Initial Findings from the NCAA National Study on Collegiate Sports

Reviews
Shared by: bloved
Stats
views:
7
rating:
not rated
reviews:
0
posted:
11/5/2008
language:
English
pages:
0
Initial Findings from the NCAA National Study on Collegiate Sports Wagering and Associated Behaviors May, 2004 May 12, 2004 1 Introduction This study represents the first national data collection on the wagering behavior of intercollegiate student-athletes. Data are available from all NCAA divisions, and most NCAA championship sports. Data were collected in a systematic way with the assistance of the faculty athletics representatives at NCAA member institutions. All NCAA member institutions were asked to participate in the study. May 12, 2004 2 Major Goals of Current Study  To provide baseline information on the prevalence of various wagering behaviors among the population of student-athletes.  To understand differences in these behaviors between groups based on sport, gender, division, etc.  To assess associated “health-risk behaviors” that are hypothesized to correlate with problem gambling behavior.  To determine the types of programs that might be useful in discouraging gambling behavior among the student-athlete population. May 12, 2004 3 Current and Future Analyses  The current report provides descriptive data on the extent and nature of gambling behavior among the population of student-athletes.  Future reports using these data will expand on these descriptive statistics and will focus on behaviors (e.g. alcohol and drug use, criminal behavior, etc.) that might be related to problem gambling.  It is anticipated that this study will be replicated in future years in order to understand trends in gambling behavior, and assess the effectiveness of enforcement and education programs. May 12, 2004 4 Comparison to Previous Studies Prior studies of gambling behavior among college athletes (e.g. Cross and Vollano, 1999; Cullen and Latessa, 1996) focused on limited numbers of institutions and respondents:  Division I only  Football and basketball only  Limited number of institutions and respondents Prior studies used a mailed survey methodology May 12, 2004 5 Methods  At least 12 percent of institutions sponsoring a given sport were sampled randomly. The sample was stratified by NCAA division.  No single institution asked to submit data on more than three sport teams.  Data were requested from 2,003 individual sport teams at 1,032 NCAA institutions.  Because of strict anonymity in protocol, no specific response rates by team or institution can be calculated. We estimate a response rate of between 65 and 75 percent, based on previous surveys conducted in this manner and the total number of surveys received. May 12, 2004 6 Survey Administration  Letters were sent to the FAR (Faculty Athletics Representative) at each institution asking for cooperation in the administration of the study.  The FAR was provided a specific protocol and script to read that emphasized that the study was completely voluntary and that each student’s responses were anonymous.  Surveys were given to all members of a sampled team on the same occasion.  The final student was asked to oversee the sealing of the envelope by the FAR to help to ensure that procedures for maintaining anonymity of respondents were being strictly adhered to. May 12, 2004 7 Data Cleaning and Weighting  After data were entered into database, they underwent a significant cleaning process.  Data were reviewed extensively via a series of validity checks and Item Response Theory (IRT) techniques were used to identify questionable patterns of response.  Responses indicating serious malfeasance (e.g. taking money to affect the outcome of a game) were reviewed by hand to determine if responses from that individual appeared sincere.  Initially, 20,933 surveys were entered into database. After cleaning process, 20,739 were determined to be “valid.”  