SCIENCE DISCUSSION(NO PLAGIARISM, A++ WORK, QUALITY, ON TIME)

International Journal of Sport Communication, 2016,9, 321 -339 http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/IJSC.2016-0011 © 2016 Human Kinetics, Inc.

H u m a n K in etics ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Attitudes and Motivations of Students Toward Athletic-Event Attendance at a Midsize Division III University:

Recommendations for Communicators

Despite being the largest subset of the NCAA, Division I I I sports programs have had very little research dedicated to them regarding student attendance motiva­ tions. This study surveyed 620 undergraduate students at a midsize Division I I I school (total enrollment 10,902) to determine their attitudes toward attending athletic events and potential motivators for getting them into the stands. Students who had personally interacted with an athlete or coach had better attitudes toward university athletics than those who had not. Results also supported predictions of the theory of planned behavior, finding that attitudes toward individual sports were the strongest predictor of intentions to attend future games. Open-ended responses also asked students why they do not attend games and what would get them to attend more games. Analyses of these responses are followed by key recommendations for communications professionals at similar-size institutions seeking ways to increase student attendance at their athletic events.

Keywords: theory of planned behavior, subjective norms, promotions, student spectators

The National Collegiate Athletic A ssociation’s (NCAA) Division III (D-III) sports programs make up the largest NCAA division, among its three divisions, in both the num ber o f schools (450) and num ber o f athletes (more than 180,000; NCAA, 2014c). W hile D-III athletics are the NCAA’s largest division, they are definitely not the most prominent or popular in the landscape o f college sports. Large Division I (D-I) programs grab the majority o f the spotlight, revenue, and attendance as they bring in m illion-dollar television contracts (Fornelli, 2014) and can accom m odate tens o f thousands o f fans at their stadiums. Part of the reason D-I program s can com m and such high attendance rates is because they have large student bodies. For example, the average size o f the student body at a Big Ten

The author is with the Brian Lamb School of Communication, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Address author correspondence to [email protected]

Evan K. Perrault University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, USA

321

3 2 2 P e rra ult

school is approximately 40,000, while the average size of the student body at a D-III school is much smaller, approximately 2,700 (NCAA, 2014d).

However, there are D-III schools that rival, and even surpass, the student popu­ lations at D-I institutions. For example, the regional school where this study was conducted has approximately 11,000 students, whereas some D-I schools such as High Point University (4,200 students), Marist College (6,300 students), and Morgan State University (7,500 students) have much smaller enrollments. In fact, the largest D-III school has a student population of more than 20,000 students (NCAA, 2014d). As a result, there should be more than enough students at these mid- to large-size D-III schools to fill the stands at their athletic events. However, as attendance data collected from the current school under study revealed, student attendance at athletic events has been decreasing at a significant rate for the past 5 years, and this is also a problem nationally (New, 2014). The goal of the current study was to uncover some of the reasons behind this declining attendance and find ways to help similar-size schools that may be encountering similar problems successfully promote their sports programs to hopefully increase student attendance. This article will first discuss the importance of, and barriers to, increased attendance at D-III sporting events, followed by the theoretical perspective used to guide this study. The methods and results will follow, concluding with evidence-based practical recommendations derived from the results that communications professionals at similar-size D-III schools may use to increase student attendance at their athletic events.

Literature Review Attendance: Benefits and Barriers According to the NCAA, D-III athletic programs set themselves apart from their D-I and D-II counterparts by placing the primary focus for their student-athletes on being students first and athletes second.

Academics are the primary focus for Division-Ill student-athletes. The division minimizes the conflicts between athletics and academics, and helps student- athletes progress toward graduation through shorter practice and playing seasons, and regional competition that reduces time away from academic studies. (NCAA, 2014c)

This is not to say that academics are not important at the D-I and D-II levels—how­ ever, the information the NCAA provides about these divisions places more focus on the television exposure and scholarship benefits of being an athlete (NCAA, 2014a, 2014b), benefits not afforded to D-III athletes.

Based on the information the NCAA provides about its divisional structure, it also appears that those who come to support D-III athletes are not of primary concern. "Division-Ill athletic departments place special importance on the impact of athletics on the participants rather than on the spectators. The student-athlete’s experience is of paramount concern” (NCAA, 2014d). However, if spectators at D-III events are not valued or entertained, they will likely stop attending. An arena devoid of cheering spectators is also likely not going to foster a very positive experience for the student-athletes.

IJS C V ol. 9, No. 3, 2016

Division III Athletic Attendance 323

Although the NCAA relegates spectator experiences to the periphery, attend­ ance and spectator experiences at D-III athletic events are important. Operating a D-III athletic program is expensive. The average yearly operating expenses for a D-III school with a football program are about $3.5 million (NCAA, 2014d). Programs need fans in the seats to help offset these expenses, and marketing pro­ fessionals with D-III programs state that it is frustrating and challenging to find ways to promote their programs effectively (Robinson, 2010).

