Seton Hall University eRepository @ Seton Hall Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs) Summer 8-23-2018 Investigating Equity : An Evaluation of the Relationship of the NCAA’s APR Metric on Similarly Resourced Historically Black and Predominantly White NCAA Division-I Colleges and Universities Ryan J.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.edu/dissertations Part of the Higher Education Commons, and the Sports Studies Commons Recommended Citation Westman, Ryan J., "Investigating Equity : An Evaluation of the Relationship of the NCAA’s APR Metric on Similarly Resourced Historically Black and Predominantly White NCAA Division-I Colleges and Universities" (2018). Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs).edu/dissertations/2582 INVESTIGATING EQUITY: AN EVALUATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE NCAA’s APR METRIC ON SIMILARLY RESOURCED HISTORICALLY BLACK AND PREDOMINANTLY WHITE NCAA DIVISION-I COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES By Ryan J. Westman Dissertation Committee Robert Kelchen, Ph., Mentor Rong Chen, Ph. Lisa Rubin, Ph.
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Seton Hall University 2018 © 2018 Ryan Westman i ii Abstract In 2003, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) launched the Academic Performance Program (APP) as a means of measuring institutional accountability of academic outcomes for Division I member institutions. One of the two metrics used to define academic effectiveness is the Academic Progress Rate (APR) metric, immediately drew considerable criticism for its penalty structure, which disproportionately impacted colleges and universities with lesser resources. As time progressed, these penalties almost exclusively were distributed among the poorest institutions in Division I, which is heavily represented by the nation’s most prominent Historically Black Colleges and Universities. These penalty trends begged the question of whether resource level, or race, was significant in predicting APR penalties.
Using Harris’ Critical Race Theory (2012) and Pfeffer and Salancik’s Resource Dependence Theory (1978) as a guiding theoretical framework, and publicly available data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the Knight Commission Athletic & Academic Spending Database for NCAA Division I, and the Academic Progress Rate (APR) Database, I sought to evaluate whether institutional-level variables associated with resource level, student academic profile, student financial aid, institutional mission, admissions characteristics, and race were significant predictors of APR penalties. The outcomes of a logistic regression identified HBCU (institution type), Pell percentage, and ACT scores as significant predictors of APR penalty. Resource level was not determined to be a significant predictor of APR penalty. Key Words: NCAA, Academic-Progress-Rate, HBCU, College-Athletics, Student-Athletes, Division-I, NCAA-APR, Academic-Performance-Program, NCAA-APP iii Acknowledgements I would first like to thank my mentor, Dr.
Robert Kelchen, whose patience, guidance, and encouragement helped me believe in myself and inspired me to ask more of myself in this entire process. I would also like to thank my other two dissertation committee members, Dr. Rong Chen, and Dr. Chen for her kindness, expertise, and direction in my entire educational journey at Seton Hall.
Rubin, I thank you for being a role model, source of inspiration, and a wonderful friend. This process would not have been possible without my classmates, with whom I have created lifelong friendships. I will remember these years fondly. To my colleagues at Seton Hall, I forever will be indebted to you for providing the opportunity to follow my dreams.
To Matt Geibel and Amanda Di Donato, Freshman Studies, the athletic department, and colleagues and professors around campus – thank you for making Seton Hall a home for me. To my colleagues at NYU your support in the final stages of this process were invaluable. Thank you to Denise Poole and Ryan Poynter for supporting me through to completion. You are both incredible role models.
To my parents - this was for you. You provided the support, opportunity, and love that I needed to grow and take on these life challenges. And to Nicole, I could not have done this without you. Your unwavering support and love helped to make this reality.
I can never thank you enough for the sacrifices you made for me along the way. iv Dedication For my parents v Table of Contents Abstract. v Table of Contents. vii List of Tables.
ix List of Figures. xx Chapter 1 – Introduction. 12 Gaps in Literature. 16 Chapter 2: Literature Review.
18 Higher Education for Black Americans. 18 Challenges for Black Americans………………………………………………………………. 24 The Impact of the HBCU for Black Americans…………………………………………………………. 26 Challenges for HBCUs and Division I Intercollegiate Athletics.
