2003 D1 Players Survey

8/14/2019 2003 D1 Players Survey

1/72

TTABLE OFABLE OF CONTENTSCONTENTS

Page

i 2003 AFCA PLAYER SURVEY INTRODUCTION

ii PARTICIPANTS

1 PLAYER PROFILE2 Sample Characteristics

3 Ethnic Origin4 Place of Upbringing

5 Family Background

8 Parents Education

9 Parents Occupation

12 Major Field of Study

14 Reasons for Playing

15 Attending College Regardless of Football

16 Selecting a College

17 Person of Greatest Influence19 Two-Sport Athletes

20 ACADEMICS21 Importance of Graduating

22 Academic Interest

23 High School and College GPAs

25 Socioeconomic Background

29 GPA and Ethnic Origin

31 SAT and ACT Scores32 Number of Test Sittings

33 College Entrance Exams and Ethnic Origin

35 When They Became Aware of NCAA Academic Requirements

36 Who Told Them About NCAAAcademic Standards

37 Prepared for College


2/72

Contents Continued

39 ECONOMIC ISSUES40 Type of Financial Aid

41 Type of Aid by Ethnic Origin

43 Necessary Living Expenses

44 RECRUITING45 Knowledge of the Rules46 The Recruiting Process

47 Visiting an Institution

48 In-Person Contacts

49 Illegal Inducements

50 Letter of Intent

51 PERSONAL CHOICE52 Drug Use

53 Alcohol Use54 Number of Times Tested (freshmen excluded)

55 Players Are Well Informed About Perils of Drug Use

56 Legal Energy Supplements

57 OPINIONS58 What Players Like Best About College Football

59 Time Commitment to Football

61 Improving The Game

62 TODAYS COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER IS A

COLLEGE STUDENT

63 APPENDIX A


3/72

i

20032003 AFCAAFCA PLAPLAYER SURYER SURVEYVEY

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

During fall practice of 2002, the American Football Coaches Associationconducted a player survey to obtain information from todays football

playing student-athlete.

College football players were asked to provide information regarding avariety of topics that included their personal background, academicexperience, personal habits, financial resources and opinions regardingcollege football.

Survey forms were distributed to NCAA Division I-A member institutions.Players were assured anonymity and confidentiality in completing thequestionnaire, and the results were subsequently compiled, cross-tabulatedand analyzed.

Responses were received from 5,474 football players from 66 teams andrepresent a cross-section of the Division I-A membership.

The purpose of the survey is to provide information to college administratorsand coaches that will help them to better understand the interests and

perceptions of todays college football player. In addition, the data willenable those involved with college football to give consideration to the

position of the student-athlete in the development of legislation that impactsthe sport. The AFCA also hopes to educate the public about todays collegefootball player.

A special thanks to the staff of Pacey Economics Group of Boulder,Colorado for providing the statistical analysis and assistance with the

interpretation of this data.

Copyright American Football Coaches Association 2003

All Rights Reserved


4/72

ii

PPARARTICIPTICIPANTSANTS

Air Force Northern Illinois

Akron NorthwesternAlabama-Birmingham OhioAlabama-Tuscaloosa Ohio StateArizona OklahomaArkansas Oklahoma StateArmy PurdueAuburn RiceBall State South CarolinaBaylor Southern CaliforniaBoston College Southern Methodist

Central Florida Southern MississippiCentral Michigan StanfordCincinnati TempleEast Carolina TexasFlorida State Texas A&MGeorgia Texas ChristianGeorgia Tech Troy StateIllinois TulaneIndiana TulsaIowa UCLAIowa State UtahLouisiana-Lafayette Utah StateLouisiana-Monroe VanderbiltLouisiana State Wake ForestMarshall Washington StateMaryland West VirginiaMiami-Florida Western MichiganMiami-Ohio WisconsinMichigan State

MinnesotaMississippi StateMissouri

Nevada-RenoNew MexicoNorth Carolina


5/72

1

PLAPLAYER PROFILEYER PROFILE

Data generated from the AFCA Player Survey produced a profile of todays

college football player that includes such elements as academic preparation

and achievement, ethnic origin, family situation, place of upbringing,

parents occupation, socio-economic background, financial needs, recruiting

experience, use of drugs and alcohol, and suggestions for improving the

game.

The information found on the following pages provides an in-depth look at

the profile of todays college football player.


6/72

2

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICSSAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

The AFCA Player Survey was conducted during the 2002 football season.

Breakdown of respondents by year: First Year 25%Second Year 25%Third Year 23%Fourth Year 17%Fifth Year 10%

Players also identified their playing status: New Player 25%Red Shirt 13%Substitute 18%Starter this year 13%Alternate unit 12%Two year starter 12%Three year starter 7%

The position with the most three year starters is OffensiveLine at 23%, compared to Defensive Line at 15%. Only 9%of Backs and 9% of Linebackers are three year starters.