Because there were slight differences in the sample from the population in terms of sport group and division representation, aggregate data were weighted to better reflect population estimates. May 12, 2004 8 Characteristics of Respondents Respondents by Gender Gender Male Female Not Stated Number (Proportion) in Sample 12,600 (62.0%) 7,736 (38.0%) 403 (N/A) Respondents by NCAA Division Division I II III Not Stated May 12, 2004 Proportion in StudentAthlete Population 57.7% 42.3% N/A Number (Proportion) in Sample 9,063 (44.4%) 4,770 (23.4%) 6,595 (32.3%) 311 (N/A) Proportion in StudentAthlete Population 41.1% 20.7% 38.2% N/A 9 Characteristics of Respondents Respondents by Ethnicity Ethnicity African-American Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Other Ethnicity Non-Resident Alien Not Stated Number (Proportion) in Sample 3,139 (15.3%) 802 (3.9%) 15,342 (74.7%) 1,113 (5.4%) 132 (0.6%) 211 (N/A) Proportion in Student-Athlete Population 14.6% 3.2% 74.8% 5.0% 2.4% N/A May 12, 2004 10 Initial Results on Wagering Behavior May 12, 2004 11 Proportion of Student-Athletes (S-As) Indicating Participation in Any Gambling Behavior* Division I II III Overall Proportion of Males Wagering (N=12,446) 63.4% 66.5% 76.3% 68.9% Proportion of Females Wagering (N=8,293) 41.7% 51.0% 51.2% 47.2% *Gambling behavior includes buying lottery tickets, participating in pools, betting on games of skill, betting on pro and college sports, etc. May 12, 2004 12 Proportion of S-As Engaging in Gambling Activities in Last 12 Months By Gender and Division Males Div. I Played cards or board games for money Table games at Casino Games of personal skill (pool, darts, bowling) Stock Market/ commodities Commercial bingo Played dice/craps Internet casino games or other gambling on Internet May 12, 2004 Females Div. III Div. I Div. II Div. III Div. II 41.1% 42.5% 17.1% 19.1% 33.6% 35.1% 9.4% 5.2% 9.1% 6.9% 51.1% 16.4% 19.2% 21.1% 19.4% 7.7% 9.3% 6.8% 44.3% 11.8% 16.3% 13.0% 11.4% 7.2% 13.0% 7.0% 2.7% 5.6% 3.4% 2.0% 3.6% 6.7% 3.8% 2.0% 4.1% 9.6% 3.2% 2.1% 13 13.3% 12.2% 5.3% 7.2% Proportion of S-As Engaging in Gambling Activities in Last 12 Months (Continued) By Gender and Division Males Div. I Sports cards, football pools or parlays Bet on horse or dog races Bet on intercollegiate games w/campus bookie Bet on intercollegiate games w/off-campus bookie Lottery tickets Slot or electronic poker machines Some other type of gambling May 12, 2004 Females Div. III Div. I Div. II Div. III Div. II 15.4% 19.0% 28.1% 8.1% 2.2% 2.7% 8.9% 2.4% 4.6% 11.2% 3.2% 4.5% 3.8% 3.3% 0.3% 0.6% 7.0% 4.8% 0.4% 0.9% 6.7% 5.6% 0.7% 0.7% 29.6% 37.0% 41.5% 23.6% 31.9% 32.0% 16.8% 20.0% 21.5% 12.3% 14.6% 13.0% 21.2% 22.8% 28.9% 6.2% 8.0% 8.4% 14 Proportion of S-As who Reported Wagering on Collegiate Sports By Gender and Division Division I II III Overall May 12, 2004 Male Proportion 17.2% 21.0% 24.4% 20.8% Female Proportion 5.9% 5.8% 5.3% 5.7% 15 Proportion of S-As who Reported Wagering on Collegiate Sports By Gender and Division 25 21.0 20 15 10 5.9 5 0 Males May 12, 2004 24.4 17.2 Division I Division II Division III 5.3 5.8 Females 16 Proportion of S-As who Reported Wagering on Any Sporting Event (College or Pro) By Gender and Division Division I II III Male Proportion 28.8% 33.5% 40.7% Female Proportion 8.8% 10.6% 9.7% Overall 34.6% 9.6% May 12, 2004 17 Proportion and Estimated Number of S-As who Reported Wagering on Collegiate Sports By Sport and Gender – All Divisions Combined SPORT Baseball Basketball Cross Country Field Hockey Football Golf Ice Hockey Lacrosse Outdoor Track MALE 22.5% (5,900) 21.2% (3,400) 16.7% (1,800) N/A 23.8% (13,800) 30.3% (2,300) 21.9% (800) 29.3% (1,900) 12.9% (2,600) FEMALE N/A 8.2% (1,200) 3.7% (400) 7.7% (400) N/A 8.4% (300) N/A 8.2% (400) 5.2% (1,000) Soccer Softball Swimming Tennis Volleyball Wrestling 20.2% (3,800) N/A 19.5% (1,400) 20.6% (1,500) N/A 27.7% (1,600) 5.8% (1,100) 5.5% (900) 5.0% (500) 4.4% (400) 5.2% (700) N/A Overall 20.8% (41,000) 5.7% (7,300) 18 NOTE: Estimated numbers (in parentheses) based on number of S-As participating in 2001-02 academic year. May 12, 2004 Proportion and Estimated Number of S-As who Reported Wagering on Any Sport (Pro or College) By Sport and Gender – All Divisions Combined SPORT Baseball Basketball Cross Country Field Hockey Football Golf Ice Hockey Lacrosse Outdoor Track MALE 39.1% (10,300) 32.8% (5,200) 27.9% (3,000) N/A 36.0% (20,900) 48.6% (3,700) 48.4% (1,800) 44.4% (2,900) 25.2% (5,100) FEMALE N/A 12.8% (1,900) 5.9% (700) 10.8% (600) N/A 16.0% (600) N/A 14.2% (800) 7.2% (1,300) Soccer Softball Swimming Tennis Volleyball Wrestling 35.3% (6,600) N/A 31.0% (2,300) 33.0% (2,500) N/A 42.0% (2,500) 11.0% (2,100) 11.6% (1,800) 8.1% (800) 8.3% (700) 9.4% (1,200) N/A Overall 34.6% (66,800) 9.6% (12,500) 19 NOTE: Estimated numbers (in parentheses) based on number of S-As participating in 2001-02 academic year. May 12, 2004 Proportion of Male S-As who Reported Wagering on Collegiate Sports By Sport 