Snyder and - Rutgers SASN



For the Love of the Game: The Length of Athletic Careers in Ivy League Sports and the Title IX ControversyWe present evidence on the length of athletic careers in a number of varsity sports for male and female athletes in the Ivy League. We argue that the number of years that these athletes choose to compete reflects their interest and commitment to their sport and is relevant to the Title IX controversy over the requirement that male and female varsity sports participation opportunities be proportional to their undergraduate enrollments. We find virtually no difference in the mean lengths of athletic careers by sport for male and female Ivy League athletes in basketball, soccer, golf, lacrosse, tennis, and cross country, 1999-2013.JEL: I28 J16 K23Douglas Coatecoate@rutgers.eduJames VanderhoffRutgers UniversityNewark, New Jersey 07102 April 2015For the Love of the Game: The Length of Athletic Careers in Ivy League Sports and the Title IX ControversyIn this paper we present evidence on the length of athletic careers in a number of varsity sports for male and female athletes in the Ivy League. We argue that the number of years that these athletes choose to compete reflects their interest and commitment to their sport and is relevant to the Title IX controversy. We summarize the Title IX controversy as: "should federal government policy require colleges and universities to provide varsity athletic opportunities that result in male and female participation in the same proportion as their undergraduate enrollments if interest in varsity sports participation differs by gender among the athletes?” Ivy League athletes compete in Division I, the level with the strongest teams in college sports, and participation requires substantial commitments of time and energy throughout the academic and calendar years. At the same time, Ivy athletes have demanding academic schedules and many have graduate school ambitions that require solid undergraduate academic achievement. Furthermore, any financial aid the athletes receive is not tied to athletic participation – Ivy League schools do not reward athletic scholarships. Thus, Ivy League athletes, more than most other Division I athletes, confront the trade-off between time and energy devoted to varsity sports or to academic or other endeavors. Consider Ivy League golf as an example of the demands placed on Ivy League athletes. The fall golf season begins around September 1, at the very beginning of the semester, and concludes at the end of October. Team members then take part in physical training, and indoor and outdoor practice until the end of the semester. Between semesters, team members usually travel to warmer climates for practice and competition. The spring season begins around February 1 and runs through the end of the spring semester. During spring break a one-week trip is usually taken to warmer climates for practice and competition. To quote from the Harvard University women's golf site, “during non-tournament weeks we typically practice four or five days per week. During tournament weeks we typically practice three days per week. Practice time usually includes one 18-hole round, one day spent on individual swing work, short game practice, individual goal setting and review, and one day practicing and playing a nine hole round. Practice rounds are also used for tournament qualifying. Tournaments are typically held on weekends and usually involve leaving on Fridays and returning on Sundays.” Ivy League schools participate in approximately 8 tournaments per year, four in the fall and four in the spring. Tournaments are two or three days. In two day tournaments, 36 holes are usually played on the first day. In short, Ivy League golf can occupy many weekends, semester and spring breaks, and a good chunk of each afternoon in the academic year. To that we must add rest and recovery and any rehabilitation due to injuries and the expectation that golfers will continue to work on their games in the summers between academic years. Most other Ivy League sports require similar commitments in terms of time and energy. Each season the Ivy athlete must weigh the satisfaction from sport team participation against the opportunity costs of the time and effort it requires. More boys than girls participate in high school sports in the US. In the 2012 – 2013 academic year, 4.5 million boys and 3.3 million girls took part in high school sports. The number of high school boys and girls in thousands that participated in selected sports were basketball 541, 433; golf 152, 72; ice hockey 35, 9; lacrosse 106, 87; soccer 417, 374; tennis 161, 184; and cross country 252, 218. The same figures for the 2000 – 2001 academic year were basketball 540, 453; golf 162, 60; ice hockey 33, 6; lacrosse 42, 32; soccer 332, 292; tennis 144,164; and cross-country 188,159 (National Federation of State High School Associations 2014). Girl’s participation in high school sports started from near zero in 1970 (when girl athletes were stigmatized), but by 1980 their participation had reached 50% of that of boys (stimulated perhaps by Title IX), by 1990, had reached 60%, and by 2000 it had reached today’s level of about 70% of boys participation. A number of studies have also shown that at younger ages boys are more likely to participate in vigorous, physical sports and in team sports than are girls, who prefer less competitive and less vigorous activities (Cherney and Londo 2006). The 2014 national survey of student engagement of over 350,000 students in 622 US colleges and universities showed that 30% of female first-year students and 38% of male first-year students spend more than five hours a week participating in organizations, campus publications, student government, fraternity or sorority, and