An evaluation of the respondents byfootball position provided the following: Lineman (O) 19%

Linebacker 13%Receiver 17%Back 14%Secondary 17%Lineman (D) 15%Specialists 5%

(K,P,KR)

Transfer students accounted for 11.3% of the respondents,with 40% transfers from another four year college and 60%

from a junior college.


7/72

3

ETHNIC ORIGINETHNIC ORIGIN

Examination of respondents by ethnic origin reveals that 48% are Caucasian,

44% are African-American, 3% are multiple ethnicity, 2% Hispanic and 3%

Native American, Asian or other.

Analysis of racial and ethnic origin of players by position indicates a similar

mix. Notable exceptions are the offensive line where 72% are Caucasian, the

defensive secondary where 66% are African-American, and the defensiveline with 53% African-Americans.

African American

44%

Hispanic

2%

Other

2%

Multipe Race/

Ethnicity3% Native American

0.7%Asian

0.3%

Caucasian

48%

Ethnic Origin


8/72

4

PLACE OF UPBRINGINGPLACE OF UPBRINGING

High school football remains popular in small communities which in our

survey incorporates the categories rural, small city and medium-size

city. The reason for this assumption is that all of the respondents

participated in high school football before playing collegiately, and a

majority of the players indicated that they were raised in non-metropolitan

areas. Each of these areas listed above have populations of less than 100,000

and combined are responsible for 54% of the players surveyed, including62% of the Caucasian players.

Suburb of Large

City

11%

Very Large

(500,000 or more)

12%

Suburb of Very

Large City

9%Rural

13%

Small

(less than 50,000)

23%

Medium

(50,000 to 100,000)

18%

Large

(100,000 to 500,000)

14%

Home Town Size


9/72

5

FFAMILAMILYY BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND

When asked what best described their family situation, 68% said they lived

with two parents. Another 25% lived with their mother and 4% were raised

by their father.

There is a significant difference in family composition between Caucasians

and African-Americans. Eighty-four percent of Caucasians lived with two

parents and 15% lived with one parent. For African-Americans, 50% livedwith two parents, 39% lived with their mother, 5% lived with their father and

6% resided with relatives or others.

Few of the responding players are married. Only 2% are married and less

than 1% are married with children.

Lived with

Others

1%

Lived with

Relative(s)

2%Lived with

Father only

4%

Lived with

Mother only

25%

Lived with

oth arents

%

Family Background

(all raes)


10/72

Family Background(by race)

6

Lived with Others

2%

Lived with Relative(s)

1%

Lived with Father only

4%

Lived with Mother only

27%

Lived with

Both Parents

66%

Other Ethnicity

Lived with Others

2%

Lived with Relative(s)

4%

Lived with Father only

5%

Lived with

Mother only

39%

Lived withBoth Parents

50%

African American

Lived with

Others

0.5%

Lived with

Relative(s)

0.5%

Lived with

Father only

4%

Lived withMother only

11%

Lived with

Both Parents

84%

Caucasian


11/72

7

HighSchoolG

PAbyFamilyBa

ckground

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Livedwith

Lived

with

Livedwith

Livedwith

Livedwith

BothParents

MotherOnly

FatherOnly

Relative(s)

Othe

rs

FamilyBackground

1.5to2.0

2.0

to2.5

2.5

to3.0

3.0

to3.5

3.5

to4.0

PercentageofRespondents


12/72

8

PPARENTSARENTS EDUCAEDUCATIONTION

The mean level of education attained by mothers of the respondents is 13

years, which translates to one year beyond high school. Ninety-three percent

had completed high school, while 44% had attended college, including 3%

that pursued a graduate degree.

Fathers of respondents have a mean level of education of 14 years, or two

years post-high school. Ninety-four percent have completed high school,while 47% have attended college, including 4% that pursued a graduate

degree.


13/72

9

PPARENTSARENTS OCCUPOCCUPAATIONTION

Occupations in management are the most popular among the players

mothers (46%). This includes such pursuits as advertising, banking, and

marketing. The next most prevalent occupational category is service (14%),

including professions such as beautician, factory workers, and retail sales.

Management occupations (28%) are also the most dominant among

respondents fathers. Another 25% listed technical occupations as theirfathers profession, which include government work, law enforcement, real

estate and insurance.

A list of occupations as they are categorized for the player survey follows on

the next page.


