Advancing Isomorphism in Higher Education: A Critical Analysis of the Careers of Intercollegiate Athletic Directors

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONIntercollegiate athletics has seen tremendous change over the past several decades. Since 1980, more than 300 colleges and university have entered into the National Collegiate Athletic Association (e.g., NCAA Division II or III) from other athletic associations (i.e., National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics; United States Collegiate Athletic Association) (Smith, 2012). Commenting on conference realignment, current NCAA president Mark Emmert has publically noted the increase of university presidential interest for a college football playoff system rather than the current 'Bowl Championship Series'. More conference realignment is forthcoming as colleges and universities position themselves for increased opportunities to play for the NCAA Division I football national championship (Gemmell, 2012). With these changes occurring on a frequent basis, the individual primarily involved with many of the decisions to change is the athletic director.Intercollegiate athletics is considered 'big business' throughout the United States, especially through the NCAA Division I ranks (Benford, 2007; Cook, 2011; Shulman & Bowen, 2001; Sperber, 2000; Zimbalist, 1999). Through several avenues of revenue generation (i.e., ticket sales, merchandise sales, television contracts and corporate sponsorship) the multi-billion dollar commercialized industry of intercollegiate athletics refers primarily to sports and athletic competition organized and funded by colleges or universities. Additional areas of revenue are often seen through the success of the athletic department and alumni donations (Cook, 2011; Gerdy, 2006; Shulman & Bowen, 2001). NCAA Division II and III institutions do not necessarily see the advantages as Division I institutions. Financial growth for Division II and III typically come in the form of athletic department expansion through their established sport teams or the addition of sport teams. From this expansion, increased enrollment and revenue for the university occurs (Cook, 2012; Emmons, 2009; Mostafavi, 2009; Van Valkenbury, 2009).Further differences among athletic departments occur at the associational level of NCAA affiliation. For example, NCAA Division III universities offer no athletic scholarships to its student-athletes. NCAA Division I and II institutions do offer athletic scholarships to its student-athletes.The predominant differences between NCAA affiliations and their institutions are seen in the form of human resources (i.e. administration, staff and coaches) and financial resources (i.e., revenues and expenses). According to a recent article in the USAToday (Wieberg, Upton & Berkowitz, 2012)1, as of 2011 the University of Texas (Austin, TX) sponsoring 18 men's (with football) and women's sports, leads all NCAA Division I athletic departments with revenues topping out at $150,295,926 and expenses $133,686,815. The smallest NCAA Division I school was Coppin State University (Baltimore, MD), sponsoring 12 men's sports (without football) and women's sports, with $3,484,323 in revenues and $4,088,874 in expenses.Furthermore, the University of Texas athletic department employs 377 administrators, staff and coaches while Coppin State University only employs 36. An institution associated with the Football Bowl Sub-Division (FBS) not only offer athletic scholarships, but are also required to average 15,000 in attendance (NCAA, 2012).In addition to these athletic department characteristic differences we also see variations from a general higher educational perspective through classification of universities (i.e., public or private), academic structure (i.e., departments, majors and minors offered), age and size of the university. Table 1 shows a very small sample of the array of differences among NCAA institutions.Early research on the athletic director indicated key qualifications for moving into the position included a background as a collegiate athlete, high school and college coaching experience as well as some administrative experience (Danylchuk & Chelladurai, 1999; Fitzgerald, Sagaria & Nelson, 1994; Whisenant & Pedersen, 2004). …