I. IntroductionII. Review of Related LiteratureIII. MethodologyIV. ResultsV. DiscussionVI. Conclusion – Questions?

Emphasis: The identification of coverage provided to individual sport teams on intercollegiate athletic websites

Influence of coverage: Shaping societal beliefs (Kane, 1988) Influence on consumption habits (Huffman, Tuggle, & Rosengard, 2004) and future participation interest in sport (Hardin, 2005)

Why focus on intercollegiate website coverage?1. Growing interest in Internet (Cooper, 2008)2. NCAA affiliation – ethical considerations

• Focus on the underrepresentation of women in a variety of different independent media outlets (Bryant, 1980; Cuneen & Sidwell, 1998; Fink & Kensicki, 2002)

An Alternative Focus: “Given the dependence upon consumers and consumer preferences among for-profit media outlets, an alternative approach is to study the representation of men and women in not-for-profit media outlets, such as university newspapers, athletic departments, Internet Web sites, and/or the NCAA News” (Cunningham et al., 2004).

1. The NCAA News: Underrepresentation of female athletes (Shifflet & Revelle,

1994; Cunningham et al., 2004)

2. University Newspapers: Coverage allocations below NCAA participation rates (Wann et

al., 1998; Huffman et al., 2004)

3. Intercollegiate Athletic Websites: Women’s softball underrepresented in comparison to men’s

baseball (Cunningham & Sagas, 2002; Sagas, Cunningham, Wigley, & Ashley, 2000)

Similar coverage within five similar sport teams (Cooper, 2008)

Limitations of past research:1. Limited research available on intercollegiate athletic website coverage (Cunningham & Sagas, 2002; Sagas et al., 2000)

2. Research limited to similar sport team coverage – gender based (Cooper, 2008)

3. Lack of focus on coverage beyond Division I (Cooper, 2008)

Purpose of current research: To examine the coverage on intercollegiate athletic websites to determine the role of divisional affiliation on the promotional opportunities offered to men’s and women’s individual sport teams.

• Content analysis of intercollegiate athletic websites – home Web page

1. Advertisements2. Articles3. Multimedia 4. Photographs

Male Sports (9 Teams)

Female Sports (9 Teams)

Cross-CountrySoccerFootball

Cross-CountrySoccerField HockeyVolleyball

BasketballSwimmingWrestling

BasketballSwimming

GolfTennisBaseball

GolfTennisSoftball

• Inclusion of 18 teams most common in intercollegiate athletics

• Athletic departments chosen randomly from Divisions with adequate team representation (30 included in sample)

• Academic school year sample (N = 630) featuring 3 months within each sport season (Fall, Winter, and Spring)

• Reasoning: Sample representative of each of the teams featured in the study (e.g., men’s baseball and women’s softball coverage in spring season)

Intercoder Reliabilty Test: Independent examination of 100 randomly selected websites (Percent of change agreement; Adjusted Scott’s Pi)

Remaining sites split evenly between trained coders

Statistical Analyses:1.Two-way ANOVA

• 2 levels of gender (male, female) and 3 levels of division (FBS, FCS, D3)• Examine main effect and interaction effect

2.Univariate paired sample t-tests to utilized to examine the differences between sports in each division

Source df F η2 p

Between Subjects

Division (D) 2 18.46 .58 <.001

Error 27

Within Subjects

Gender (G) 1 65.79 .71 <.001

D x G 2 17.61 .57 <.001

Error 27

Table 1Analysis of Variance for Division by Gender

Figure 1Division by Gender Interaction

Figure 2FBS Men’s Sports Mean Square Inches

Figure 3FBS Women’s Mean Square Inches

Results of Paired Sample T-tests for FBS Teams

Male•Football > all other sports•Basketball > all sports except football and baseball•Baseball > all sports but football and basketball•Cross country < all sports but soccer

Female•Basketball > all other sports•Softball > tennis•CC < golf, swimming, tennis

Results of Paired Sample T-tests for FCS Teams

MaleSimilar Trends to FBS Teams•Football > all other sports•Basketball > all sports except football•Baseball > Cross country, golf, swimming, and tennis•Cross country < golf and swimmingFemaleSimilar Trends to FBS Teams•Basketball > all sports but softball•Softball > golf and soccer•Swimming > cross country and tennis

Significant Results of Paired Sample T-Tests for Similar Sport

1.FBS• Men’s baseball > Women’s softball (p = .001)

2.FCS• Men’s basketball > Women’s basketball (p = .028)

3.Division III• No differences

•Overall, men’s sports received significantly more coverage than women’s sports, and FBS institutions devoted significantly more coverage than FCS & D3. •However, Division III provided equitable coverage for all men’s and women’s sports, while FBS & FCS provided more coverage for revenue producing sports•In Division I (FBS & FCS), football received significantly more coverage than all other sports•Revenue sports (basketball, football) received significantly more coverage than all other non-revenue sports in FBS & FCS•At FBS institutions, men’s and women’s basketball received similar coverage, but at FCS institutions where men’s basketball is typically the highest profile sport, men’s basketball received significantly more coverage than women’s basketball.

Big-time Division I athletics (FBS) is focused on producing revenue through the entertainment value of the product, which results in revenue producing sports receiving a disproportionate amount of resources through a budget separate from the university, while Division III institutions emphasize the educational value of athletics, which results in more equal funding decisions through a budget integrated with the university.

The results of this study showed that D3 institutions provided the same amount of website coverage on the basis of gender and sport, while FBS institutions provided significantly more coverage to males and to revenue producing sports.

• Any Questions?