14/72

10

PROFESSION CAPROFESSION CATEGORIES USEDTEGORIES USED

FORFOR THETHE AFCAAFCA PLAPLAYER SURYER SURVEYVEY

Professionals ManagementArchitect AccountingAstronaut AdvertisingAttorney BankingCertified Public Accountant Business Owner Chemist Buyer Dentist/Doctor Computer RelatedEngineer Counselor Executive Editor Lawyer Educator Pharmacist Financial Advisor Professor Librarian

ManagerProfessional/Technicians MarketingCoach NurseCommunication PresidentFireman Social Worker Forestry Teacher Government Writer InsuranceLaw Enforcement Craft & OperativesOther Business Administration Animal Trainer

Other Medical Related Coal Miner Other Self-Employed ConstructionProfessional Golfer Entertainer Real Estate FarmingReligion Related Heavy Equipment OperationSales (NOT RETAIL) Landscaper Supervisor/Foreman Mechanical/MachinistSurveyor MilitaryTechnician Operator

Secretarial (Executive)Service Service RelatedBank Teller TransportationBeautician Travel Agent

Blacksmith Utility EmployeeClericalFactory Worker Homemaker/RetiredJanitor/Maintenance DisabledNurses Aid Homemaker Restaurant RetiredRetail SalesTeachers Aid Deceased


15/72

11

Mother's Profession

Professionals

3%Professionals/

Technician13%

Service

14%

Management

46%

Craft & Operatives

11%

Homemaker/

Retired

12%

Deceased

1%

Father's Profession

Professionals

13%

Professionals/

Technician

25%

Service

6%

Management

28%

Craft & Operatives

20%

Homemaker/

Retired

6%

Deceased

2%


16/72

12

MAJOR FIELD OF STUDYMAJOR FIELD OF STUDY

Business is the most popular major among the student-athletes surveyed.

Almost one-third (33%) listed this as their field of study. The next most

popular major is social sciences (17%), followed by arts and humanities

(14%). Another 6% are undecided.

A categorized listing of majors used for the player survey can be found on

the next page.

[Note: The figures in parentheses indicate the percentage of student-athletes

in the particular major who have earned a 3.0 or better GPA.]

College Major

Undecided

6% (23%)

Business

33% (35%)

Social Sciences

17% (16%)Physical Education

6% (22%)

Communications

9% (20%)

Natural Sciences

9% (46%)

Arts & Humanities

14% (26%)

Engineering

5% (38%)

Agriculture

1% (21%)


17/72

13

AA CACATEGORIZATEGORIZATION OF MAJORSTION OF MAJORS

FORFOR THETHE AFCAAFCA PLAPLAYER SURYER SURVEYVEY

Business Natural SciencesAccounting Animal ScienceAdministration AstronomyAdvertising BiologyComputer Science ChemistryEconomics Mortuary ScienceFinance Nutrition/DietitianHotel/Restaurant Management Pharmaceutical

Human Resources Physical TherapyIndustrial Relations PhysicsManagement PhysiologyMarketing Pre-MedMathematics Rehabilitation ServicesTravel/Tourism Zoology

Social Sciences Arts and HumanitiesAnthropology Architecture/DraftingCriminal Justice Commercial ArtsGovernment Education

Human Development EnglishPhilosophy Fine ArtsPolitical Science HistoryPre-Law Industrial ArtsPsychology LanguagesSocial Work MusicSociology PhotographyUrban Planning Religion

Physical Education EngineeringCommercial Recreation Drafting

Communications AgricultureBroadcasting ForestryJournalism

Public Relations UndecidedRadioTelevision


18/72

14

REASONS FOR PLAREASONS FOR PLAYINGYING

There is a public misconception that a majority of the players consider

college football as a training ground for the pros.

Players were asked what best describes why they play college football.

Enjoyment of the game and/or camaraderie was cited by 57% of the

respondents. Twelve percent responded that football provided a means to

gain an education and 19% played college football in anticipation of anopportunity to play professionally.

Why Play College Football?

Enjoyment of Game

49%

Financial Aid

12%

Pro Career

19%

Desire to Become

a Coach

4%

Camaraderie8%

Respect for

Coaches

3%

Other

5%


19/72

15

AATTENDING COLLEGE REGARDLESS OF FOOTBALLTTENDING COLLEGE REGARDLESS OF FOOTBALL

Eighty-three percent of the respondents said they would attend college if

they did not play football, including 90% of the Caucasians and 76% of the

African-Americans.


20/72

16

SELECTINGSELECTING AA COLLEGECOLLEGE

Many factors contribute to a student-athletes decision regarding which

institution to attend to pursue an undergraduate degree. The AFCA Player

Survey provided responses regarding what was important to the prospect in

determining his selection of a college.

Ninety-five percent of the respondents believed the football program was

very important or important, while 92% said an institutions academicreputation was very important or important. Ninety percent said the coach

was very important or important. Next in order of importance were financial

aid, location of the school, specific academic offerings and other athletes.