While the majority of D-III programs offer free admission to their students to attend games (personal communication with D-III conference commissioners, 2015), their attendance at games can offer both immediate and future impacts on programs. Even though they attend for free, students still need to pay for conces­ sions, which can account for a sizable portion of revenue— in UW-Oshkosh’s case, 7% of yearly revenue (University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, 2014). More distally, student attendance at marquis spoils like football can also help create strong bonds that programs hope will keep students connected after graduation, possibly by purchasing memorabilia or future tickets or even donating to the program (Cohen, 2014; New, 2014).

A study with D-III athletic directors revealed that the finances of their programs are one of the top issues they worry about (Engbers, 2011). As state funding for publicly funded institutions declines, one athletic director interviewed by Engbers stated,

We are being asked to become more financially responsible and more entrepre­ neurial. Fundraising, gate revenues, and external opportunities are now more important than ever because those are the areas where we can get those extra funds needed to maintain programs, (p. 50)

It is evident that students’ declining attendance is a problem and needs to be remedied if D-III programs hope to continue at their current levels in the future.

In addition, besides just the financial gains that can be realized by increased attendance at athletic events, prior research has found that promoting athletics at D-III schools can play a rising-tide role that can improve the standing of the entire college. After Adrian College, a small D-III school in Michigan, developed land for new stadiums and athletic facilities, enrollment grew by more than half in 3 years, as did the school’s operating budget (Sander, 2008). Smaller liberal arts schools (e.g., Hendrix College) are also seeing the benefits of adding sports like football to boost enrollments, as well as revenue from alumni who purchase tickets and donate to their alma maters (Demirel, 2013). These athletic improvements helped put these D-III schools on much more solid financial footing.

Despite the financial incentive to get students into the stands, an extensive review of the literature finds there is a paucity of research from D-III programs regarding students’ attitudes and behaviors toward attending their schools’ athletic events. Research regarding these schools is needed because, compared with their D-I counterparts, D-III schools are usually less diverse and have fewer employees (Fink, Pastore, & Riemer, 2003), meaning there is a smaller pool front which to generate ideas and solutions to this problem. The little research that has been done on this topic is usually quite dated (e.g., Krohn, Clarke, & Preston, 1998) or focused solely on students at larger D-I (e.g., Ferreira & Armstrong, 2004; Schurr,

IJS C V o l.9 , No. 3,2016

3 2 4 Perrault

Wittig, Ruble, & Ellen, 1988; Wakefield & Sloan, 1995) or D-II programs (e.g., Choi, Martin, Park, & Yoh, 2009; Wells, Southall, & Peng, 2000). As a result, the main goal of this research was to begin to fill the gap in the literature on this topic and help D-III schools, which are the largest percentage of NCAA programs, find ways to increase student attendance at their athletic events.

Theoretical Framework A critical component to starting any formative research on a target audience, and building subsequent messages, is to begin with theory (Atkin & Friemuth, 2001). To try to determine which theory, or theoretical constructs, should be used to guide this research, I first looked to prior research to see what kinds of motivations or reasons students have previously provided regarding their attendance at sporting events, regardless of school size. For example, Brokaw, Stone, and Jones (2008) found that the entertainment value of the events, team familiarity, and awareness of the events play large roles in attendance at the events. Schurr et al. (1988) found that convenience and social support also played roles. Taken together, these factors seem to map closely with Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior, in which people’s behavioral intentions are driven by three variables: their attitudes toward that behavior (e.g., how much they like the athletic events), subjective norms (e.g., do others close to them go to games?), and perceived behavioral control (e.g., is it easy, convenient, or possible for me to attend a game?). Therefore, these three constructs helped guide the formulation of a survey provided to students.

Simply providing students messages that address these constructs, however, is not likely to be enough if the messages are not delivered to the targets in the ways they would like them delivered. Therefore, it is also important to determine the targets’ message source and channel preferences. These variables are key com­ ponents in McGuire’s (2001) communication and persuasion matrix, a theoretical framework that helps provide message designers a comprehensive preproduction checklist of information to help them assess their target audience’s preferences before creating and disseminating messages or to bolster current campaign weak spots (McGuire, 2001). For example, from whom would students like to receive information regarding athletics (i.e., source), and from where (i.e., channel)?

This study sought to add these important behavioral precursors and message preferences of students at a midsize D-III school to the literature to help similar-size athletic programs develop messaging materials and strategies to increase student attendance. Therefore, the following research question was posed to guide this study:

RQ : What are students’ preferences for future D-III athletics communication, and what are potential motivating factors that are related to their attendance?

Methods Participants A total of 698 students participated in an online survey from the University of Wis- consin-Eau Claire, a midsize, state-funded, Midwestern university (total enrollment 10,902). Since we only wanted information from students who were not required

I J S C V o l .9 , N o. 3, 2016

Division III Athletic Attendance 325

to attend athletic events, 50 athletes and 25 band members were removed from the sample. An additional 3 participants were removed because more than 50% of their responses were missing. This left us with a final sample of 620 completed surveys.

