Coyte G.

Cooper, Landon Huffman, Erianne Weight

Theories & Applications the International Edition
Printed Version: (ISSN 2090-5262)
Online Version: (ISSN 2090-5270)
March 2011, Volume 1, No. 1 Pages (92 - 106)

Choice Factors and Best Fit Principles

Encouraging Best Fit Principles: Investigating College Choice Factors of
Student-Athletes in NCAA Division I, II, and III Mens Wrestling
Coyte G. Cooper, Landon Huffman, Erianne Weight

Title: Encouraging Best Fit principles: Investigating college choice factors of student-athletes in NCAA
Division I, II, and III mens wrestling.
Purpose: To examine the college-choice factors of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) studentathletes in mens wrestling (N = 779) to encourage best fit principles in the recruiting process.
Method/Sample: An online survey was utilized to investigate the college-choice factors of NCAA Division I,
II, and III student-athletes in mens wrestling across the United States.
Scope of Study: The scope of the study is limited to the recruiting process that takes place in college athletics
in the United States.
Discussion: Collegiate athletic departments across the United States are often susceptible to an identity
crisis as athletic department staff considers their departments role in an institution of higher education. In
the wake of dualistic ideologies, athletic departments must define success so they can form a strategic
approach that allows them to bring in student-athletes that enhance their vision and subsequent brand.
Results and Conclusions: The data illustrated that academic-based factors (e.g., total academic value of
college/universitys degree, degree programs and academic courses offered) were major considerations for
prospective collegiate wrestlers when choosing their respective institution.

Introduction

y virtue of the visibility in mass media

coverage at all levels, college sport has
become a staple of entertainment consumption
in American culture (Gerdy, 2002; James, 2010;
Lapchick, 2006), and as a result athletic
departments have been described as the front
porch of the university when it comes to the
publics perception of the institutions brand
(Drape & Thomas, 2010; Suggs, 2003). While a
combination of elements comprise a products
image with stakeholders, the brand of the
university and its athletic department is largely
influenced by its personnel, which includes its
administration, coaches, and most importantly,
student-athletes. With this in mind, there is a
Coyte G. Cooper Professor in Sport Administration (Research
Interests: Issues in college athletics, challenges facing
nonrevenue sport programs), Landon Huffman is Masters
student in the Sport Administration Program (Research
Interests: Enhancing student-athlete fit in NCAA athletic
departments), Erianne Weight is Assistant Professor in Sport
Management (Research Interests: Entrepreneurship initiatives
in college athletics).

growing concern for fit to be emphasized

between the student-athletes, university, athletic
department, and sport program. Therefore, it
seems logical that administrators and coaches
are educated on student-athletes college-choice
factors so that they are able to implement best
fit principles in the recruiting process. After
all, it is the implementation of these principles
that allows the athletic department personnel to
attract student-athletes that will allow them to
enhance their brand (Canale, Dunlap, Britt, &
Donahue, 1996; Davis, 1975; Mixon, Trevino,
& Minto, 2004).
National Collegiate Athletic Association
There is one dominant organization that governs
intercollegiate athletics in the United States
the National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA). In essence, the NCAA is a voluntary,
non-profit organization, consisting of over 1,200
colleges and universities that creates and
enforces rules, regulations, policies, and

Coyte G. Cooper, Landon Huffman, Erianne Weight

procedures regarding the athletic programs of

colleges and universities within their
jurisdiction. It is federated with three divisions:
Division I, Division II, and Division III (NCAA
Membership, 2010). Each division has distinct
characteristics, such as differing competitive
philosophies, financial aid conditions, spectator
attendance requirements, and sport sponsorship
criteria to meet membership eligibility
qualifications (Division I Membership, 2010).
NCAA Division I is the most visible and
commercially affiliated collegiate division,
comprised of schools which meet the most
stringent sport offering and attendance
requirements.
These universities generally
possess the highest athletic department budgets
(ranging from $8 million to over $120 million)
to help sponsor student-athletes competing in no
less than 16 varsity sports (Division I
Membership, 2010).
NCAA Division III
schools are generally much less publicized, and
are only required to sponsor five varsity sports
(Division III Membership, 2010). However,
according to the NCAA Division III philosophy
statement, their mission is to place highest
priority on the overall quality of the educational
experience and on the successful completion of
all students academic programs (Division III
philosophy, 2010).
Arguably the most tangible difference between
the three NCAA divisions involves financial aid
offered to student-athletes. Although individual
sports have differing rules regarding financial
aid allowances, student-athletes competing in
Division I can have their entire cost of
attendance paid for by receiving an athletic
scholarship. On the other end of the spectrum,
members of Division III do not offer athletic
scholarships for their student-athletes. NCAA
Division II members primarily offer financial
aid in the form of partial athletic scholarships,
which often do not cover the full cost of
attendance. Due to the differences involving
colleges and universities in the NCAAs three
distinct
divisions,
collegiate
athletic
administrators have the opportunity to develop a
unique brand within their respective division
and conference to attract prospective studentathletes who are an ideal fit for their institution.