Factors in Choosing a College(Respondents listed these factors as very important or important

in the following percentages)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%General Specific Football Coaching Other Location Parent Financial

Academic Academic Program Staff Athletes Guardian Aid

Reputation Offering Attending Influence

92%

73%

95%

90%

58%

69%

66%69%


21/72

17

PERSON OF GREAPERSON OF GREATESTTEST INFLUENCEINFLUENCE

When asked what individual influenced them most in making their decision

on which university to attend, 43% of Caucasians said it was their father.

Among African-American players, the mother had the greatest influence,

32%, with the father at 25%.


22/72

18

Other Ethnicity

Other

22%

Alumni or Friend

of University

2%

College Coach7%

High School Coach

8%

Peers

4% Other Relative

4%

Father

32%

Mother

21%

Caucasian

Other

20%Alumni or Friend

of University

1%

College Coach

8%

High School Coach

5%Peers

4%

Other Relative

5%

Father

43%

Mother

14%

African American

Other

19%Alumni or Friend

of University

1%

College Coach

5%

High School Coach

8%

Peers

3% Other Relative

7%

Father

25%

Mother

32%

Greatest Influence on Choice of College(by race)


23/72

19

TWO-SPORTWO-SPORTT AATHLETESTHLETES

Four percent of the college football players surveyed participated in other

sports. The majority of two-sport athletes competed in track (57%) and

baseball (13%).


24/72

20

ACADEMICSACADEMICS

We are all familiar with recent efforts to ensure the academic integrity of

intercollegiate athletics. With this in mind, we asked the players a series of

questions related to their academic experience in high school and college.

The information on the following pages reflects the players responses.


25/72

21

IMPORIMPORTTANCE OF GRADUAANCE OF GRADUATINGTING

Earning a degree is foremost on the minds of todays college football

players. When asked the importance of graduating from college, 95% said

very important, regardless of race or ethnicity.


26/72

22

ACADEMIC INTERESTACADEMIC INTEREST

Attending college seems to have the effect of increasing academic interest.

Sixty-nine percent of the respondents said they were much more interested

or somewhat more interested in academics since entering college. Twenty-

five percent had about the same amount of interest in academics.

Change in Academic Interest Since College

Much More

Interest

35%

Somewhat More

Interest

34%

About the Same

Amount of Interest

25%

Somewhat Less

Interest

5%

Much Less Interest

1%


27/72

23

HIGH SCHOOLHIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE GPAND COLLEGE GPAASS

Player survey respondents were asked to indicate their high school and

college grade point averages.

Sixty percent reported high school GPAs between a 3.0 and a 4.0. Another

25% recorded high school GPAs of 2.5 to 3.0, and 12% were between a 2.0

and 2.5. The remaining 3% had GPAs of less than 2.0.

It is more difficult to attain a high GPA at the collegiate level. Twenty-eight

percent of the players reported college GPAs between 3.0 and 4.0, while

34% were between a 2.5 and 3.0. Thirty-four percent indicated GPAs

between 2.0 and 2.5, and 4% were below a 2.0.

College Grade Point Average

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

3.5 to 4.0 3.0 to 3.5 2.5 to 3.0 2.0 to 2.5 less than 2.0

21%

7%

34% 34%

4%


28/72

24

CollegeGPAbyYearinSc

hool

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

First

Second

Third

Fourth

Fifth

Year

Ye

ar

Year

Year

Yea

r

YearinSchool

1.5to2.0

2.0

to2.5

2.5

to3.0

3.0

to3.5

3.5

to4.0

PercentageofRespondents


29/72

25

SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUNDSOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUND

Each player responding to the survey is assigned a socioeconomic

description based on his parents education and occupation. The categories

include upper, upper-middle, middle, lower middle, and lower.

The survey indicates that an individuals socioeconomic circumstances can

have an influence on high school and college GPA and SAT and ACT test

scores.