To recruit participants, students in an upper division public relations campaign­ planning class distributed the survey to students in their social networks. In addition, the survey was distributed to students in the university’s introductory communication classes, who completed the survey for extra credit. Participants were distributed across grades, 15.3% freshmen, 20.5% sophomores, 25.8% juniors, and 38.1% seniors. Their average age was 20.25 years (SD - 1.55), the sample was about 70% female, and the majority classified themselves as White (87.3%), followed most closely by Asian (8.1 %).

Survey The online survey took students approximately 10 minutes to complete and first asked general questions about their knowledge of the sports the university offers and their current behaviors and game attendance. For example, students were asked if they had ever personally met an athlete or coach, if they followed the university’s athletic program on social media, and if they had ever actively searched for the time and location of athletic events. They were also asked a series of single-item awareness questions on 7-point Likert scales where 1 was strongly disagree and 7 was strongly agree (e.g., “I am well informed about when football games are taking place”). Next, key theoretical constructs were measured (each is provided following). Questions were also asked specifically regarding football and men’s basketball, as those are typically the two sports that bring in the largest attendance.

A ttitudes. A general attitude measure toward the university’s athletics was mea­ sured, as were attitudes toward both football and men’s basketball games.

Three 7-point Likert-scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) items measured students’ general attitude toward university athletics (i.e., “I am a fan of Blugold athletics,” “I like to attend Blugold athletic events,” "I support Blugold athletic teams” ; a = .904).

Four 7-point Likert-scale items measured students’ attitudes toward attending both football and men’s basketball games (e.g., “I like to attend Blugold [football/ men’s basketball] games” and “Blugold [football/men’s basketball] games are” entertaining/a good time/fun; a = .967 and .985 for both sports).

S u b je c tiv e N o rm s . Subjective norms were measured with 4 items adapted from Swanson, Gwinner, Larson, and Janda (2003). Items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale and included “I am more likely to attend a sporting event if I know people who are going,” “I enjoy sporting events more when I am with a group of people,” “I am more likely to go to a sporting event if my friends go,” and “Watch­ ing athletic events is better with a large group of people” (a = .953).

P e rc e iv e d B e h a v io ra l C o ntro l. Perceived behavioral control was measured for both football and men’s basketball with three semantic differential items: “Attending a (football/men’s basketball) game is” difficult/simple, impossible/possible, and hard/easy ( a = .908 and .945 for both sports).

IJS C V o l.9 , No. 3,2016

3 2 6 Perrault

B e h a v io ra l In te n tio n s . Behavioral intentions were measured in two ways. An open-ended item asked participants to indicate how many athletic events they planned to attend this school year. In addition, two 3-item, 7-point Likert scales measured behavioral intentions for attending both football and m en’s basketball games (i.e., “I intend to go to a [football/men’s basketball] game this year,” “I will try to go to a [football/men’s basketball] game this year,” “I plan to go to a [football/ men’s basketball] game this year”; a = .985 and .986 for both sports).

B eh a v io rs . Participants were also asked (yes/no) if they had ever attended a football or men’s basketball game.

In fo rm a tio n P re fe re n c e s . Students were asked to indicate on two closed-ended lists where, and from whom, they currently receive and would like to receive information about athletics. Fourteen channel and source response options were available, such as players, resident assistants, posters, professors, athletes, e-mails, Facebook, Twitter, and table tents.

O p e n -E n d e d R esp o ns es . Finally, three open-ended response options for both football and men’s basketball asked participants

Why do you attend football/men’s basketball games? If you do not attend football/men’s basketball games, please explain why. What would make you want to attend more football/men’s basketball games? To create a coding scheme for these open-ended responses, a thematic analy­

sis approach was taken where the data were first open-coded by members of my undergraduate research team (Braun & Clarke, 2006), who first individually read all the responses given by participants and then identified themes that emerged from the data. At a research-team meeting, the research assistants discussed their themes as a group, and I then compiled the agreed-on themes into a preliminary coding scheme, with a separate scheme for each of the three questions (see the categories that emerged and coded in the Results section). Research assistants then went through a 90-minute training on the coding schemes, and pairs of coders were assigned one set of responses. Coders were asked to code for either the presence or the absence in the participants’ responses for each reason detailed in the coding scheme. Due to the straightforward nature of the coding (i.e., most responses were usually only a few words), the overall percentage agreement was quite high among the pairs of coders (95-100% agreement for each coding category). Coders then went back to resolve the few disagreements that existed until 100% agreement was reached for each response.

Results Due to the lack of prior research on this topic, I took an exploratory approach to analyzing the results from this study, primarily seeking to find information and relationships that could prove useful for D-III schools seeking ways to increase their student attendance and improve their communication attempts with students.

IJ S C V o l. 9, N o . 3, 20 16

Division III Athletic Attendance 32 7

S ource and M essag e C h an n el P referen ces fo r In fo rm atio n

Students indicated from whom and where they would like to receive information regarding university athletics. Almost half indicated they would like information displayed on posters (49.2%), followed by hearing the information from friends (43.7%) and via e-mail (43.2%). Facebook was the fourth-most frequently cited preference (39.8%), followed by athletes themselves (32.3%). All information sources and channels asked about are rank-ordered and can be found in Table 1.