Although the NCAA writes in its mission

statement that a basic purpose is to maintain
intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the
educational program and the athlete as an
integral part of the student body, external
commercial forces (e.g., multibillion dollar
television contracts, stadium and arena
expansion, and expensive coaching contracts)
often put pressure on collegiate administrators
and coaches to win (Letawsky, Schneider,
Pedersen, & Palmer, 2003; NCAA Division I
Manual, 2009, p. 1). Furthermore, studies have
revealed that a successful team can boost
university and athletic department revenue as
well as provide other direct and indirect
advantages to the university, such as an increase
in the quantity of admission applications, which
typically results in an increase in the caliber of
students admitted (Mathes & Gurney, 1985;
Mixon et al., 2004; Toma & Cross, 1998).
Universities across all three NCAA divisions
consciously or unconsciously make decisions
regarding the mission and brand of their athletic
department. The actions taken place emphasis
somewhere along the academic-athletic-revenue
generation continuum. In order for sports teams
to excel athletically and academically, it is
critical for athletic administrators and coaches
to embrace the concept of brand equity in order
to recruit talented student-athletes who are an
ideal fit for their institution. Consequently, the
theoretical framework of brand equity and best
fit principles will be utilized to guide the
research.
Brand Equity & Best Fit Principles
Colleges and universities have the opportunity
to represent a unique, distinct brand in the
educational marketplace. The brand image of
the institution can be the result of an intentional
endeavor or unintentional consequences.
Nonetheless, the brand of a university and sport
program are constrained by how the product is
perceived by consumers, which typically
involve
prospective
students,
alumni,
legislators, and the general public (Kotler &
Armstrong, 2010; Lawlor, 1998). Marketing
scholars extend beyond the foundational image
of a brand to suggest that there is also value in
the brand of a product, known as brand equity.

Coyte G. Cooper, Landon Huffman, Erianne Weight

There are a variety of factors that contribute to

building the value of brand equity, including
perceived quality, awareness, associations, and
loyalty associated with the brand (Aaker, 1991;
Gladden, Milne, & Sutton, 1998). As a result, it
is important for coaches to be aware of their
programs brand image since some of the
consumers (i.e., recruits) will be selected to be
an integral part of their programs future
product and contribute to the coachs and
sports brand equity.
A multitude of studies suggest that prospective
students choose an institution in a similar
fashion as they would shop for and purchase
any other product (Johnson, Jubenville, & Goss,
2009). Since prospective student-athletes are
consumers of college sport prior to being
recruited, coaches, sport programs, and
universities can attract recruits by setting
themselves apart from the clutter of the
educational
marketplace.
Collegiate
administration that recognizes and followsthrough with the value of the concept of brand
equity is likely to attract prospective students
who would be a great fit in their respective sport
program and institution (Johnson et al.,2009;
Lawlor, 1998).
A fundamental element of a sport programs
brand is its personnel (i.e., administration,
coaches, and student-athletes). Therefore, to
build the equity of a sport programs brand,
collegiate athletic administrators and coaches
must realize that the department personnel and
the
student-athletes
they
recruit
are
ambassadors of their athletic departments
brand and can have a powerful impact on
consumers perceptions of both the brand and
the organization (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001,
p. 441). Similarly, additional authors purport
that the aforementioned personnel are
endorsers of their products brand, such that
their behavior can either reinforce a brands
advertised values or, if inconsistent with these
values, undermine the credibility of advertised
messages (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001;
McCracken, 1989). In essence, if coaches are
cognizant of the desired brand of their team,
coaches can recruit student-athletes that
continue to enhance the intentional brand and
add value to their sport program. Therefore,

examining the college-choice factors that

student-athletes considered during the recruiting
process will enhance the effectiveness of
building a sport programs brand equity by
hiring and recruiting the appropriate personnel.
Thus, the purpose of the this research is to
explore
the
phenomenon
through
an
examination of the college-choice factors of
mens wrestlers in NCAA Divisions I, II, and III
to determine strategies that encourage brand
equity and best fit principles in the recruiting
process (Kotler, 2004; Lawlor, 1998; Dumond,
Lynch, & Platania, 2008).
College Choice-Factor Literature
When focusing on the college selection process,
scholars have emphasized the choice factors of
non-athlete students a great deal in past
research initiatives (Braddock, Lv, & Dawkins,
2008; Hoyt & Brown, 2003; Hu & Hossler,
2000; Maringe, 2006; Sevier, 1993). While
there are a variety of issues influencing these
students
decisions
about
which
college/university to attend, research has found
the following choice factors be most prevalent
in the decision-making process: academic
reputation (Spies, 1978), cost (Sevier, 1993; Hu
& Hossler, 2000), influence of key stakeholders
[parents/guardians, friends, and guidance
counselors]
(Galotti
& Mark,
1994),
availability of majors/programs of study, quality
of teachers, family tradition, and availability of
sororities/fraternities (Canale et al., 1996; Hoyt
& Brown, 2003).
Building on the previous literature, scholars
have also emphasized the importance of
identifying the unique choice-factors of studentathletes when engaging in the recruiting process
(Konnert & Giese, 1987; Mathes & Gurney,
1985). In addition to the importance of college
coach (Adler & Adler, 1991), research has also
illustrated that academic factors are an
extremely important consideration for studentathletes during the decision-making process
(Hodges & Barbuto, 2002; Letawsky et al.,
2003; Mathes & Gurney, 1985). In particular,
Letawsky et al. (2003) explained that the most
important factor for student-athletes was the
degree program offered by the University (p.
608). Further, the author confirmed that the