intercollegiate or intramural sports. These percentages fell to 26% for senior female undergraduates and to 32% for senior male undergraduates (National Survey of Student Engagement 2015). Even if it is assumed that high school administrators are accommodating student interest and that, on average, boys are more interested in competing in high school varsity sports than are girls, this is not by itself an effective criticism of the application of the proportionality standard of Title IX to Ivy League sports or to college sports in general. It may well be that elite boy and elite girl high school athletes that are able to compete at the college level in varsity sports, which have similar practice and game requirements for the men’s and women’s teams, are also similar in numbers and in their enthusiasm and commitment to their sports. Title IXTitle IX of the Education Amendment Act to the 1964 Civil Rights Act was legislated in 1972 to prevent sex-based discrimination in educational programs receiving federal funds. It reads in part: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” The application of Title IX to intercollegiate sports was uncertain, however, because intercollegiate athletic programs do not receive direct federal support. Thus, Congress in 1974 passed the "Javits" amendment, which placed intercollegiate sports under Title IX, with reasonable provision considering the nature of particular sports. The Javits amendment lacked specificity, however, and Congress subsequently directed the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to create Title IX standards for intercollegiate sports. In 1979 the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare issued the policy interpretation. It provided a three prong test of whether men and women intercollegiate athletes at an institution were being effectively accommodated. An institution meeting one of the three requirements would be considered in compliance with Title IX. The three prongs were: 1) Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or (2) Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of that sex; or (3) Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion such as that cited above, but it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program. Participation opportunities were to be evaluated in terms of selection of sports and quality of competition; scheduling of games and practices; travel and per diem allowances; opportunity to receive coaching and tutoring; assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors; provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; provision of medical and training facilities and services; provision of housing and dining facilities; and publicity (Office of Civil Rights 1979). The issuance of the policy interpretation and the three prong test did not trigger Title IX litigation on behalf of women's intercollegiate sports and in 1984 the Supreme Court appeared to close that avenue altogether. The Court ruled in Grove City College v. Bell that because some Grove City students received federal government financial aid, the financial aid office of the school was subject to Title IX regulation, but that other departments or programs at the college were not (Grove City College v. Bell 1984). Congress reacted to the Grove City decision by passing the Civil Rights Restoration Act in 1987. It stipulated that all programs of an institution that receives any federal funds are subject to civil rights laws, including Title IX of the Education Amendment Act to the 1964 legislation.The Cohen v. Brown University court decisions have been the most influential in Title IX jurisprudence. In 1991 the Brown administration, citing budgetary constraints, removed four varsity teams from funded status to donor status. These teams were women's gymnastics, women's volleyball, men's water polo, and men’s golf. Prior to these cuts, Brown had offered 15 intercollegiate sports for women and 16 for men. Male participants had totaled 566 and female participants had totaled 328. Brown’s undergraduate enrollment was 52% men and 48% women. Female members of the two defunded women’s teams brought suit against Brown, asserting that the loss of funding for the women’s teams violated Title IX. The federal district court and circuit court decisions in Cohen took guidance from the Office of Civil Rights (of HEW) formulation of the three-pronged test. There was “virtually no case law” at this time. These courts concluded that Brown's intercollegiate athletic programs did violate Title IX. They ruled Brown failed the proportionality test (prong one) based on the differences in varsity athletic slots by gender relative to undergraduate enrollments, they ruled Brown failed the expansion test for the underrepresented gender (prong two) because of the failure of Brown to increase intercollegiate varsity spots for women since the 1970s, and they rejected the differential interest test (prong three). With respect to the latter, Brown had argued that they had accommodated interested women athletes in varsity sports, in fact, there were unfilled slots on the women’s varsity teams. Furthermore, they offered significantly more varsity women’s teams on average than other Division I schools. They also presented evidence that undergraduate women were less interested in participating in varsity intercollegiate athletics than were undergraduate men. Their evidence included: admissions data showing greater athletic interest among male applicants, College Board data showing greater athletic interest and prior participation among male applicants, a random sample telephone survey of Brown undergraduates that showed Brown offered intercollegiate varsity sports participation in excess of women’s interest, lower intramural and club