A ttitu d e Toward A th le tic s and M o d eratin g Factors

Students’ general attitude toward athletics (M = 4.86, SD = 1.33), while from a statistical standpoint is above the midpoint of the 7-point scale 7(619) =16.16,/? < .001, still has room to grow. However, we discovered that students’ attitudes toward athletics might be moderated by events that would be within a communication’s reach to change.

Table 1 Message Source and Channel Preferences of How Students Would Like to Receive Information About University Athletics

Source/channel Percentage Frequency (n)

Posters 49.2% 305 Friends 43.7% 271 E-mails 43.2% 268 Facebook 39.8% 247 Athletes 32.3% 200 Web sites 26.5% 164 Professors/instructors 23.7% 147 Twitter 22.3% 138 Staff members 20.2% 125 Resident assistants 15.6% 97 Table tents 12.9% 80 Television 7.1% 44 Radio 5.8% 36 Family members 1.6% 10 Other 1.5% 9

Note. Other responses included people who indicated they preferred to stay uninformed and one student who wished there was a smart phone app.

I J S C V o l .9 , N o . 3, 2016

3 2 8 P e rra u lt

Two independent-samples t tests were performed to determine if people who had ever met an athletic coach or athlete have different attitudes toward the univer­ sity’s athletic program. Results revealed significant findings. Those who indicated they had previously met with an athlete (M = 4.94, SD = 1.28) had a more positive attitude toward Blugold athletics than students who indicated never having met an athlete (M = 4.34, SD = 1.33), t(588) = 2.88, p = .004.

The same is true for students who have met a coach. Students who indicated they had met an athletic coach (M = 5.16, SD = 1.29) had more positive attitudes toward Blugold athletics than those who had never met a coach (M = 4.75, SD = 1.31), f(589) = 3.50, p = .001.

Information Level’s Relationship to Attendance at Games Students cannot be expected to attend athletic events if they do not know when they are taking place. To determine if this assumption was true, two independent-samples t test were performed to compare students’ perceptions of how well informed they felt about when games take place and if they had ever attended a game. Results revealed significant findings for both sports. Students who indicated they had attended a football game (M= 4.08, SD= 1.92) indicated they were better informed about when the games were taking place than those who had never attended a foot­ ball game (M = 3.25, SD = 1.82), r(606) = 5.05, p < .001. The same was true for basketball, where those who had attended a game (M = 3.87, SD = 1.84) indicated they were better informed about when the games took place than those who had never attended (M = 2.62, SD = 1.48), r(597) = 7.47, p < .001.

Social Media’s Relationship With Behavioral Intention and Self-Efficacy Social media have the power to allow fans to interact directly with teams, athletes, and coaches—possibly informing followers of when games are taking place and how easy it is to acquire tickets. To determine if this interaction might be related to greater game attendance, a series of independent-samples t tests was conducted. Results were significant for both sports and variables, where people who indicated they followed Blugold athletics on social media indicated higher levels of self- efficacy and behavioral intentions. See Table 2.

Testing the Theory of Planned Behavior As the theory of planned behavior predicts, attitudes toward the sport, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (i.e., self-efficacy) should be related to a person’s behavioral intentions to attend that sport. To test the theory’s predictions, we subjected these variables for both football and men’s basketball to multiple- regression analyses.

F o o tb a ll. The result of the multiple-regression analysis for football was signifi­ cant, F ( 3,596) = 117.2,p < .001, adjusted R 2= .368. The analysis showed that both attitudes toward attending football games (p = .579, f = 16.59, p < .001) and subjec­ tive normative influence (P = .085, t = 2.52,p= .012) were significant predictors of

I J S C V o l . 9 , N o . 3 , 2 0 1 6

Division III Athletic Attendance 329

Table 2 Relationship of Following on Social Media With Self- Efficacy and Behavioral Intention

Follow Athletics on Social Media

Yes No

Variable M ( S D ) n M ( S D ) n t ( df ) P Self-efficacy

football 5.75 (1.23) 95 5.21 (1.43) 495 3.42 (588) .001

basketball 5.57 (1.38) 95 5.14(1.51) 489 2.58 (582) .01

Behavioral intention

football 5.20 (1.85) 97 4.39(1.86) 507 3.90 (602) .001

basketball 4.44(1.62) 97 3.58(1.66) 506 4.68 (601) .001

Note. Both self-efficacy and behavioral intention were measured on 7-point scales where highernumbers indicate greater levels of the variable.

students’ intentions to attend a football game later in the season, while self-efficacy was not (|3 = .005, t - .16, p = .87).

B as ke tba ll. The result of the multiple-regression analysis for men’s basketball was significant, F(3,589) = 131 J , p < .001, adjusted R2=.398. The analysis showed that both attitudes toward attending men’s basketball games (p = .601, t = 18.01, p < .001) and self-efficacy (P = .086, t = 2.57, p = .011) were significant predictors of students’ intentions to attend a men’s basketball game later in the season, while subjective normative influence was not (P = .022, t - .67, p = .50).