Coyte G. Cooper, Landon Huffman, Erianne Weight

following choice-factors also had an influence

on the college selection process: academic
support services, location and community of
campus, sports traditions, athletic facilities, and
the official on-campus visit.
In addition to the previous choice-factors,
studies have also demonstrated that some
student-athletes
are
attracted
by
the
commercialized aspects of college sport
(Hodges & Barbuto; 2002; Konnert & Giese,
1987; Letawsky et al., 2003). In an early study
on these college choice factors, Konnert &
Giese (1987) studied small college athletic
conferences and concluded that student-athletes
placed a high value on the ability to play early
in their career. Similarly, when focusing on
Division I student-athletes, Letawsky et al.
(2003)
concluded
that
the
following
commercialized choice factors were notable
motivating factors to consider when conducting
college-choice research: television exposure, the
opportunity to play earlier, facilitated route to
the professional ranks, and/or playing in front of
large crowds (or lack thereof).
Nonrevenue Choice Factors
In recent research, scholars have emphasized the
importance of examining the college-choice
factors of student-athletes competing in
individual nonrevenue, Olympic sports (Pauline,
Pauline, & Allen, 2008; Pauline, Pauline, &
Stevens, 2004). For example, in an analysis of
womens softball, Pauline et al. (2008) surveyed
players at 21 universities and determined that
there were six primary factors that were highly
influential in the decision-making process:
university offers specific major of interest,
academic reputation of university, coachs
personality/style,
academic
facilities,
opportunity to play early in career, and
graduation rate of student-athletes. Thus, the
results confirmed that there were a variety of
different factors to consider when recruiting
nonrevenue sport student-athletes.
The previous research has provided a strong
foundation for understanding the reasons why
student-athletes
choose
their
academic
institutions (Adler & Adler, 1991; Letawsky et
al., 2003; Pauline et al., 2008). However, to

enhance best fit principles and recruiting

efficiency, the limitations of the literature
should be discussed. First, with these objectives
in mind, previous research has not focused a
great deal on the college-choice factors that
exist within individual sport programs. Second,
within this context, there are limited resources
available on the decision-making process of
these student-athletes on a broader national
scale (with an emphasis on NCAA divisional
preferences). Thus, the purpose of the research
is to investigate the college-choice factors of
student-athletes in mens wrestling (NCAA
Division I, II, and III) to support best fit
principles in the recruiting process.
Significance of Research
In todays intercollegiate athletic environment,
it is vital that administrators and coaches have
an understanding of choice factors so they can
attract and retain student-athletes and staff that
will enhance the brand of the program, athletic
department, and academic institution. With a
comprehension of these influential factors, ideal
recruitment and retention strategies can be
utilized to enhance the programs brand equity.
In particular, this understanding can provide a
foundation for college administrators to educate,
encourage, and empower their coaches to follow
through on the factors that are deemed most
important in the recruiting process. Ultimately,
the values emphasized in the recruiting process
will allow coaches to recruit and develop
student-athletes that will intentionally build the
brand of the program/athletic department and
academic institution. Based on a review of
related literature, the following research
questions were created to investigate this best
fit recruiting process:
[RQ 1] What are the most influential cumulative
college-choice factors in the selection process
among current NCAA Division I, II, and III
wrestling student-athletes?
[RQ 2] Are there variations in the college
choice factors when focusing on the divisional
affiliation of the NCAA Division I wrestling
student-athletes?
Method

Coyte G. Cooper, Landon Huffman, Erianne Weight

The inquiry was pursued through an online

instrument catered to examine specifically the
college-choice factors of NCAA Division I, II,
and III mens wrestling student-athletes. The
Student-Athlete
College-Choice
Profile
(SACCP) was used as a template to create the
instrument for the research (Gabert, Hale, &
Montalvo, 1999). However, because the study
focused on mens wrestling, the questions were
adjusted to reflect the unique nature of the sport.
In addition to the inclusion of basic background
information (e.g., divisional affiliation), the
instrument also included 50 individual collegechoice factors to measure the degree of
influence (Likert-type scale ranging from 1 [Not
Influential] to 4 [Extremely Influential]) that
each of the college-choice factors had on the
student-athletes decision to attend a particular
institution. A semantic differential Likert-type
scale was chosen because it represents an
ordinal scale, at minimum, and an approximate
interval scale.
Because adjustments were made to the
foundation of the SACCP scale, the researchers
assembled a panel of experts (one professor
well-versed in survey development and
distribution, one practicing collegiate athletic
administrator, and one research statistician) to
examine the research instrument.
Further,
following the approval of a final rough draft, a
convenience pilot test was conducted with
former student-athletes (N = 20) to eliminate
potential problem areas in the instrument. After
two rounds of pilot testing with minor
modifications, the panel of experts approved the
final survey instrument. Thus, this step-by-step
process ensured credibility, reliability, and
validity in the online survey being distributed to
the student-athletes featured in the sample.
Sample
A personalized email invitation was sent to each
of the 225 NCAA (Division I, II, and III) mens
wrestling program head coaches to invite them