Socioeconomic Classification

Upper

14%Lower

20%

Lower-Middle

22%

Middle

26%

Upper-Middle

18%


30/72

26

Socioeconomic Classification

Upper

12% Lower

24%

Lower-Middle

21%

Middle

25%

Upper-Middle

18%

African American

Upper

17%

Lower

19%

Lower-Middle

18%

Middle

28%

Upper-Middle

18%

Caucasian


31/72

27

GPA BY SOCIOECONOMIC CLASSIFICATION

High School GPA by Socioeconomic Background

Percentage of Percentage of

Socioeconomic Respondents with 3.0 Respondents with G.P.A

Background G.P.A. or better between 2.0 and 2.5

Upper 72% 8%

Upper-Middle 66% 10%

Middle 66% 11%

Lower-Middle 61% 12%

Lower 53% 15%

College GPA by Socioeconomic Background

Socioeconomic 3.0 or 2.5 to 2.0 to Less than

Background better 3.0 2.5 2.0

Upper 37% 34% 25% 4%

Upper-Middle 33% 31% 32% 4%

Middle 30% 37% 30% 3%

Lower-Middle 28% 32% 35% 5%Lower 22% 37% 36% 5%


32/72

28

TEST SCORES BY SOCIOECONOMIC CLASSIFICATION

SAT Scores by Socioeconomic BackgroundPercentage of Percentage of

Socioeconomic Respondents with SAT Respondents with SAT

Background of better than 1100 of 860 or less

Upper 43% 9%Upper-Middle 31% 15%

Middle 30% 14%


Lower 17% 22%

ACT Scores by Socioeconomic BackgroundPercentage of Percentage of

Socioeconomic Respondents with 3.0 Respondents with G.P.A

Background G.P.A. or better between 2.0 and 2.5

Upper 43% 24%

Upper-Middle 32% 36%

Middle 36% 33%


Lower 24% 43%


33/72

29

GPGPAA AND ETHNIC ORIGINAND ETHNIC ORIGIN

Analysis of college GPAs with regard to the student-athletes ethnic origin

suggests that Caucasians registered higher averages than African-Americans.

We analyzed the highest group players earning GPAs of 3.0 or better and

those between 2.0 and 2.5. Forty-one percent of Caucasian players and 14%

of African-Americans earned a GPA of 3.0 or better. A look at the players

earning lower GPAs reveals 25% of Caucasian players and 53% of African-American players registered a 2.5 GPA or less. The relationship was similar

for high school GPAs.

Respondents from a two-parent family background registered a higher high

school and college GPA than those who lived with one parent or with others.


34/72

30

COLLEGE GPCOLLEGE GPAA


GPA Total Caucasians African-Americans

> 3.0 28% 41% 14%

2.5 to 3.0 34% 34% 33%

2.0 to 2.5 34% 22% 47%

< 2.0 4% 3% 6%

HIGH SCHOOLHIGH SCHOOL GPGPAA


GPA Total Caucasians African-Americans

> 3.0 60% 74% 45%

2.5 to 3.0 25% 17% 33%

2.0 to 2.5 13% 8% 19%

< 2.0 2% 1% 3%


35/72

31

SASATT ANDAND ACTACT SCORESSCORES

Since the NCAA established minimum academic requirements, both ACT

and SAT test scores have been utilized to determine initial eligibility.

The survey reveals that 90% of the respondents recorded 68 or better on the

ACT and 94% scored 820 or better on the SAT.

ACT Score

79 or above

29%

67 or below

10%

68 to 71

28%

72 to 78

33%

SAT Score

1101 and

above

26%

819 and

below

6%

820 to 860

12%

861 to 930

16%

931 to 1010

22%1011 to 1100

18%


36/72

32

NUMBER OFNUMBER OF TESTTEST SITTINGSSITTINGS

Forty-one percent of the players took the ACT or SAT twice. Thirty percent

took the test once and 29% had three or more attempts at one of the exams.

Times Taken SAT or ACT

3 or more

times

29%

Two Times

41%

One Time

30%


37/72

33

COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAMSCOLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAMS AND ETHNIC ORIGINAND ETHNIC ORIGIN

Analysis of ACT and SAT scores in relation to a players ethnic origin

reveals that a greater percentage of Caucasians earned higher scores than did

African-Americans.

Forty-one percent of Caucasian players scored 1101 or higher on the SAT.

Two percent of Caucasian players and 11% of African-American players

recorded an SAT score of 819 or below. Also, 4% of Caucasian players and21% of African-American players scored between 820 and 860.

The numbers were similar for student-athletes taking the ACT.


38/72

34

ACTACT TESTTEST SCORESSCORES


Score Total Caucasians African-Americans

79 and above 29% 43% 16%

72 to 78 33% 34% 32%

68 to 71 28% 19% 37%

67 or below 10% 4% 15%

SASATT TESTTEST SCORESSCORES


Score Total Caucasians African-Americans

1101 and above 26% 41% 11%

1011 to 1100 18% 23% 12%

931 to 1010 22% 20% 24%

861 to 930 16% 10% 21%

820 to 860 12% 4% 21%

819 and below 6% 2% 11%


39/72

35

WHENWHEN THEYTHEY BECAMEBECAME AAWWARE OFARE OF

NCAANCAA ACADEMICACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS

Since the inception of Proposition 48 in 1986, there have been significant

efforts to inform high school students as early as possible of the academic

standards required to participate in intercollegiate sports.

When asked when they first became aware of the NCAA requirements, 38%

said during their junior year in high school. Twenty-four percent learned of

the requirements during their sophomore year, 20% as seniors, and 18% wereinformed during their freshman year.

