REMARKS OF COREY BRAY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION

BEFORE THE

SECRETARY OF EDUCATION’S COMMISSION ON

OPPORTUNITY IN ATHLETICS

NOVEMBER 20, 2002

My name is Corey Bray, and I am the assistant director of research at the NCAA. I want to thank the commission members for providing me the opportunity to make this presentation this morning.

Although I have not attended any of the three prior meetings of this commission, I have been informed that NCAA data on participation rates have been used by many of the previous presenters. At times, there has evidently been some confusion and disagreement regarding those data. As the person responsible for compiling NCAA participation rates data for the past four years, it is my hope this morning to provide the commission members with some insight into the collection methods and current uses of these data, as well as highlighting the limitations of the data.

(Show Slide 2) Specifically, I would like to shed light on the questions I was asked to address regarding the type of participation and sponsorship data that we collect, how those data are collected and the accuracy of the data. Then, I will provide the commission with a few highlights of the data, before I discuss some of the limitations.

(Show Slide 3) Before I discuss the specifics of the NCAA participation data, let me say a word about the goals of NCAA research. It is our goal to provide the highest quality data possible to the decision-makers within the NCAA structure. We attempt to provide the facts in a way that can be used by our governance structure to make informed decisions. It is not our intention to suggest or create specific policies. Those decisions are left to groups like yourselves. This is why you will see so much detailed information in our participation rates reports. We have attempted to present the data in a way that will allow them to be analyzed fully by any potential user, and in ways that we had not considered.

(Show Slide 4) The NCAA has collected and reported data on the number of sports sponsored and participants since the 1981-82 academic year. These data are collected annually in mid-August for the previous academic year from each member institution using the Sports Sponsorship form. (Until 1999, this was a paper form. From 1999 to the present, the data have been collected via the Web.) Since the sports sponsorship data have been required for NCAA membership, our response rate on that aspect of the data has always been 100 percent. Before the electronic version of the form was adopted, the participation data response rate was between 90 and 100 percent of our membership. For the past three years, that rate has been 100 percent. The major change in our methodology came in 1995-96, when data from provisional NCAA members were added to the report. This change is noted in all of our reports. Because of these exceedingly high response rates, we believe the data collected are a very accurate reflection of overall participation within the NCAA.

(Show Slide 5) Over time, our major purpose for providing these data has been simply to report the number of participation opportunities by sport and gender within the entire NCAA membership. To that end, we have focused the report on the total number of NCAA participants over time. However, we realize that the charge of this commission is broader than that focus, and I would like to highlight some factors that need to be taken into account as you review data for NCAA membership. These include: the growth in NCAA membership over time; the changes in divisional classification among our membership (e.g. schools moving from Division II to Division I); schools adding and dropping sports teams, and changes to the number of sports that have championship status within our Association. Because of all of these factors, we also provide the data on a per-institution-basis. This provides a different way of looking at this information, and may be useful in addressing some of the questions that this commission is facing. In addition, I would point you to the recent GAO studies that include both NCAA and NAIA institutions and have used our data in other ways to assess some different research questions.

(Show Slide 6) As we turn to some of the specific data, I want to first highlight the number of sports sponsored by NCAA member institutions over the past 20 years. As you can see from this graphic, the number of women’s teams within the NCAA has grown dramatically over that time period, and there are now more women’s teams than men’s. However, the number of men’s teams within our Association has also grown over that time period. This same basic trend can be seen within all divisional classifications (you have these data in the packet of materials that were sent to you).

(Show Slide 7) The next graphic displayed shows the number of actual participants by gender over that same time period. Again, the chart shows significant gains in women’s participation opportunities within the NCAA, but also small gains in overall opportunities for men. Men continue to show about 50,000 more participants within the NCAA than women. Again, this overall trend is seen within each of our membership divisions.

(Show Slide 8) I want to make clear that the previous two slides reflect the overall membership, and do not adjust the data for some of the factors that have been mentioned earlier (e.g. the change in NCAA membership over time and the impact on both men’s and women’s sports). To take some of those factors into account, we also present the data on a per-institution-basis. This slide contains data related to the number of sports sponsored by the average institution within the NCAA. As you can see the number of women’s sports sponsored has increased from about 6 in 1981, to about 8 in 2000. Conversely, the number of men’s sports sponsored, on average, has decreased from slightly over 8 in 1981, to just under 8 in 2000.

(Show Slide 9) Similarly, we have seen a strong increase in the number of female participants on campuses in that time period. In 1981, the average NCAA member had about 100 female participants. The most recent data show an increase to almost 150. Male participation at the average campus has decreased from around 250 to about 200. However, as you can see male participation is still significantly higher than female participation on our average campus.

(Show Slide 10) In summation, let me present you with a few facts that can be seen within these data: Overall male participation within the NCAA has increased by 23.6 percent since 1981 (from 167,000 to 207,000). Overall female participation has increased by 131 percent in that same time frame (from 64,000 to 149,000). The number of sports sponsored has increased by 14.7 percent for males (6,746 teams to 7,737 teams), and by 94.3 percent for females (4,279 teams to 8,312 teams). On a per-school basis, the number of male athletes has decreased by 7.7 percent between 1981 and 2000 (from an average of 216 per school, to an average of 199). The number of female athletes has increased over that same timeframe by 52.6 percent (from 94 to 144 per school). In terms of the number of sports sponsored, the average number for men decreased by 13.7 percent (8.7 to 7.5), while the average number for women increased by 31.1 percent (6.1 to 8.0). I want to make it clear that these calculations came directly from our most recent sports participation report, and could have been done by anyone with access to the Web. This is an example of how we believe our data can and should be used.

(Show Slide 11) The GAO compiled the data contained in this slide in 1999. The unique aspect of their report was that it isolated its analyses to an identical group of schools in both 1985-86 and 1996-97. These 725 schools were chosen because they had not changed NCAA divisional affiliation within that time frame. As you can see from the data, the results are very similar to previous results that we have shown on a “per institution” basis. In other words, the opportunities for females increased slightly in that time and the opportunities for males decreased slightly.

(Show Slide 12) In a 2001 report the GAO combined NCAA and NAIA data in an attempt, among other goals, to determine if the number of men’s and women’s intercollegiate sport participants and teams at 4-year colleges and universities changed in the two decades since the 1981-82 school year. That data showed a substantial increase in female participation and a modest increase in male participation, which is similar to the NCAA overall data. These two GAO reports are just two examples of how NCAA data can be used to answer different questions.

Where does that leave us? I believe that I have presented you with several relevant facts from our data, and, as John Adams liked to say “Facts are stubborn things.” However, facts can only take you so far in these types of policy debates. What the facts mean, and how they should guide us in future decision-making are questions that are left to your commission and others who must wrestle with these issues in a broader scope. We hope that these facts will assist you in your process, and we stand ready to prepare any other relevant data.

I believe that Cedric Dempsey, president of the NCAA will follow-up on some of these facts in his statement to the commission later today. He will offer his insights on these issues based on the data and his 52 years of experience within intercollegiate athletics. I am sure that he will offer the commission some ideas to consider in your deliberations.

(Show Slide 13) I again want to thank the commission for this opportunity, and will be happy to answer any questions that you have, either now or at some future time.