Table 1

to participate in the research. Within each

invitation, the head coach was asked for
permission for their student-athletes to complete
the survey. If they accepted, the coach was
encouraged to forward the survey link on to
each of the student-athletes participating on
their team. Further, a follow-up email was sent
one month later to promote maximum
participation from each of the programs. After a
two month lapse from the initial invitations, the
survey was closed and the student-athlete (N =
779) responses were organized for data analysis.
Divisional representation was comprised
primarily of Division I (N =444) and Division
III (N = 277) wrestlers, with a limited Division
II response (N = 58).
Results
Descriptive statistics revealed the collegechoice factors that were deemed most and least
influential to the Division I, II, and III study
participants. In particular, the data illustrated
that there were nine individual factors that
student-athletes in mens wrestling rated as
statistically significant in the research ( 3):
(1) total academic value of college/universitys
degree [t(767) = 14.678, p < .001], (2) degree
programs and academic courses offered [t(765)
= 16.015, p < .001], (3) academic reputation of
college/university [t(767) = 14.678, p < .001],
(4) personality of coaching staff [t(757) = 8.746,
p < .001], (5) opportunity to compete in NCAA
Championship event [t(754) = 6.105, p < .001],
(6) professional career upon graduation (nonsport related) [t(757) = 6.017, p < .001], (7)
philosophy/style of coaching staff [t(755) =
4.047, p < .001], (8) relationship with head
coach [t(750) = 2.793, p < .001], and (9)
relationship with future college teammate(s)
[t(756) = 2.664, p < .001]. Further, despite not
being statistically significant, there were several
second tier factors that were rated favorably by
the student-athletes participating in the research

Coyte G. Cooper, Landon Huffman, Erianne Weight

Cumulative College Choice Factors for NCAA Student-Athletes in Mens Wrestling (Division I, II, &
III)
Choice Factor
M
SD
1. Total academic value of college/universitys degree
3.47*
.738
2. Degree programs and academic courses offered
3.44*
.762
3. Academic reputation of college/university
3.42*
.786
4. Personality of coaching staff
3.28*
.872
5. Opportunity to compete in NCAA Championship event
3.22*
.971
6. Professional career upon graduation (non-sport related)
3.21*
.964
7. Philosophy/style of coaching staff
3.14*
.943
8. Relationship with college head coach
3.09*
.915
9. Relationship with future college teammate(s)
3.09*
.955
10. Opportunity to win conference championship
3.02
1.034
11. Reputation of college head coach
3.02
.931
12. Quality of academic facilities
3.02
.845
13. Quality of recruiting visits made to campus
3.02
.965
14. Overall campus environment and atmosphere
3.01
.874
15. Sense of community at college/university
2.99
.916
16. Quality of athletic facilities
2.96
.886
17. Total cost of attending college/university
2.92
1.005
18. Amount of financial aid offered
2.91
1.076
19. Academic support services at college/university
2.91
.941
20. Location of college/university
2.88
.977
21. Reputation of program at college/university
2.88
.974
22. Quality of competition and/or strength of schedule
2.84
.981
23. Influence from parents/guardians
2.83
.976
24. Relationship with college assistant coach
2.83
1.026
25. National and/or regional reputation of program
2.77
.989
Note. The scale ranged from Not Influential (1) to Extremely Influential (4).
* p < .01 ( 3)

In addition to the most influential factors, the

analyses also demonstrated the college-choice
factors that were identified as least influential to
student-athletes. As shown in Table 2, the
bottom 14 choice factors were rated only
slightly above the low ( > 2) level of
influence. Further, when focusing on the
remaining data, the results indicated that there
were two choice factors that received ratings

Table 2

below this low level of influence ( < 2): (1)

desire to attend a college/university away from
home town, and (2) weather and/or climate at
the college/university. Thus, these were rated as
the least influential college choice factors by the
student-athletes participating in the research.
The variations based on the divisional affiliation
of student-athletes will be discussed in the
following sections.

Coyte G. Cooper, Landon Huffman, Erianne Weight

Cumulative College Choice Factors for NCAA Student-Athletes in Mens Wrestling (Division I, II, &
III)
Choice Factor
M
SD
26. Athletic success of program in last five years
2.73
.978
27. Reputation of athletic department
2.64
.998
28. Opportunity to compete immediately
2.62
1.072
29. Influence from your high school coach
2.55
1.052
30. College nightlife and social activities
2.55
1.024
31. Influence of your family members (other than parents)
2.47
1.065
32. Number of students enrolled at college/university
2.46
.971
33. Quality of campus activities offered
2.46
1.019
34. Opportunity to travel (due to location/schedule)
2.43
1.017
35. Opportunity to compete in front of large crowds
2.36
1.043
36. Influence from your friends
2.33
1.020
37. Influence from college professors
2.23
1.036
38. Desire to attend college/university close to hometown
2.22
1.168
39. College housing options offered
2.21
1.024
40. Apparel/equipment provided to team
2.20
1.031
41. Influence from affiliated coach
2.14
1.068
42. Influence from high school teachers/counselors
2.11
1.029
43. Quality of hometown recruiting visits by staff
2.11
1.104
44. Desire to be teams superstar
2.11
1.097
45. Diversity of college/universitys student body/faculty
2.09
1.046
46. Influence from high school teammates
2.08
1.025
47. Media exposure provided to team and/or conference
2.07
.971
48. Recruiting materials from the athletic department
2.06
.929
49. Desire to attend college/university away from home town
1.98
1.059
50. Weather and/or climate at the college/university
1.87
.919
Note. The scale ranged from Not Influential (1) to Extremely Influential (4).
* p < .01 ( 3)

Divisional Affiliation & Athletic-Based Factors

Additional analyses illustrated that divisional
affiliation had a statistically significant
influence on 12 individual athletic-based
choice-factors (see Table 3).
The largest
variations
in
divisional
athletic-based
preferences occurred within the following
factors: (1) compete in NCAA Championship
event [F (2, 754) = 35.629, p < .01], (2)
opportunity to win conference championship [F
(2, 754) = 21.226, p < .01], (3) opportunity to
compete in front of large crowds [F (2, 750) =
15.626, p < .01], and (4) opportunity to compete

Table 3

immediately [F (2,750) = 14.777, p < .01].