High School Year That Players Became

Aware of NCAA Requirements

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

Year Year Year Year

24%

18%

38%

20%


40/72

36

WHOWHO TTOLDOLD THEMTHEM ABOUTABOUT

NCAANCAA ACADEMIC STACADEMIC STANDARDSANDARDS

It appears that high school coaches are the most effective source for

informing players about NCAA academic requirements needed to participate

in intercollegiate athletics. When asked who first told them about NCAA

academic requirements for financial aid and eligibility, 38% of the players

said their high school coach. High school guidance counselors informed

34% of the respondents about academic standards.

Another 12% learned about the requirements from their parents, while 12%

were informed by a college coach and 4% learned from other sources.


41/72

37

PREPPREPARED FOR COLLEGEARED FOR COLLEGE

Are high schools doing a good job of preparing their students for college?

Eighty-three percent of the players believed that they were prepared to a

large degree or somewhat prepared for the academic challenges

encountered in college. Fourteen percent said they had very little

preparation, while 3% said they were prepared almost not at all.

Quality of Academic Preparation

(all races)

To a Large

Degree

37%

Almost Not

at All

3% Very Little

14%

Somewhat

46%


42/72

38

PREPARED FOR COLLEGE(by race)

To a Large

Degree

42%

Almost Not

at All2% Very Little

12%

Somewhat

44%

Caucasian

To a Large

Degree37%

Almost Not

at All

4% Very Little

13%

Somewhat

46%

Other Ethnicity

To a Large

Degree

31%

Almost Not

at All

4% Very Little

15%

Somewhat

50%

African American


43/72


44/72

40

TYPE OF FINANCIALTYPE OF FINANCIAL AIDAID

Seventy-four percent of the players received a full athletic grant-in-aid,

which includes tuition, books and room and board. Twenty-two percent

received no aid, while 3% were on partial grants.

Tuition Waiver

1%

No Aid

22%

Full Athletic

74%

Partial

3%

Form of Financial Assistance


45/72

41

TYPE OFTYPE OF AID BYAID BY ETHNIC ORIGINETHNIC ORIGIN

Observation of the type of aid received by ethnic origin reveals that 64% of

Caucasian players and 85% of African-American players received a full

athletic grant-in-aid. Thirty-two percent of Caucasian players and 11% of

African-American players are not receiving athletic aid.


46/72

42

Form of Financial Assistance(by race)

Tuition Waiver

1%

No Aid

32%

Full Athletic

64%

Partial

3%

aucaian

Tuition Waiver

1%

No Aid

20%

Full Athletic

75%

Partial4%

ther thnicit

Tuition Waiver

1%

No Aid

11%

Full Athletic

85%

Partial

3%

Arican Aerican


47/72

43

NECESSARNECESSARYY LIVING EXPENSESLIVING EXPENSES

NCAA regulations stipulate that a maximum grant-in-aid may consist of

room, board, books, tuition and mandatory fees. For those that qualify,

additional financial assistance is available through a Pell Grant. With that in

mind, we asked the players what amount of additional money they estimated

was required on a per-month basis to meet necessary living expenses while

attending college.

Fifty-nine percent of the players on a full athletic grant said $200 or more per

month, while 19% indicated between $151 to $200. Eleven percent would

like between $101 and $150, and 11% would be satisfied with $100 or less.

Estimated Monthly Living Expenses

(For those on full athletic scholarship)

$0 to $506% $51 to $100

5%

$101 tp $15011%

$151 to $20019%

More than $20059%


48/72

44

RECRUITING

The American Football Coaches Association has made recruiting one of the

foremost issues on its agenda. AFCA sponsored recruiting seminars have

been successful in educating coaches about NCAA rules pertaining to

recruiting.

The following pages contain information about experiences during therecruiting process.


49/72

45

KNOWLEDGE OFKNOWLEDGE OF THE RULESTHE RULES

Colleges are working to inform those who want to play college football that

athletes must understand recruiting rules as established by the NCAA.

Seventy percent of the players indicated that they had a very good

knowledge (21%) or good knowledge (39%) of the rules and regulations

that pertain to them as prospective student-athletes.


50/72

46

THE RECRUITING PROCESSTHE RECRUITING PROCESS

How actively was a student-athlete recruited? Nearly three-quarters of the

players indicated that they were very actively (44%) or actively (27%)

recruited.

Level of Recruitment

Very Actively

44%

Actively

27%

Moderately

13%

Minimally

9%

No Effort

7%


51/72

47

VISITINGVISITING AN INSTITUTIONAN INSTITUTION

Fourteen percent of the players did not receive an expense-paid trip during

the recruiting process, while 30% received one paid visit.

A large number of prospective college football players visited institutions at

their own expense. Sixty-one percent paid for one or more visits at their

own expense.