Taken together, the results from both of these analyses indicate that the strongest predictor of whether someone will attend a game is that person’s attitude toward the sport in question. If people do not think they will have fun or an enjoyable time at the game, they are less likely to want to attend.

Open-Ended Results Three open-ended questions were asked of each student regarding each sport (i.e., “Why do you attend [football/men’s basketball] games,” “Why don’t you attend,” “What would make you want to go?”). The results of these open-ended questions were coded by research assistants using categories that emerged from the open­ coding process. Results for each question can be found in the following sections.

Why D o You A ttend? Seven primary codes emerged for why students attended games (see Table 3 for a complete breakdown of frequencies): social influence, entertainment at the games, team-member relationship, support the school/show spirit, enjoyment of the sport, enjoyment of the competition, and homecoming.

The influence and enjoyment of others in students’ social circles was the most frequently mentioned reason for attending football games and tied for the

IJS C V o l.9 , No. 3, 2016

330 Perrault

Table 3 Reasons Students Indicated for Attending Football and Men’s Basketball Games

Reason

Sport

Football Basketball

Percentage n Percentage n

Social influence 31.52% 122 19.27% 21

Entertainment at games 29.97% 116 2.75% 3 Team-member relationship 16.28% 63 25.69% 28 Support school/show spirit 15.25% 59 8.26% 9

Enjoyment of the sport 11.11% 43 19.27% 21

Entertainment of the competition 10.08% 39 14.68% 16

Homecoming 20.16% 78 0% 0 Other 9.56% 37 12.84% 14

Note. There were 387 valid responses provided to the question for football and 109 for basketball, so the percentages were calculated from these amounts. Responses marked as “other” contained responses where no discernible categories emerged (e.g., wanted to see it once, I had to work concessions once).

second-most frequently mentioned for attending men’s basketball games. Exam­ ples of these responses included “I went because my friends went,” “To spend time with friends,” “To meet people and hang out with friends,” and “Because my friend drags me with.”

The entertainment that is present at the games (e.g., the marching band, cheer­ leaders) was the second-most frequently mentioned response for attending football but one of the least frequently mentioned for attending basketball. Examples of responses included “I go to watch the marching band,” “The band, they are the stars of the game,” and “To watch the band perform.”

Knowing a member of the team or the band was the most frequently mentioned response for attending a men’s basketball game and the third-most frequently mentioned for attending a football game. An example of this comment would be “I know someone on the team.”

An obligation to support the school or team or to show school spirit was the fourth-most frequently cited for football and second to last for men’s basketball. Example responses included “To show team spirit,” “To support our team, it’s the only time when all the students ever agree on the same thing, us winning” and “I want to support my college.”

Students indicating they enjoyed the sport itself was tied as the second-most frequently mentioned reason for attending men’s basketball and fifth for football. Examples of these responses included “I like watching basketball,” “I have an interest in basketball,” “I love football,” and “I like the game.”

The enjoyment o f the competitive nature of the sport was ranked fourth for men’s basketball and near the bottom of the list for football. Examples included

IJ S C V o l. 9, No. 3, 2016

Division III Athletic Attendance 331

“Because they’re action packed,” “I like to see athletes play basketball at a high level,” and “It’s an intense game.”

Homecoming was mentioned approximately 20% of the time for reasons for attending football games but not at all for basketball games, as there is no home­ coming game for basketball.

Why D o n ’t You A ttend? To try and determine what some barriers are to attending athletic events, we asked students open-ended questions about why they do not attend football and men’s basketball games. The top eight responses are explained following with example responses (see Table 4 for all reasons that emerged from

Table 4 Open-Ended Responses as to Why Students Do Not Attend Games

S p o r t

F o o tb a ll B a s k e tb a ll

R e a s o n P e rc e n ta g e n P e rc e n ta g e n

Lack of enjoyment/interest for sport 20.51% 64 43.44% 192 Lack of time 29.17% 91 13.8% 61

Team is not successful 25.00% 78 3.17% 14

Social influence 17.31% 54 12.9% 57 Lack of knowledge/awareness 9.94% 31 17.19% 76 Location/transportation issue 9.94% 31 0.90% 4 Poor team member relations 6.73% 21 9.73% 43 No spirit/fun at games 6.41% 20 1.36% 6 Competition of sport not entertaining 6.09% 19 2.04% 9 No reason 4.49% 14 4.07% 18 Weather 5.13% 16 0.45% 2 Poor opponent strength 2.24% 7 1.81% 8 No advertising 0.96% 3 3.39% 15 Facilities 0.64% 2 0.90% 4

New student/no opportunity yet/ not season

2.56% 8 9.50% 42

No promotions 0.32% 1 0% 0 Other 5.77% 18 0.90% 2

Note. There were 312 valid responses provided to the question for football and 442 for basketball, so the percentages were calculated from these amounts. Responses marked as “other” contained responses where no discernible categories emerged (e.g., I forget, I’m hungover, drunk fans, I could have played so I don’t want to think about that, I don’t understand the game).