Further, when focusing on the individual
responses, the data supported the notion that
Division I student-athletes rated these athleticbased factors the highest in 11 of the 12 factors
listed in Table 3. The opportunity to compete
immediately was rated the highest by Division
III student-athletes in the sample.

Coyte G. Cooper, Landon Huffman, Erianne Weight

Variations in NCAA Division I, II, and III Student-Athletes Athletic College Choice Factors (Analysis
of Variance)
Factor (N = 779)

Mean
Difference

Compete in NCAA Championship event

Division I v. Division III

35.629*

.000
.000

.607*

Opportunity to win conference championship

Division I v. Division II
Division I v. Division III

21.226*

.000
.000
.000

.807*
.355*

Quality of athletic facilities

Division I v. Division II

8.880*

.000
.000

.505*

Reputation of program at college/university

Division I v. Division III

6.878*

.001
.001

.275*

Quality of competition/strength of schedule

Division I v. Division III

5.185*

.006
.004

.243*

.000
.000

.399*

.000
.000

.345*

.000
.000

.447*

.000
.000

.440*

.001
.002

.271*

.006
.005

.323*

.000
.000

.326*

Relationship with college assistant coach

Division I v. Division III

12.715*

National and/or regional reputation of program

Division I v. Division III

10.364*

Opportunity to compete immediately

Division III v. Division I

14.777*

Opportunity to compete in front of large crowds

Division I v. Division III

15.626*

Apparel/equipment provided to team

Division I v. Division III

7.501*

Quality of hometown recruiting visits by staff

Division I v. Division III

5.233*

Media exposure provided to team/conference

Division I v. Division III

9.412*

*p <.01

Divisional Affiliation & Non Athletic-Based Factors

In addition to the athletic-based factors, the
results also demonstrated the variations in
Division I, II, and III student-athletes when
focusing on academic and social college-choice
factors. As illustrated in Table 4, divisional
affiliation had a significant influence on the
following two academic-based factors: total
academic value of college/universitys degree [F
(2, 765) = 4.614, p < .01] and academic
reputation of college/university [F (2, 767) =
5.595, p < .01]. These academic factors were
rated highest by Division I student-athletes.
Similarly, when analyzing the social-based

factors, the data showed that these same

student-athletes rated two social-based factors
higher than the other Division II and III studentathletes: (1) overall campus environment and
atmosphere,
and
(2)
location
of
college/university. In contrast, the results also
confirmed that Division III student-athletes
rated three social-based factors (quality of
campus activities offered, influence from
college professors, and influence from high
school teachers/counselors) the highest.

Table 4
Variations in NCAA Division I, II, and III Student-Athletes Non-Athletic College Choice Factors
(Analysis of Variance)

Coyte G. Cooper, Landon Huffman, Erianne Weight

Mean
Factor (N = 779)

Difference

Total academic value of college/universitys degree

Division I v. Division III

4.614*

.010
.008

.314*

Academic reputation of college/university

Division I v. Division II
Division II v. Division III

5.595*

.004
.003
.009

.367*
.335*

.001
.001

.439*

.002
.002

.261*

.002
.004

.248*

.000
.000

.400*

.001
.000

.287*

Academic-Based Factors

Social-Based Factors
Overall campus environment and atmosphere
Division I v. Division II

6.659*

Location of college/university
Division I v. Division III

6.071*

Quality of campus activities offered

Division III v. Division I

6.397*

Influence from college professors

Division III v. Division I

12.493*

Influence from high school teachers/counselors

Division III v. Division I

7.200*

*p <.01

Discussion
Results of the study reveal insight into the most
influential college-choice factors utilized by
NCAA wrestlers. These findings support and
expand the body of college-choice literature and
provide insight into brand-equity and best fit
practices specifically for NCAA non-revenue
programs, with a specific emphasis on
wrestling.
Cumulative College Choice Factors
Cumulative figures provide support for previous
college-choice factor studies that found an
emphasis on academic value for non-athletes
(Spies, 1978; Canale et al., 1996; Hoyt &
Brown, 2003) and athletes (Mathes & Gurney,
1985; Hodges & Barbuto, 2002; Letawsky et al.,
2003; Pauline, Pauline, & Allen, 2008). Of the
top nine choice factors of significant influence,
four emphasized the importance of academic
value. Three of the four emphasizing academic
value held the highest means within the list of
fifty choice factors. These top three factors also
held the smallest standard deviations,
demonstrating a high degree of agreement
within the sample.