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Basketball X-Country Swimming Wrestling Baseball Football Hockey Lacrosse Track Soccer Tennis Golf 22.5 23.8 21.2 16.7 12.9 30.3 29.3 27.7 21.9 20.2 19.5 20.6 May 12, 2004 20 Proportion of Female S-As who Reported Wagering on Collegiate Sports By Sport 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Basketball 8.2 3.7 7.7 8.4 8.2 5.2 5.8 5.5 5.0 4.4 5.2 Field Hockey X-Country Swimming Volleyball Lacrosse Softball Track Soccer Tennis Golf May 12, 2004 21 Proportion and Estimated Number of S-As who Reported Participating in Football Pools or Betting with A Bookie By Gender and Frequency of Activity Frequency Daily At Least Once a Week At Least Once a Month Less Than Once a Month Overall Male Proportion (Estimated Number) 0.7% (1,400) 3.5% (6,800) 4.5% (8,700) Female Proportion (Estimated Number) 0.1% (100) 0.4% (500) 0.9% (1,200) 12.8% (24,700) 21.5% (41,600) 4.6% (6,000) 6.0% (7,800) May 12, 2004 22 Top Three Reasons that S-As Wager By Gender and Division Reasons to Wager Males Div. I Div. II Div. III Div. I Females Div. II Div. III For Fun To Win Money 91.3% 90.2% 92.8% 97.1% 95.6% 95.8% 65.1% 56.5% 67.0% 55.0% 58.8% 63.8% 56.4% 55.0% 59.6% 54.6% 54.2% 54.3% For Excitement May 12, 2004 23 Initial Results on Effects of NCAA Rules on Gambling Behavior May 12, 2004 24 Proportion of S-As Knowledgeable of NCAA Rules on Sports Wagering Males Div. I Div. II Div. III Div. I Know Rules Yes No Not sure May 12, 2004 Females Div. II Div. III 59.6% 50.1% 39.8% 58.7% 39.1% 40.8% 12.9% 27.5% 19.6% 25.6% 10.2% 20.4% 21.7% 30.3% 34.6% 31.0% 40.6% 37.5% 25 Proportion of S-As Reporting that Information and Education from NCAA Discourage Gambling By Gender and Division Division I II III Overall May 12, 2004 Male Proportion 56.5% 51.0% 39.5% 48.5% Female Proportion 70.8% 59.0% 53.1% 61.7% 26 Proportion of S-As Reporting NCAA Penalties Discourage Sports Wagering By Gender and Division Division I II III Overall May 12, 2004 Male Proportion 63.9% 54.8% 43.5% 53.8% Female Proportion 74.5% 65.7% 58.2% 66.6% 27 Comparison of Proportion of S-As who Gamble on College Sports Versus Proportion who Say that NCAA Rules Discourage Sports Wagering Male Athletes Only Proportion who Wager on Sports Proportion who Say NCAA Rules Discourage Wagering 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Males Division I Division III May 12, 2004 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Males Division I Division III Division II Division II 28 Initial Results Related to Men’s Basketball and Football Players Affecting Outcomes of Games May 12, 2004 29 Proportion of S-As Reporting Significant Infractions of Gambling Bylaws Division I Only Action Taken money for playing poorly in a game Known of a teammate who took money for playing poorly Been threatened or harmed because of sports wagering Been contacted by an outside source to share inside information Actually provided inside information about a game Men’s Basketball Proportion (N=388) Football Proportion (N=2,132) 0.5% 1.5% 1.1% 1.6% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 2.0% 2.8% A total of 17 individuals (4.4%) in basketball and 102 individuals (4.8%) in football reported at least one of these extreme behaviors (including those on the following slide). May 12, 2004 30 Proportion of S-As Reporting That “Because of Gambling Debt” they Engaged in Specific Behaviors Division I Only Action “Because of Gambling Debt…” Been asked to affect the outcome of a game Actually affected the outcome of a game Involved a teammate in affecting the outcome Know of a teammate who has been asked to affect outcome of a game Teammate affected outcome Teammate asked you for help in affecting game May 12, 2004 Men’s Basketball Proportion (N=388) Football Proportion (N=2,132) 2.1% 1.0% 1.0% 2.1% 1.0% 1.2% 2.3% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.0% 31

Related docs
premium docs
Other docs by bloved
Finance Lecture12
Views: 278  |  Downloads: 11
Authorization to Release Information
Views: 212  |  Downloads: 1
Foreign licensee
Views: 190  |  Downloads: 5
Pendleton Act info
Views: 316  |  Downloads: 1
Certificate of partnership
Views: 203  |  Downloads: 4
Department store
Views: 187  |  Downloads: 0
Consulting agreement[1]
Views: 134  |  Downloads: 0
Microbiology Phenol Red Test Results
Views: 2101  |  Downloads: 14
AP French Language 2001 Free Response Questions
Views: 1940  |  Downloads: 19
Pacific Railway Act info
Views: 707  |  Downloads: 0