I J S C V o l .9 , N o. 3, 2016

3 3 2 Perrault

the coding and frequencies o f response): lack o f enjoym ent/interest for sport, lack o f time, team is not successful, social influence, lack of knowledge/awareness, location/transportation, poor team -m em ber relations, and no spirit/fun at games.

The most frequently m entioned reason for not attending m en ’s basketball games, and third-m ost for football, was a lack o f enjoym ent or interest for the sport itself. Responses coded in this category included “N ot interested in basketball/ football,” “Never had the desire to watch it,” and “I ’ve never been a huge fan.”

N ot having enough time was the m ost frequently cited response for not going to football games and the third for m en’s basketball. Exam ple responses included “Too much homework,” “With school and work I have a tough schedule to work around,” and “Usually d o n ’t have time.”

Having an underperform ing team was also mentioned frequently for football. Examples included “We are terrible,” “They lose a lot,” and “They’re not very good.”

Not having any friends going to the games was the fourth-most cited reason for not attending for both football and m en’s basketball. Responses coded in this category included “No one I know goes,” “My friends don’t go, so I d o n ’t,” “My friends aren’t interested in going, and I w ouldn’t go by myself,” and “If my friends went, I think I would attend more games.”

Not knowing when or where the teams play was the second-most cited response for m en’s basketball and fifth for football. Example responses included “I d o n ’t know when/where they are,” “Never know when they play,” and “Since I ’ve been here, I’ve never seen a game schedule.”

N ot having transportation to the game or the location being too far away was commonly cited for not going to home football games at the off-campus stadium (e.g., “Too far from campus,” “Too far from apartment,” “They are too far away”).

People cited the lack o f relationships they had with players and the poor atti­ tudes displayed by those they were fam iliar with for not going. Examples o f these responses include “They are not nice people, cocky,” and “I don’t know anyone on the team.”

A lack of school spirit, fun, and spirit displayed at the games from students was also m entioned as a reason for not going, especially for football. Examples o f responses coded in this category included “The student section doesn’t do cheers,” “There is no active student section,” “They are not fun to go to. The only fun you will have is if you sit next to the band. Not one person really cheers,” and “Poor school spirit.”

What Would M ake You Want to Attend? Twenty-one coding categories emerged from the question asking students “W hat would make you want to attend more (football/m en’s basketball) gam es?” The top eight, along with example statements, are explained following: team success, social influence, greater spirit, promotions, entertainm ent, team -m em ber relations, greater knowledge/awareness, and more advertising. For the rem aining codes and frequencies, see Table 5.

Having a more successful, or better, team was mentioned most frequently by students as a motivator to attend m ore football games and third-m ost for basket­ ball. Example responses included “A better record,” “M ore talented players,” and “W inning m ore games.”

W hether more people attended or their friends wanted to go were reasons m entioned most frequently for basketball and second-m ost for football. Examples

IJ S C V o l. 9, N o. 3 ,2 0 1 6

Division III Athletic Attendance 333

Table 5 Open-Ended Responses as to What Would Make Students Want to Attend More Games

Reason

Sport

Football Basketball

Percentage n Percentage n

Team success 35.67% 193 9.4% 47

Social influence 21.81% 118 24.0% 120

Greater spirit 11.83% 64 6.4% 32

Promotions to attend 9.8% 53 8.8% 44

Entertainment 9.8% 53 4.8% 24

Better team member relations 7.95% 43 10.2% 51

Greater knowledge/awareness 4.44% 24 9.6% 48

More advertising 3.51% 19 7.0% 35

Better location/transportation 8.87% 48 1.2% 6

If had more time 4.62% 25 5.0% 25

Nicer facilities 4.44% 24 3.2% 16

Nicer weather 3.51% 19 0.2% 1

Greater interest in sport 2.22% 12 8.8% 44

If alcohol was sold 2.03% 11 0.2% 1

Tailgating 1.29% 7 0.2% 1

Better opponent strength 1.11% 6 1.2% 6

Better time/day of games 0.55% 3 0.2% 1

Nothing 7.21% 39 19.6% 98

Already attend 0.55% 3 0.2% 1

Incomplete statements 0.92% 5 1.0% 5 Other 2.03% 11 2.6% 13

Note. There were 541 valid responses provided to the question for football and 500 for basketball, so the percentages were calculated from these amounts. Responses marked as “other” contained responses where no discernible categories emerged (e.g.. I’m not sure, less drunk people, I’m just lazy).

of these statements were “If my friends went,” “If more people I knew went,” or “If more people went to them.”

Responses coded in this category included statements from students indicat­ ing they would want to attend more games if they felt greater pride for the team or school or if there were a better student section at the games. Example responses

IJS C V o l.9 , No. 3, 2016

3 3 4 P e rra ult

included “More school spirit,” “A better student section,” “If there was more Blugold spirit,” and “If people in the stands cheered more.”