This emphasis on academic value is supportive

of the stated educational purpose of
intercollegiate athletics to provide or facilitate
an educational experience (NCAA Membership,
2010). The importance of this value to athletes
may be discounted somewhat in typical
recruiting practices that may emphasize social
or commercial factors that have been cited as
important college-choice elements, particularly
by Division I athletes (Hodges & Barbuto;
2002; Letawsky et al., 2003). On the surface,
these elements appear to be attractive,
glamorous, or flashy, and as such may attract
some athletes, but the Olympic sport studentathletes in this sample overwhelmingly voiced
the importance for academic factors.
This is encouraging news to administrators who
have often felt a disconnect between stated and
actual values (Coalition on Intercollegiate
Athletics, 2007; Knight Commission on
Intercollegiate Athletics, 2010; Cooper &
Weight, 2011). In the development of an
athletic department brand, attracting individuals
who place supreme value on the educational
experience is certainly conducive to the
organizational sphere in which the athletic
department resides. This knowledge can help

Coyte G. Cooper, Landon Huffman, Erianne Weight

focus recruiting techniques in order to maximize

fit between the recruiter and recruit. Further, it
can help bridge the divide that can exist
between academic units and athletics (Brand,
2006). If coaches realize that their recruits are
very interested in degree programs and
academic courses, it will provide an incentive
for athletic department personnel to get to know
the faculty and build connections that can be
useful for campus visit weekends, recruiting
trips, etc. These connections can facilitate
healthy relationships across campus which may
provide fortification for the academic mission of
intercollegiate athletic opportunities.
Second only to academic related choice factors,
the respondents emphasized the significant
importance of the coaching staff, and
specifically the head coach. Within the nine
choice factors of significant importance, three
were related to the coaching staff personality,
philosophy, and relationship that the athletes felt
and observed with the recruiting coaches. With
the current emphasis on the arms race of
expenditures in many athletic programs that
spend billions of dollars in an effort to get a
competitive edge, it is interesting to note that
what these athletes emphasize is not what the
department can showcase, but who the
department can showcase. This supports the
literature emphasizing the importance of
coaches who enhance brand equity (Robinson &
Miller, 2003) and serve as entrepreneurs for
their programs (Weight, 2009; Weight &
Cooper, 2009). Further, from an administrative
standpoint, this highlights the significance of
attracting staff who support the overall vision
and mission of the athletic department. The
connections that these coaches can make are of
utmost importance in attracting the best fit
athletes to the program (Johnson et al., 2009;
Lawlor, 1998).
The remaining two significant choice factors
include an athletic and a social-based factor.
While listed at number nine of the fifty choice
factors, of significant influence to the
respondents was relationship with future
college teammate(s). This was the only
category to mention teammates, and provides
insight in to the need for a recruit to form a
connection with one or more of the teammates,

or at least to view potential for relationships to

be built. This, again, would relate to fit
principles. Similarly, the athletic-based factor
that had the fifth highest mean of significant
influence was the opportunity to compete in
NCAA Championship events.
Thus, in
building and reinforcing the program brand to
recruits, an emphasis on the prestigious
opportunity to compete is an important element
to include in recruiting material and
communication.
Of equal interest to the top categories that were
ranked as significantly influential in the college
choice of these athletes, are the categories that
were not significant. Notably, of the seven
categories that mentioned influence from
someone, each category held means that ranked
between slight to moderate influence. This
contradicts the findings of Galotti & Mark
(1994) that mentioned the importance influence
of key stakeholders for non-athlete students.
These relationships that are perhaps more
influential in college-choice for non-student
athletes in their decision-making process appear
to be trumped by athletic related factors, as well
as the role of the collegiate coach. This is
useful for recruiting coaches to understand the
localized importance to recruit the individual
athlete rather than spending time recruiting
members of the athletes support system.
Some of the other categories ranked at the
bottom of the influential factors could be very
unique to this sample. Media exposure, for
instance, is very limited in the sport of
wrestling. This factor may be more significant
for athletes being recruited at the Division I
level in a sport with greater media presence.
Similarly, with the smallest mean of all fifty
categories was weather and/or climate at the
college/university. The majority of top-ranked
wrestling programs have traditionally resided in
the Midwest and Northeast, and because of that,
there may not have been many recruitment
options in varying climates for those within this
sample.
Divisional Affiliation & Non AthleticBased Factors

Coyte G. Cooper, Landon Huffman, Erianne Weight

The majority of significant differences between

divisional affiliations within the sample
occurred between Division I and Division III
within athletic-based college choice factors.
This is not surprising given the fundamental
differences
in
organizational
structure,
visibility, and competitiveness between the
divisions (Division I Membership, 2010;
Division III Membership, 2010). As such,
variance exists in what is important to students
seeking to compete at either of these levels.
Each of the athletic-related factors that held
significant differences were given higher ratings
of influence by Division I athletes except for the
opportunity to
complete
immediately
category, where Division III respondents were
on average .447 points above Division I
respondents in the importance of this factor,
which supports Konnert & Giese (1987) who
had similar findings in their study of small
college athletic conferences.
These differences, as noted, are expected and
are most likely already an element of the
departmental brand evidenced by the divisional
choice and resulting philosophy associated with
the division. Division I coaches, administrators,
and marketers thus would likely place a larger
emphasis on the athletic-based factors of which
many are by-products of the divisional status
(i.e. media exposure, apparel/equipment, large
crowds, national reputation, existence of
assistant coach(es), quality of athletic facilities,
and the ability to complete in NCAA
championship events). These elements support
Hodges & Barbuto (2002) who found that some
student-athletes
are
attracted
by
the
commercialized aspects of college sport. The
academic and social based factors differences,
however, are a bit less intuitive.
The
total
academic
value
of
the
college/university degree was significantly
different between Division I and Division III,
with the division I athletes responding .314
points above their Division III counterparts.
Interestingly, this is contrary to much of the
intercollegiate athletic reform literature that has
emphasized the superior academic value that
Division III institutions can provide studentathletes because the DIII institutions have not
been tainted by the lure of commercialism