29 Critical Race Theory……………………………………………………………………………………………. 29 Resource Dependence Theory………………………………………………………………………………. 33 The NCAA and the Governance of College Athletics. 34 NCAA Policy Legislation: Formation and Enforcement……………………………………………….
36 Predictive and Non-predictive Legislation………………………………………………………………… 37 vi The Academic Performance Program and NCAA Academic Reform. 40 Graduation Success Rate………………………………………………………………………………………. 42 Academic Progress Rate………………………………………………………………………………………. 48 Disparity Concerns amongst HBCUs and Limited Resource Institutions.
49 Gaps in Literature. 50 Chapter 3: Research Design, Data, and Methods. 59 Treatment Group………………………………………………………………………………………………… 61 Comparison Groups ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 71 Descriptive Statistics…………………………………………………………………………………………… 71 Dependent Variable…………………………………………………………………………………………….
75 Collinearity in Data……………………………………………………………………………………………. 79 vii Regression Analysis. 81 Primary Analysis - $40,000 Model (School Type as Variable of Interest). 82 Removing the Influence of Multicollinearity.
83 Odds Ratio Outcome. 85 Secondary Analysis - $35,000 and $45,000 Models (Institution Type as Variable of Interest). 86 Variables Not in Equation. 91 Odds Ratio Outcome.
93 Tertiary Analysis - $40,000 Model (Pell/Adjusted ACT/SAT Substitutions as Variables of Interest). 95 Odds Ratio Outcomes. 98 Chapter 5 – Conclusion and Recommendations. 99 Summary of Results.
102 Implications of Study. 110 Implications for Practice. 113 Suggestions for Future Research. 117 viii List of Tables Table 1.
Per-Capita Expenditure for Student Athletes for FCS Public Institutions 9 & 60 Table 2. NCAA APR Penalties by Conference for Men’s Sports 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 54 Table 3. NCAA Total APR Penalties 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 for Men’s Sports 55 Table 4. FCS NCAA APR Penalties 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 for Men’s Sports 56 Table 5.
HBCUs Included in Sample by Conference 63 Table 6. FCS Public Colleges and Universities in Sample by Conference 67-68 Table 7. FCS Public Colleges and Universities in Treatment Groups 68-69 Table 8. NCAA Accelerating Academic Success Program Grant Winners 70 Table 9.
Correlation Matrix of Variables in ≤$40,000 Model 77 Table 10. Collinearity Statistics of Variables in ≤$40,000 Model 78-79 Table 11. Variables not in Equation in ≤$40,000 Model 82 Table 12. Model Outcomes for ≤$40,000 Data 83 Table 13.
Variables in the Equation for ≤$40,000 Model 84-85 Table 14. Correlation Matrix of Variables in ≤$35,000 Model 86 Table 15. Collinearity Statistics of Variables in ≤$35,000 Model 87 Table 16. Correlation Matrix of Variables in ≤$45,000 Model 88 Table 17.
Collinearity Statistics of Variables in ≤$45,000 Model 88-89 Table 18. Variables not in Equation in ≤$35,000 Model 89-90 Table 19. Variables not in Equation in ≤$45,000 Model 90 Table 20. Model Outcomes for ≤$35,000 Data 91 Table 21.
Model Outcomes for ≤$45,000 Data 92 Table 22. Variables in the Equation for ≤$35,000 Model 93 Table 23. Variables in the Equation for ≤$45,000 Model 94 Table 24. Model Outcomes for ≤$40,000 data with Pell as Variable of Interest 95 Table 25.
Model Outcomes for ≤$40,000 data with Adjusted ACT/SAT as Variable of 96-97 Interest Table 26. Variables in the Equation for ≤$40,000 Model with Pell as Variable of Interest 97 Table 27. Variables in the Equation for ≤$40,000 Model with Adjusted ACT/SAT as Variable 98 of Interest ix List of Figures Figure 1. Academic Progress Rate Example 7 Figure 2.