Students indicated they would attend more games if there were more promo­ tions to attend (e.g., free items or free food). Some examples of these statements were “T-shirt guns,” “Free stuff,” “Chances to win free things,” and “Giveaways/ raffles.”

If games had more entertainment (e.g., more band performances or more entertaining halftime shows) students said they might attend more games. Some examples of these responses included “Having a pep band play to make it more exciting,” “Activities for the guests,” “More fun announcers,” and “More activities for the fans.”

Students stated they would attend more games if they knew more players or knew more about the players on the teams. Examples included “If I knew someone on the team,” “Hearing better things about the players,” “Meeting the team,” and “Having player bios spread around campus or something so that people know who they are.”

If students were more informed or better aware of when and where games were taking place, they indicated they might attend more games. Examples of these statements included “Knowing when they are,” “If I knew more about it and when the games were,” and “If I was better informed of where they are and when I might attend.”

Separate from the previous code, students also stated that if there were more advertisements and better promotion/marketing of the team they might attend more games. Statements coded in this category included “More marketing,” “Persuasive ad campaigns,” “I don’t hear much about them—better promotion,” “I’ve never heard anything about them,” and “More promotion on campus.”

D is cu s sio n The purpose of this research was to determine ways that mid- to large-size Division- Ill athletic programs could increase attendance at their athletic events. An online survey of more than 600 students sought to uncover students’ message source and channel preferences, as well as their motivations for attending games, to try to determine ways communications professionals could improve their current pro­ motional efforts. Key recommendations can be found following.

Spectators Beget More Spectators Humans are highly normative creatures; we usually follow others’ behaviors and do not like to deviate from the norm (e.g., standing to the front in elevators). There­ fore, it is not surprising that one of the primary reasons that students indicate they attend games and what would make them attend more games is social influence. The most popular response of those who attended games of why they did is because their friends went, and large percentages of those who did not attend games stated they would attend if their friends went. This finding is similar to that of Choi et al. (2009), who found spectators’ reference groups a strong predictor of future behavioral involvement at D-II basketball games. Communications professionals at D-III schools could possibly help get more fans into the stands by targeting resident

IJ S C V o l. 9, N o . 3, 2016

Division III Athletic Attendance 335

assistants on-campus to bring floors, or entire dorms, of students to games to make attending games more of an institutional norm than an exception.

Getting spectators into the stands is only the first step, however. Once the students are there, they need to feel engaged and entertained, or they will likely not return.

School Spirit, More Entertainment, and Promotions There is not much communications professionals can do about an underperforming team or the strength of the opponents, but finding ways to increase school spirit, entertainment, and promotional events at athletic events are well within their pur­ view. Students indicated frequently that greater spirit and more promotions would be key motivators to getting them to attend more games. Some ways this could be done could be to designate a student section with a good location at the arena/ stadium, and hiring a student liaison to teach and lead cheers with students in this section. An incentive structure could also be implemented to motivate students to want to be part of this section, thereby creating the promotions that students stated they wanted as a motivator to attend more games. For example, free, limited-edition T-shirts could be provided to these students signifying them as members of the student section, or vouchers for free concessions could be earned from cumulative attendance at games. Michigan State University (aD -I school) uses a very effective promotion for students— having them camp outside in tents to become a select member of the men’s basketball team student section, the Izzone (Hines, 2015). More than 1,000 students camp outside overnight to be part of this student section, where they agree to wear their special Izzone T-shirts to distinguish themselves from those who were not selected (Michigan State University, 2013).

A more general point-earning structure could also be effective, where students would earn points for each athletic event they attend, which they could then redeem for prizes at the end of the year. For example, Troy University has a program called the Trojan Affinity Points System where the student with the most sport-attendance points at the end of the year wins a full-tuition scholarship, with lesser prizes being shirts, autographed memorabilia, free lunches with athletic staff, and bookstore credits (Gibbs & Willis, 2014).

Students also indicated they would want to attend games if there were more entertainment at the games, aside from the competition taking place. For example, students frequently mentioned that they liked going to games when the band played, with many indicating that they would come to football games just to see the band perform at halftime, and then they would leave. To help improve the entertainment factor, games could adopt more of a party atmosphere, where there could be tail­ gates before events with free food and a DJ playing music. This recommendation supports anecdotal evidence from a D-III sports marketer. “I feel that promos sell more tickets at the D-III level whereas at the D-I level they’re just an extra bonus/ perk; D-I tickets sell themselves” (Robinson, 2010, p. 68).

There also could be more entertainment during lulls in the action, for example, free-throw competitions during timeouts, T-shirt tosses, and possibly an emcee or announcer who travels the stands and interacts with fans during the game by handing out prizes. This finding is similar to what Wells et al. (2000) found at D-II schools, where promotional activities at games were related to future attendance behaviors.

