Qualifications, responsibilities, and duties of athletics directors at selected NCAA Division I, II, and III institutions in 11 southeastern states.

dc.contributor.author Kinder, T en_US
dc.contributor.department HPERS en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2014-06-20T16:23:53Z
dc.date.available 2014-06-20T16:23:53Z
dc.date.issued 1994 en_US
dc.description Major Adviser: A. H. Solomon. en_US
dc.description.abstract The role of intercollegiate athletics directors (ADs) was examined to determine current qualifications, responsibilities, and duties necessary for professional and institutional success within each of the three divisions of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). en_US
dc.description.abstract A questionnaire was developed, validated by a panel of experts, and sent to the 193 ADs whose respective college or university was both a member of the NCAA and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). Ninety-seven were returned. The instrument requested general information, checklist responses to items regarding essential duties, and the amount of administrative time spent in each of the nine areas of athletics director responsibility. en_US
dc.description.abstract General differences were found among divisions in number of sports offered, chain-of-command, previous coaching and administrative experience, coaching and teaching requirements, support staff, and athletics budget. There were no differences among NCAA divisions as to the highest degree held by the athletics director, the field in which the degree was held, the position held previously, or years of experience. en_US
dc.description.abstract Statistical analyses indicated significant differences among divisions, at the.05 level of confidence, on a number of duties in the checklist concerning the following: (1) how duties were performed, (2) frequency, (3) importance, and (4) difficulty. Concerning administrative time spent in the nine responsibility areas, the findings indicated: (1) ADs in all divisions spent most of their time in financial operations; (2) there was no difference in the areas of personnel, operational policies, responsibilities to student athletes, and personal/professional growth; (3) Division I ADs spent more time on revenue generation than those in Division II or Division III, with ADs in Division II spending more time than Division III ADs; (4) Division I ADs devoted more time to public relations/promotions than ADs in Division III; (5) Division I and II ADs spent more time in compliance than those in Division III; (6) Division III ADs spent more time in facility/contest management than ADs in Division I; and (7) Division I ADs delegated more duties than ADs in Divisions II and III. en_US
dc.description.degree D.A. en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://jewlscholar.mtsu.edu/handle/mtsu/3949
dc.publisher Middle Tennessee State University en_US
dc.subject.lcsh Athletic directors en_US
dc.subject.lcsh College sports Management en_US
dc.subject.lcsh Education, Physical en_US
dc.subject.lcsh Education, Administration en_US
dc.thesis.degreegrantor Middle Tennessee State University en_US
dc.thesis.degreelevel Doctoral en_US
dc.title Qualifications, responsibilities, and duties of athletics directors at selected NCAA Division I, II, and III institutions in 11 southeastern states. en_US
dc.type Dissertation en_US
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
6.59 MB
Adobe Portable Document Format