Theoretical Model (Adapted from Harris’ Critical Race Theory 33 & 103 (2012) and Pfeffer and Salancik’s Resource Dependence Theory (1978)) Figure 3. Variation in Expenditures 61 Figure 4. Institutions in Sample 62 Figure 5. Ohio Valley Conference Institutions by State 64 Figure 6.
Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference Institutions by State 65 Figure 7. Southwestern Athletic Conference Institutions by State 65 x Chapter 1 – Introduction Background Every year, millions of sports fans across the United States invest their time, money, and their emotions supporting collegiate athletic programs. Whether supporting their alma maters, family legacies, or local or state colleges or universities, fans will invest large portions of their evenings and weekends, as well as falls, winters, and springs, glued to their seats – or televisions – hoping that it is their team’s year for success and glory. This obsession with college athletics is uniquely American, and has encapsulated fans, families, and alumni bases for almost a century and a half since the first intercollegiate football game between Rutgers and Princeton in 1869 (Lewis, 1970).
What once started out as a friendly competition to determine bragging rights between two local schools has evolved into an annual multi-billion dollar industry (Lavigne, 2016). At the center of this cultural phenomenon is the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The NCAA is a non-profit organization which serves as the governing body which oversees the overwhelming majority of collegiate athletics in the United States. Its membership is represented by over 1,200 schools and 460,000 student-athletes (NCAA, 2014e, NCAA, 2016c).
Originally founded in 1906 by President Theodore Roosevelt, the NCAA was created as a means to provide safety for the participants of football, a sport which had grown increasingly violent over the last two decades of the 19th century (Kirkpatrick, 2012; Oriard, 2012). Today the NCAA finds itself acting in a similar capacity in regards to protecting the wellbeing of the student-athletes who constitute their membership. Along with oversight of 89 championships in 23 sports for its membership schools (NCAA, 2014c), the NCAA implements legislation for “fair and safe competition” to protect the wellbeing of student-athletes (NCAA, 2016c). This 1 goal of protecting student-athlete wellbeing is becoming an increasingly challenging task for the NCAA.
As the incentive to win is backed by larger sums of money, the temptation to put academic priorities on the back burner is happening on a grander scale. Institutions like North Carolina, whose academic prestige has made it a top research institution, was plagued by an academic scandal which took root in an academic department for nearly 20 years (Gurney, Lopiano, & Zimbalist, 2016). These scandals have plagued top institutions such as Syracuse, Florida, Florida State, Rutgers, Baylor, and Brigham Young, just to name a few. All of these scandals occurred in the era of the Academic Performance Program (APP) (post-2003), where pressures have mounted on schools to win on the athletic arena due to greater financial and social incentives to win (Gurney et al.
In recent decades as the world of collegiate athletics has become more of a corporate industry with salaries of top coaches in football and basketball approaching eight figures, and annual revenues for the top 25 wealthiest institutions each reaching over $100 million (USA Today, 2016). NCAA membership schools are still governed by a model centered on amateurism, despite the growth of intercollegiate sports into a multi-billion dollar industry (Lavigne, 2016). Competition under the NCAA is divided into three main divisions - Division I, II, and III. Division I is home to the largest and wealthiest schools and can provide athletic scholarships (with the exception of the Ivy League which does not).
Division II is similar to Division I in that its members can provide athletic scholarships to students, though they usually have much smaller budgets compared to their Division I peers. Division II members also do not need to sponsor as many sports as Division I members. Lastly, Division III membership cannot provide athletic scholarships and there is a greater focus on the student-athlete experience (NCAA, 2014b). 2 Among the NCAA’s core values, which inform its governance structure, are a commitment to a collegiate model of athletics, which highlights a balance of academic, social, and athletic commitments; an inclusive culture, which “fosters equitable participation for student-athletes” and respect for institutional autonomy and philosophical differences (NCAA, 2014f, para 6).
The NCAA has used these guiding principles to regulate participation in college athletics through implementing policy, as to not undermine the academic missions of its membership institutions.