(Sack, 2009). Regardless of the reasoning

behind this seeming anomaly, this college
choice factor is of significant influence to all
potential recruits regardless of division.
Differences in social based factors provide
unique insights into why the student-athletes
choose to attend and compete at their specific
divisional affiliation, although none of these
factors were of significant influence to their
overall choice, each with means less than 3.0
(moderately influential). Division III athletes
were significantly more influenced by high
school teachers and college professors than
Division I athletes. This finding supports
Galotti & Mark, 1994.
The discrepancy
between divisions may be due to the fact that
many Division III coaches also teach and
therefore have stronger connections to the
faculty who may encourage athletes to choose to
attend the Division III institution. Although not
a significant determinant in college choice
overall for Division III athletes, it is interesting
to learn that this educational faction is more
influential over DIII students. Unique brand
strategies could emphasize the advantages of
having
professor-coaches
within
these
institutions if upon additional inquiry into
specific Division III student-athlete choices
deem this a more significant influence. Other
social-based factors similarly may provide
unique branding insights for administrators if
future research deems them more important at
the specific divisional level.
Conclusions
The brand of an institution and its athletic
department depends on the actions and
philosophies of its administrative staff, coaches,
and student-athletes. Consequently, it is
important that collegiate athletic administrators
are aware of student-athletes college-choice
factors so that collegiate coaches can effectively
recruit the athletes who will support and build
the equity of the departmental brand (Davis,
1975; Mixon et al., 2004). When the right
college choice factors are leveraged properly,
coaches are provided with an opportunity to
recruit student-athlete program ambassadors
that can enhance the brand of all related entities
(Harris & de Chernatony, 2001). This branding

Coyte G. Cooper, Landon Huffman, Erianne Weight

process must be intentional and should be

emphasized in all aspects of the recruitment and
retention processes in order to maximize the
value developed and sustained through
purposeful brand-building actions.
Through a program brand paradigm, coaches
can be more effective in the recruiting process if
purposeful in their emphasis of recruiting
methods, as it is mutually beneficial if both the
school and the student-athlete are a great fit for
one another (Canale et al., 1996). These
programs can therefore strive to cut through the
clutter of the educational marketplace as
prospective students who recognize the brand
equity of the department will then be attracted
specifically to the program that would likely be
an ideal fit (Johnson et al., 2009; Lawlor, 1998).
A primary limitation to this study is the sport
specific emphasisthe data is reflective only of
mens wrestling.
As such, the individual
college choice factor findings cannot be directly
applied to other nonrevenue or revenue
sports.
However, the foundation and
applications of the study can clearly be used to
guide research that focuses beyond the scope
investigated in the study. Future scholars
should emphasize the identification of college
choice factors in multiple nonrevenue, and
revenue sports and corresponding divisions.
In addition, a comparison of current recruiting
practices and points of emphasis used by
coaches in specific programs would be
interesting to compare with the college-choice
factors for the corresponding athletes in order to
investigate the practices and divergences in the
equity-leveraging process.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991). Managing brand equity:
Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New
York, NY: The Free Press.
Armstrong, K. (2009). Twitter changes the face

and
interaction

of
recruiting.
SportsIlustrated.com. Retrieved November 18,
2010
from:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/ke
vin_armstrong/09/29/twitter.irving/index.html.

Berry, L. (1983). Relationship marketing. In L.

T. Berry, G. L. Shostak, & G. D. Upah (Eds.),
Perspectives on services marketing (pp. 25-28).
Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Braddock, J. H., Lv, H., & Dawkins, M. P.
(2008). College athletic reputation and college
choice among African American high school
seniors: Evidence from the educational
longitudinal study. Challenge: A Journal of
Research on African American Men, 14(1), 1438.
Brand, M. (2006). The role and value of
intercollegiate athletics in universities. Journal
of Philosophy of Sport, 33(1), 9-20.
Canale, J. R., Dunlap, L., Britt, M., & Donahue,
T. (1996). The relative importance of various
college characteristics to students in influencing
their choice of a college. College Student
Journal, 30, 214-216.
Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (2007).
Framing the future: reforming intercollegiate
athletics.
Retrieved June 28, 2010 from:
http://wfu.me/cms/coia/index.php/Policy_Paper
s.
Cooper,
C.G.,Weight, E.A.
(In
Press).
Investigating NCAA administrator values in
NCAA Division I athletic departments.
Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics.

Division I Membership Information. (2010).

The Online Resource for the National Collegiate
Athletic Association. Retrieved January 17,
2010 from:
http://ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GL
OBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/About%20Th
e%20NCAA/Membership/Membership%20Req
uirements%20and%20Waivers/Division%20I/.
Division II Membership Requirements. (2010).
The Online Resource for the National Collegiate

Coyte G. Cooper, Landon Huffman, Erianne Weight

Athletic Association. Retrieved January 17,

2010, from:
http://ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GL
OBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/About%20Th
e%20NCAA/Membership/Membership%20Req
uirements%20and%20Waivers/Division%20II/.
Division III Membership Information. (2010).
The Online Resource for the National Collegiate
Athletic Association. Retrieved January 17,
2010 from:
http://ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GL
OBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/About%20Th
e%20NCAA/Membership/Membership%20Req
uirements%20and%20Waivers/Division%20III/.
Division III Philosophy. (2010). The Online
Resource for the National Collegiate Athletic
Association. Retrieved January 17, 2010 from:
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WC
M_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/Acade
mics+and+Athletes/SAAC/Division+III/Missio
n+and+Philosophy.html
Drape, J., Thomas, K. (2010). As colleges
compete, major money flows to minor sports.
Nytimes.com. Retrieved February 9,
2011
from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/spo
rts/03cup.html.
Dumond, J. M., Lynch, A. K., & Platania, J.
(2008). An economic model of the college
football
recruiting process. Journal of Sports Economics,
9(1), 67-87.
Gabert, T. E., Hale, J. L., & Montalvo, G. P., Jr.
(1999). Differences in college-choice factors
among first-year student-athletes. Journal of
College Admission, 164, 20-29.
Gerdy, J.R. (2002). Sports: the all-American
addiction. Jackson, MS: University Press of
Mississippi.