Recruiting Visits Paid for by Institution

Five Visits

6%Four Visits

9%

Three Visits

18%

Two Visits

23%

One Visit

30%

No Visits

14%


52/72

48

IN-PERSON CONTIN-PERSON CONTACTSACTS

The study attempted to ascertain the number of institutions that made in-

person contacts by coaches, excluding telephone calls and written

communications, during the recruiting process.

Recruiting Visits Paid for by Institution

Seven

5%Six

6%

Five

12%

Four

10%

Three

13%Two

10%

One

6%

None

6%

Eight or More

32%


53/72

49

ILLEGALILLEGAL INDUCEMENTSINDUCEMENTS

Of particular interest is the fact that 97% of the players surveyed reported

that they had not received any illegal inducements during the recruiting

process.


54/72

50

LETTER OF INTENTLETTER OF INTENT

Coaches have discussed the possibility of developing an early signing date

for football. Those players on aid were asked if they would have signed a

National Letter of Intent in December, rather than wait until February.

Seventy percent responded no, while 30% would have signed an early

letter.


55/72

51

PERSONALPERSONAL CHOICECHOICE

It appears that many of todays college football players are saying no to

drugs. AFCA Player Survey respondents were asked a series of personal

questions.


56/72

52

DRUG USEDRUG USE

AFCA Player Survey respondents were asked if they had used drugs (non-

alcohol) since entering college and 90% said they had not used drugs since

attending college. Of the 10% who indicated they had used drugs since

attending college, a significant majority (91%) had used marijuana, whereas

a minimal number of respondents had indicated use of other drugs including

steroids.


57/72


58/72

54

NUMBER OFNUMBER OF TIMESTIMES TESTED (freshmen excluded)TESTED (freshmen excluded)

The NCAA conducts a random drug-testing program for all its national

championships and year-round testing of Division I football players. In

addition, the institutions that participated in the survey have their own drug-

testing programs. According to the AFCA Player Survey, 82% of the

respondents have been tested for drugs.

Ten percent of the players have undergone drug testing 10 or more times,21% have been tested five to nine times, and 51% have been tested one to

four times. The remaining 18%, basically first year players, have not been

tested.


59/72

55

PLAPLAYERSYERS AREARE WELLWELL INFORMEDINFORMED

ABOUTABOUT PERILS OF DRUG USEPERILS OF DRUG USE

A majority of the players surveyed (88%) believed that the institution they

are attending is making a serious attempt to inform them about the hazards

of using drugs, including alcohol.


60/72

56

LEGALLEGAL ENERGYENERGY SUPPLEMENTSSUPPLEMENTS

The respondents were asked if they used legal energy supplements. A

majority (55%) indicated they do not use supplements, 45% responded

affirmatively.


61/72


62/72

58

WHAWHATT PLAPLAYERS LIKE BESTYERS LIKE BEST

ABOUTABOUT COLLEGE FOOTBALLCOLLEGE FOOTBALL

Players were asked to express in their own words what they liked best about

college football and what benefits they have gained. Seventy-four percent

indicated that playing the game was number one. Included in this group

were such answers as competitive challenge, playing the big game,

excitement and pageantry and thrill of winning. Another 16%

appreciated the camaraderie and team atmosphere. The remaining 10% cited

personal reasons.

As far as benefits are concerned, 33% said that financial aid for education

is the greatest advantage from playing college football. Another 35% said

they had learned to be responsible and included such answers as discipline,

work ethic and time management. Ten percent gained from meeting new

people and becoming part of a team, 12% matured as result of the

experience, and 10% cited personal reasons.

Benefits of College Football

Personal

10%

Discipline35%

Education

33%

Maturity

12%

Friends

10%


63/72

59

TIME COMMITMENTTIME COMMITMENT TTO FOOTBALLO FOOTBALL

Players (not including freshmen) were asked about the time they spent on

football during the season and in the spring.


64/72

60

TIME SPENT ON FOOTBALL

Time Spent on Football in Season(First Year Players Excluded)

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

15 to 19 Hours 20 to 25 Hours 26 to 30 Hours More Than 30 Hours

per Week per Week per Week per Week

40%

12%

20%

28%

Time Spent on Football in Spring(First Year Players Excluded)

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2 to 4 Hours 5 to 8 Hours 9 to 15 Hours Other

per Week per Week per Week

18%

2%

72%

8%


65/72

61

IMPROVINGIMPROVING THE GAMETHE GAME

Players were asked to advance suggestions for improving college football for

the athletes.

Sixty-two percent of those responding recommended more financial support,

with many indicating that it was difficult to live on the money provided

through their scholarships.

Thirty percent suggested that more personal time would be appreciated. The

remaining responses advanced proposals for fewer regulations, more

opportunities for walk-ons and less commercialism.