participation rates for women in proportion to their undergraduate numbers, greater participation by boys than girls in high school athletics, and the NCAA Gender Equity Committee data showing that women across the country participated in athletics at a lower rate than men. The courts were not impressed. From the 1996 circuit court decision: “there exists the danger that… statistical evidence purporting to reflect women's interest instead provides only a measure of the very discrimination that is and has been the basis for women's lack of opportunity to participate in sports…, to allow a numbers-based lack-of-interest defense to become the instrument of further discrimination against the underrepresented gender would pervert the remedial purpose of Title IX. …even if it can be empirically demonstrated that, at a particular time, women have less interest in sports than do men, such evidence, standing alone, cannot justify providing fewer athletics opportunities for women than for men.”The circuit court in their 1993 opinion, expanding on language from the 1992 district court opinion, had previously elevated prong one to the pivotal position in Title IX litigation:“The first benchmark furnishes a safe harbor for those institutions that have distributed athletic opportunities in numbers ‘substantially proportionate’ to the gender composition of their student bodies. Thus, a university which does not wish to engage in extensive compliance analysis may stay on the sunny side of Title IX simply by maintaining gender parity between its student body and its athletic lineup.”The district court also opened the door to fundamental change in intercollegiate athletics: to comply with Title IX, a college or university “may eliminate its athletic program altogether, it may elevate or create the requisite number of women's positions, it may demote or eliminate the requisite number of men's positions, or it may implement a combination of these remedies.”The Cohen decisions set the precedents for Title IX enforcement. Prong three could not be relied upon to satisfy Title IX requirements for schools with disproportionate participation by one gender. And any success with a prong two defense would only be temporary for at some point courts would expect proportionality to be achieved. Prong one proportionality was not only the safeguard, but the default position from the perspective of college and university administrators. The courts to this day, however, give lip service at least to all three prongs.There has been substantial changes in male and female varsity sports participation in colleges and universities in recent decades. The College Sports Council tracked male and female varsity athletic participation by gender among NCAA member schools from 1980 to 2005. Their figures show an increase in female athletes per member school from 100 to 120 between 1980 and 1985, a flattening of participation rates from 1985 to 1994, and an increase from 115 to 160 from 1994 to 2005. Male varsity athletic participation per member school increased from 225 to 265 during the first period, then declined markedly to 200 by 1994, and then increased to 215 by 2005. Certain nonrevenue producing men’s sports were particularly impacted during the 1980 - 2005 period. Men’s wrestling teams fell from 500 to 220, the number of male college gymnasts fell from 2000 to 350, and the number of men’s tennis players fell from 11,000 to 7000. These figures are adjusted for changes in the number of NCAA member schools (College Sports Council 2007). The fall in men’s varsity slots in colleges and universities as well as a number of law review articles and media reports critical of proportionality as the Title IX standard, including opinion pieces in the Washington Post, New York Times, and on 60 Minutes, led the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to issue new guidelines in 2005. These enabled schools to tailor athletic programs to student interests by using web based surveys designed by the OCR. However, in 2010, under a new federal government administration, the OCR rescinded these guidelines and also termed the surveys inadequate (Office of Civil Rights 2010). They did leave open the possibility of schools meeting prong three standards if student interests in intercollegiate sports participation were properly gauged and consistent with the pattern of sports offerings by the school, but proportionality remains the standard for Title IX compliance.Data and methods We have argued that the number of years that male and female athletes recruited to the Ivy League choose to compete reflects their interest and commitment to their sport and is relevant to the Title IX controversy over the proportionality requirement. Here we analyze the career lengths of varsity male and female athletes for selected sports in the Ivy League. These sports are cross country, golf, basketball, tennis, lacrosse, soccer, and hockey. These sports include those with no physical contact, golf, cross country, and tennis; and sports known for physical contact, lacrosse and hockey. Male and female competition schedules are similar in each sport. For example, at Princeton University in 2012 – 2013, men’s and women’s basketball games totaled 28 and 29, respectively. Men’s tennis and women’s tennis had 47 and 46 days of competition, men’s soccer and women’s soccer had 16 and 19 matches, men’s hockey and women’s hockey each had 31 games, men’s golf and women’s golf each had eight matches, and men’s and women’s cross country each had six fall meets. Basketball, golf, tennis, and hockey are two semester sports and cross country, lacrosse, and soccer are one semester sports with organized practice in the off semester. Career length is a choice variable for the athletes in these sports, except in