Gladden, J.M., Milne, G.R., & Sutton, W.A.

(1998). A conceptual framework for assessing
brand equity in division I college athletics.
Journal of Sport Management, 12, 1-19.
Harris, F., & de Chernatony, L. (2001).
Corporate branding and corporate brand
performance. European Journal of Marketing,
35(3/4), 441-456.
Hodges, T., & Barbuto, J. (2002). Recruiting
urban and rural students: Factors influencing the
postsecondary education institution choices for
rural versus urban high school students. College
and University, 77(3), 3-8.
Hoyt, J. E., & Brown, A. B. (2003). Identifying
college choice factors to successfully market
your institution. College and University, 78(4),
3-10.
Hu, S., & Hossler, D. (2000). Willingness to
pay and preference for private institutions.
Research in Higher Education, 41, 685-701.
James, F. (2010). NCAA Expands March
Madness: 68 Teams, More TV. NPR.org.
Retrieved
February
9,
2011
from:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwoway/2010/04/ncaa_expands_
march_madness_68.html.
Johnson, G. B., Jubenville, C. & Goss, B.
(2009). Using institutional selection factors to
develop recruiting profiles: Marketing small,
private colleges and universities to prospective
student athletes. Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education, 19(1), 1-25.
Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.
(2010). Restoring the balance: dollars, values,
and the future of college sport. Retrieved July 1,
2010
from:
http://restoringbalance.knightcommission.org.
Konnert, W., & Giese, R. (1987). College
choice factors of male athletes at private NCAA
division III institutions. College and University,
63, 33-44.

Coyte G. Cooper, Landon Huffman, Erianne Weight

Kotler, P. (2004). Ten deadly marketing sins:

Signs and solutions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons.
Kotler, P., & Armstong, G. (2010). Principles of
marketing (13th edition). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Pauline, J., Pauline, G. & Stevens, A. (2004).

Influential factors in the college selection
process of baseball student-athletes. Journal of
Contemporary Athletics, 1(2), 153-166.

Lapchick, R.E. (2006). New game plan for

college sport. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Publishing
Group.

Reynaud, B. C. (1998). Factors influencing

prospective female volleyball student-athletes
selection of an NCAA Division I university:
Toward a more informed recruitment process
[Electronic file]. ProQuest File: Dissertation
Abstracts International Item: 9824706.

Lawlor, J. (1998). Brand

Currents, 24(9), 16-23.

Case

Robinson, M. J., Miller, J. J. (2003). Assessing

the Impact of Bobby Knight

Letawsky, N. R., Schneider, R. G., Pedersen, P.

M., & Palmer, C. J. (2003). Factors influencing
the college selection process of student-athletes:
Are factors similar to non-athletes? College
Student Journal, 37(4), 604-610.

on the Brand Equity of Texas Tech Basketball

Program. Sport Marketing

identity.

Mathes, S., & Gurney, G. (1985). Factors in

student athletes choices of colleges. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 26(4), 327-333.
McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity
endorser? Cultural foundations of the
endorsement process. Journal of Consumer
Research, 16(3), 310-321.
Mixon, Jr., F. G., Trevino, L. J., & Minto, T. C.
(2004). Touchdowns and test scores: Exploring
the relationship between athletics and
academics. Applied Economics Letters, 11, 421424.
NCAA Membership. (2010). The Online
Resource for the National Collegiate Athletic
Association. Retrieved January 17, 2010 from:
http://ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GL
OBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/about+the+ncaa
/membership.
Pauline, J., Pauline, G., & Allen, C. (2008).
Factors influencing college selection by NCAA
Division I, II, and III softball student-athletes.
Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in
Education, 2(3), 363-377.

Quarterly. 12:1.
Sack. A.L. (2009). Clashing models of
commercial sport in higher education:
Implications for
reform and scholarly research. Journal of
Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 2, 76 92.
Spies, R. R. (1978). The effect of rising costs on
college choice: A study of the Application
decisions of high-ability students. New York:
College Entrance Examination Board.
Suggs, W. (2003). Sports as the universitys
front porch? The public is skeptical. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. 49:34, A17.
Toma, J. D., & Cross, M. E. (1998).
Intercollegiate athletics and student college
choice:
Exploring the impact of championship seasons
on undergraduate applications. Research in
Higher Education, 39(6), 633-661.
Weight, E. A. (2009).
The role of the
entrepreneurial coach: non-revenue sport
survival within
big-time intercollegiate athletics. International
Journal of Sport Management. 10, 1-15.

Coyte G. Cooper, Landon Huffman, Erianne Weight

Weight, E.A., & Cooper, C. G. (2009). In

pursuit of satisfaction and fortification:
stakeholder

perceptions of wrestling rules and regulations.

Sport Marketing Quarterly. 18:3, 150-159.