Suggestions for Improvement

Other

8%

More Financial

Support

62%

More Personal

Time

30%


66/72


67/72

63

APPENDIXAPPENDIX AA

The College Football Association conducted football player surveys from

among its membership in 1996, 1991, 1986 and 1980. The CFA surveys

included approximately 3,000 players and more than 50 teams that were

representative of the membership. A comparison of the responses from the

2002 AFCA survey of 5,474 athletes from 66 teams and previous surveys

indicates similar responses in most areas, yet changes in others.

Those responding in terms of class standing were basically the same in allfour surveys (e.g., 25% of the respondents in three of the surveys were first

year players; 17% of the 2002 respondents, 18% of the 1996 respondents,

14% of the 1991 respondents and 19% of the 1986 respondents were fourth

year players).

The following comparisons may be of interest:

1. Place of upbringing:

2002 54% from communities with less than 100,000 population




2. Marital status:

2002 98% single, 2% married1996 97% single, 3% married

1991 97% single, 3% married

1986 96% single, 4% married


68/72

64

3. Ethnic origin:2002 48% Caucasian, 44% African-American, 3% multiple

ethnicity, 5% other1996 45% Caucasian, 50% African-American, 5% other1991 52% Caucasian, 43% African-American, 5% other1986 60% Caucasian, 40% non-Caucasian

4. Major field of study:2002 32% business, 15% social sciences, 13% arts & humanities,

6% physical education

1996 32% business, 19% social sciences, 11% arts & humanities,6% physical education

1991 31% business, 20% social sciences, 11% arts & humanities,7% physical education

1986 34% business, 14% social sciences, 9.5% physical education

5. Why play college football:2002 60% enjoyment of the game, 15% necessity of aid for

education, 19% opportunity for a professional career

1996 66% enjoyment of the game, 15% necessity of aid foreducation, 15% opportunity for a professional career1991 65% enjoyment of the game, 20% necessity of aid for

education, 11% opportunity for professional career1986 72% enjoyment of the game, 16% necessity of aid for

education, 9% opportunity for a professional career

6. Socioeconomic status of players family:2002 14% upper, 18% upper middle, 26% middle, 22% lower

middle, 20% lower

1996 3% upper, 31% upper middle, 40% middle, 19% lowermiddle, 7% lower




69/72

65

7. Percentage of players who would have attended college withoutplaying football:

2002 83%

1996 84%

1991 84%

1986 79%

8. Type of financial aid:

2002 75% full aid, 22% no aid

1996 76% full aid, 21% no aid1991 81% full aid, 17% no aid

1986 83% full aid, 14% no aid

[Note: In 2002, 33% of Caucasian players and 14% of African-

American players were not receiving aid, compared to 31% of

Caucasian and 11% of African-American players in 1996 who were

not on aid. In 1986, 19% of Caucasian and 8% of African-American

players were not receiving athletic aid. It is important to remember

that the number of allowable grants-in-aid for football has beenreduced since 1986.]

9. Necessary living expenses:

2002 62% of the respondents said that $200 or more per month was

required to meet expenses while attending college

1996 52% responded that $200 or more per month was required to

meet expenses while attending college






70/72

66

10. Recruiting:2002 71% indicated they were actively recruited

1996 71% indicated they were actively recruited



11. Expense paid trips during recruiting process:2002 6% 5 visits, 9% 4 visits, 18% 3 visits, 23% 2 visits, 30% one

visit, 14% none1996 10% 5 visits, 14% 4 visits, 23% 3 visits, 22% 2 visits, 20%

one visit, 11% none1991 16% 5 visits, 18% 4 visits, 24% 3 visits 18% 2 visits, 14% one

visit, 10% none1986 19% 5 visits, 17% 4 visits, 24% 3 visits, 17% 2 visits, 12%

one visit, 10% none

12. College in person contacts during the recruiting process:

2002 57% 0 to 5 contacts, 25% 6 to 10 contacts, 18% 11 or

more contacts


more contacts1991 47% 0 to 5 contacts, 28% 6 to 10 contacts, 25% 11 or

more contacts


more contacts

13. Multi-sport athletes:

2002 96% football only, 4% multi-sport athletes

1996 93% football only, 7% multi-sport athletes

1991 94% football only, 6% multi-sport athletes1986 95% football only, 5% multi-sport athletes


71/72

67

14. Use of drugs:2002 10% indicated they had used drugs while in college

1996 12% indicated they had used drugs while in college

1991 10% indicated they had used drugs while in college

[Note: Of those who indicated that they had used drugs while

attending college, a significant majority had used marijuana.]

All four surveys devoted a considerable number of questions to academicpreparation and achievement. Specific comparisons between the surveys

reveal a strong correlation between SAT and ACT test scores and high school

and college grade point averages. Also, a players family situation (two

parents) and socio-economic status have a significant impact upon testing

performance and academic achievement.


72/72

Documents

2003 D1 Players Survey