the case of career ending injury. Almost all varsity athletes in the Ivy League have been recruited in the sense that they have been asked to apply for admission by the coach of their sport. There are very few athletes that have not had previous contact with the coach and make a team as a walk-on. If a recruited student athlete comes to the school, the athlete will not be cut from the team as long as the athlete is giving full effort and exhibits responsible behavior.? Athletes are not guaranteed playing time, or guaranteed a spot on travel teams, but it is rare for a recruited athlete to be cut. There is also no redshirting in the Ivy League that allows an athlete to postpone a year of varsity eligibility and the graduation year to develop athletic skills or recover from injury. About one half of Ivy League varsity athletes in the sports we examine complete the full four years of eligibility. Injuries can be a factor in the decision to discontinue athletic participation. ACL injuries are probably the most common injuries that end college athletic careers because of the long rehabilitation time. ACL refers to the anterior cruciate ligament which can be sprained or torn. It occurs most often in sports with substantial running and cutting (American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons 2014), which in the case of the sports we examine would include soccer, lacrosse, basketball, and possibly hockey. It takes about one year to rebuild knee strength to a level sufficient for competition after an ACL injury and about two years of rehabilitation to gain full strength. ACL rates per 1000 exposures from a game or a practice were collected by the NCAA for the 1988-2004 period (Hootman et al. 2007). These rates were men’s basketball .07, women’s basketball .23; men’s lacrosse .12, women’s lacrosse .17; men’s ice hockey .06, women’s ice hockey .03; men’s soccer .09, women’s soccer .28. If we take the .2 exposure rate for women’s basketball and assume 150 practices and games over two semesters, the expected number of ACL injuries on a 16 person basketball team would be .5. Note that ACL injury rates are more common in women than men. We return to this issue below. Overall injury rates per 1000 game competition exposures were men’s basketball 9.9, women’s basketball 7.7; men’s lacrosse 12.6, women’s lacrosse 7.2; men’s ice hockey 16.3, women’s ice hockey 12.6, men’s soccer 18.8, women’s soccer 16.4. For practices, however, the more common exposure, overall injury rates per 1000 exposures were closer: men’s basketball 4.3, women’s basketball 4.0; men’s lacrosse 3.2, women’s lacrosse 3.3; men’s ice hockey 2.0, women’s ice hockey 2.5; men’s soccer 4.3, women’s soccer 5.2. An injury was defined as an event requiring medical attention and where at least one day of practice or competition was missed. The most common injury was ankle sprain. The mean years of competition, or career length, for Ivy League varsity athletes in cross country, golf, basketball, tennis, lacrosse, soccer, and hockey are presented by gender in table 1. The roster data were compiled from university websites and in most cases cover rosters for the fall 1999 through the spring of 2013. Mean career lengths, corrected for right censoring, are close for Ivy League male and female athletes by sport, with the exception of hockey. Career lengths range from about 2.5 years for cross-country runners up to 3.2 years for male hockey players. In figures 1-7, Kaplan-Meier survival estimates are presented for men and women athletes by sport. The survival functions are also similar for each gender in each sport, with the exception of hockey, where males have a statistically significant higher survival rates. In table 2 results from career length Cox proportional hazards models for the woman’s dummy variable in specifications that also include university and year dummies give similar results. That, is the woman’s dummy coefficients are statistically insignificant except in the case of hockey, and now lacrosse, in the multivariate framework. The hockey coefficient of 1.24 and the lacrosse coefficient of 1.16 translate to career differences of about .24 and .14 years in favor of the men. Hockey and lacrosse are the two most physical sports in terms of contact or checking of those examined. Hockey is also the one sport among those we studied where high school boy participants far outnumber their girl counterparts (35,000 to 9,000) and where girl participation is very small relative to their participation in other sports. The small pool of women players may make it difficult to assemble a group of athletes as dedicated as those in other sports that can meet Ivy League admission standards. Finally, recall the differences in ACL injury rates between men and women in basketball, soccer, and lacrosse. Women in these sports are more likely to suffer this severe injury, which can be career ending, than are men. Thus, the interpretation of career length as a choice variable and as an indicator of interest and commitment in these three sports underestimates the dedication of women relative to men. Summary and conclusionIn this paper we have presented evidence on the length of athletic careers in a number of varsity sports for male and female athletes in the Ivy League. We have found virtually no difference in the mean lengths of athletic careers by sport for male and female Ivy League athletes in basketball, soccer, golf, lacrosse, tennis, and cross country, 1999-2013. We conclude that interest in competing in these sports among males and female athletes in the Ivy League is also similar and that this evidence supports the provision of equal athletic opportunities for men and women in these sports in the Ivy League. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download