The 2010 NCAA Division I Conference Realignment: Analyzing the Maximizing-Satisficing Paradox Using

Institutional Data

Brad Weiner PhD Student

The University of Minnesota bradweiner@umn.edu

Full Paper Available Online at: http://tinyurl.com/AERA-NCAA

Twitter Hashtag:

#aera2011 #63.035

Research Paper Presented for the

Annual Meetings of the American Educational Research Association (AERA)

New Orleans, April 8-12, 2011

Background

• 19 NCAA Division I institutions switched conference affiliations between June and December 2010

• 15 different conferences either gained or lost members

• Sportswriters regularly cited the conference moves as a “win-win” (Miller, ESPN 2010) but there was little discussion about other institutional or conference characteristics

Motivations for Conferences Changes

Economic Profits Peer Group Prestige

Theoretical Frameworks

• Economic/Rational Choice

• Organizational Theory

• Higher Education

Maximizing/Satisficing Paradox

• Conference membership changes are a mutual agreement between current members and new members

• Institutions can not maximize peer group prestige by joining less prestigious conferences

• A majority of conference members can not maximize peer group prestige by inviting a less prestigious member

• For conference changes to occur, either the institution or the conference must accept diminished prestige but would not be rationally motivated to do so without other incentives

Research Questions

1. To what extent did the schools that changed conferences increase or diminish associative prestige as measured by traditional institutional measures?

2. To what extent did the conferences with changing membership increase or diminish their associative prestige as measured by traditional institutional measures?

Sample

• 99 NCAA Division I institutions that either switched conferences or were in conferences with changing membership

• Institutions competing in multiple conferences were excluded

Variables

• n=60 • All variables come from IPEDS, 2008 universe

unless otherwise noted • Employed to measure institutional prestige as a

function of size, age, enrollment, research purpose, diversity, financial resources etc.

• Variables were selected for their general acceptance of “desirability” which motivates rational decision-making

• Complete list included in paper

Research Question #1 Methodology Institutional Perspective

1190 1200 1210 1220 1220 1245 1262.5 1280 1320

1410 1460 1470

1540

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Example #1 Pac-10 Conference

75th Percentile SAT CR+M Median=1262.5

Research Question #2 Methodology Conference Perspective

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 7

8 8

10

11

12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Example #2 Conference Maximizing/Satisficing

Pac-10 Ranking of 75th Percentile SAT CR+M Pac-10

Majority Rank=7 (i/2)+1

Results

78.33 76.67

75.00

68.33

61.67

55.00 53.33 53.33

46.67

31.67 30.00

0.00

50.00

100.00

Percentage Distributions of Maximizing and Satisficing Outcomes by Institution (n=60, i=11)

Maximized %

Satisficed %

Neutral/Tied %

66.67

60.00

55.00

50.00 46.67

45.00 41.67

35.00

30.00 28.33

26.67

0.00

50.00

100.00

Big Ten(Nebraska)

Pacific-10(Utah)

MountainWest (Boise

State)

WesternAthletic

(Texas SanAntonio)

West Coast(BYU)

Big East(TCU)

MountainWest (Cal.St. Fresno)

Pacific-10(Colorado)

WesternAthletic

(Texas St.San

Marcos)

WesternAthletic(Denver)

MountainWest

(Nevada)

Percentage Distributions of Maximizing and Satisficing Outcomes by Conferences with New Members

n=60, i=11

Maximized %

Satisficed %

Neutral/Tied %

31.67 32.50

41.67

45.00

41.67

50.56

66.67

47.50 46.67 45.00

41.11

36.11

1.67

20.00

11.67 10.00

17.22

13.33

0.00

50.00

100.00

Big Ten (1) Pacific-10 (2) West Coast (1) Big East (1) Mountain West (3) Western Athletic (3)

Mean Percentage Distributions of Maximizing and Satisficing Outcomes by Conferences with New Members

n=60, i=6

Maximized %

Satisficed %

Neutral/Tied %

13.33

23.33

28.33

23.33

43.33

53.33

63.33

33.33

18.33

0

50

100

Big Twelve (2) Southland (2) Sunbelt (1)

Percentage Distributions of Variable Change Values for Conferences Without New Members

n=60, j=3

Indicators Increased %

Indicators Decreased %

Indicators Equal %

Institutions That Changed Conferences

• Boise State University • Brigham Young University • California Polytechnic State

University • California State University-

Fresno • Mercer University • Stetson University • Texas Christian University • Texas State University-San

Marcos • University of California-Davis

• University of Colorado-Boulder • University of Denver • University of Hawaii-Manoa • University of Nebraska-Lincoln • University of Nebraska-Omaha • University of Nevada-Reno • University of North Dakota • University of Rhode Island • University of South Dakota • University of Southern Utah • University of Texas-San Antonio • University of Utah

Discussion

Selected References Abbott, C. (2009). College Athletic Conferences and American Regions. Journal of American

Studies, 24(02), 211–221.

Birnbaum, R. (1991). How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and

Leadership. Jossey-Bass.

Brewer, D., Gates, S., & Goldman, C. (2002). In pursuit of prestige: strategy and competition in

U.S. higher education. Piscataway, N.J.: Transactions Publications.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and

collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review,48, 147-160.

Duderstadt, J. (2000). Intercollegiate athletics and the American university: A university

president's perspective. Ann Arbor, MI: Publication Info: University of Michigan Press.

Forde, P. (2010, June 17). A look at the winners and losers of college football's conference

expansion - ESPN.com . Retrieved July 4, 2010, from http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/

story?columnist=forde_pat&id=5291319

Morphew, C. & Huisman, J. (2002) Using institutional theory to reframe research on academic

drift. Higher Education, 27, 36.

Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological

Review, 63, 129–138.

Rittenberg, A. (2010, May 18). Big Ten's AAU ties should factor in expansion. ESPN.com .

Retrieved July 8, 2010, from http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/12511/big-tens-aau-ties-

should-factor-in-expansion

Sweitzer, K. V. (2009). Institutional ambitions and athletic conference affiliation. New

Directions for Higher Education, 2009(148), 55–63.

Brad Weiner PhD Student

University of Minnesota bradweiner@umn.edu

Full Paper Available Online at: http://tinyurl.com/AERA-NCAA Comments or suggestions are appreciated at: http://tinyurl.com/AERA-NCAA-COMMENTS Twitter Hashtag: #aera2011 #63.035