However, research based on the purpose of these methods, and then explain how the space contributes to an interesting experience, or how to use it to help athletes improve their athletic level, and ultimately how training and competition in that space can bring players and teams Greater achievement. Similarly, when predicting recruitment opportunities, the coach can focus on what he or she can do to let the athletes see that they have a sense of belonging. This may be through traditional conversations about the team, the lifelong friendships established by the athletes, and structured guidance. Plan between older and younger athletes, and so on. Coaches should consider how to prove that student athletes feel safe, which goes far beyond issues such as campus security, blue box alert systems, and the use of ID cards to buzz into safe spaces. To emphasize how sports can help create a sense of family and reunion, the coach may explain how many student athletes have stayed for four years or more to emphasize a consistent nurturing environment, and how student athletes find financial security through graduate employment. In all aspects of campus visits, those responsible for recruiting should consider how to resolve the values ​​that underpin the choice of the university, not just the attributes of campus and courses.    

This research is not without limits. First, as with any interview-based research, the information collected from the participants is filtered, coded, and reduced to usable data by the interviewer. In this process, it will naturally lose a certain degree of richness. Make every effort to take notes separately, and fairly reconcile the different opinions of the interviewer to best reflect the intended meaning of the participants. Second, this is a study of a relatively small population in a university. In other cases (NCAA divisions, regions of the country, etc.), further research using final interviews in other populations (such as men) will increase the knowledge system in the field. Third, this research depends on the participants’ accurate memory, as they try to go back to the moment they chose a university over another, and understand and truthfully explain the most meaningful attributes that make the difference between these choices. Then participants must be willing to truly explore the consequences of these attributes they anticipate and the values ​​they wish to satisfy. For many participants, this requires them to explore their values ​​in a deeper way than they have considered before. Future research should replicate this approach in new student-athletes groups to verify or refute the four known values ​​that support the university selection process.

Before federal legislation (commonly referred to as Article 9) became law, women’s opportunities to participate in athletic activities were restricted in the United States. It requires American society to recognize the right of women to participate in sports on the same plane as men. Before 1870, women's activities were essentially entertaining, not specifically for sports. They are not competitive, informal, and unruly; they emphasize physical activity rather than competition. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, women began to form sporty clubs. As women participate more in competitive sports, efforts to restrict women's sports activities continue. This article will describe the history of women's participation in sports before federal legislation was enacted to eliminate gender discrimination in education and sports.