IJS C V o l.9, No. 3,2016

336 Perrault

However, “Having a promotion for each home game is just part of the answer. An important component is a higher degree of planning surrounding promotional activities’ (Wells et al., 2000, p. 209). Part of this planning has to encompass more effective communication between the athletics program and the students.

Students’ Desire for Information It was clear from students’ responses that they want information regarding athletic events. For example, almost half of the students surveyed (49.2%) said they wanted information about athletics on posters. This desire for more information was fur­ ther confirmed by responses that emerged from open-ended responses. A lack of knowledge or awareness of when and where games were taking place was frequently cited by students as reasons for not attending, and increasing their knowledge of games was also referenced as a way to get them to attend more games.

The power of an informed audience was quantitatively shown by comparing the attendance behaviors of those who felt informed and those who did not. Students who indicated they had previously attended basketball and football games indicated they were better informed about when and where games were taking place than those who had never attended a game. In addition, social media provide a great channel for distributing information and communicating directly with target audi­ ences. Tweets and posts from players and coaches directly to fans can let students know when games are taking place and how easy it is to obtain tickets. Students who indicated they followed the athletics program on social media had greater levels of self-efficacy and behavioral intentions than those who did not follow athletics on social media.

A simple and inexpensive way athletic departments could get their informa­ tion out to students could be through weekly e-mails indicating to students what events are taking place on-campus in the coming week (43% indicated they would like information via e-mail). Interpersonal channels could also be better used, as nearly a third said they would like to receive information directly from athletes. This interpersonal connection is highlighted by the moderating influence these connections have on students’ attitudes toward athletics.

The Importance of Positive Interactions With Athletes and Coaches Students who indicated they had personally met an athlete or coach had signifi­ cantly higher attitudes toward athletics than those who had never met an athlete or coach. Also, in finding that nearly one third of students indicated they would like to receive information about future games from athletes, it makes sense that athletic departments should be doing more to get their athletes and coaches out in front of students. This could be done with frequent “meet-and-greet” events planned throughout the semester or even having athletes or coaches mingle with students in common areas around campus where significant numbers of students congregate. In students’ open-ended responses, knowing a member of a sports team was fre­ quently cited as a reason for attending athletic events. Conversely, not knowing an athlete, or having a poor perception of athletes, was also a reason provided for not attending games. This issue is likely unique to D-III institutions because they have

IJSCVol.9, No. 3, 2016

Division III Athletic Attendance 337

smaller enrollments and class sizes, which increase the probabilities of nonathletes interacting with athletes more regularly.

As a result, athletes should be trained to realize that, even if they are not formally promoting their sports to students, they and their sports are always being perceived by others in either a positive or a negative light simply based on the persona they display. Many comments provided by students indicated that the interactions they have had with athletes in some sports had not always left the best impressions. For example, when asked why students did not attend football games, the following are just a few of the comments provided: “The players are really cocky for being on a [expletive removed] team,” “The football players think they’re better than everyone else, and because of this I’d rather not support the team,” “Most of the football players that I have met think they are above everyone else on campus,” and “I don’t normally go to games because there are a lot of players that are huge [expletive removedjs and I don’t want to support their egos. It’s a shame because there are some really nice guys on the team, but the [expletive removedjs ruin it for them.” Similar responses were provided when students were asked what would make them want to attend more football games: “If the players didn’t act like jerks sometimes,” “If the players were nicer,” and “If I met someone that I liked on the team.” Athletes need to be made aware that they are ambassadors of their programs wherever they go, and even the slightest negative impression on others can have a detrimental impact on students’ wanting to attend games in the future.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research One limitation of this research is that it was conducted at only one midsize D-III institution, and readers should be careful not to overgeneralize the results to all D-III institutions. However, this study helps to begin to fill a large gap in the litera­ ture, mainly the dearth of spectator research at D-III institutions, despite the fact that they compose the largest percentage of the NCAA. Similar studies should be carried out at additional D-III schools to further fill this gap in the literature and paint a more complete picture of student-fan motivations at D-III athletic events.

In addition, only two sports were chosen to be singled out for greater depth of analysis (i.e., football and men’s basketball) out of the 22 NCAA sports at the chosen institution. This was done to keep the survey at a manageable length, and also because football and men’s basketball are usually the largest spectator-generating sports. However, future studies should be carried out with other sports to determine if the same outcomes would emerge.

C o n c lu s io n Even though athletic events can occur without spectators, large cheering crowds can create enduring memories for D-III athletes. Spectators at events are also necessary to help offset the large operating costs that D-III athletic programs face. Despite the fact that D-III programs make up the largest contingent in the NCAA, there has been very little research regarding how these schools can create an environ­ ment that leads to greater student attendance at events. Through survey research at a midsize D-III school, we hope that the insights gained from this study can help similar-size institutions find ways to increase student attendance at athletic events.

IJS C V o l.9 , No. 3, 2016

338 Perrault

A s th is research found, students w an t a sp e cta to r en v iro n m en t th at is en ter­ tain in g an d full o f spirit. T hey d esire in fo rm atio n so they know w h en events are and w ould likely atten d m o re events if ath letes and co ach es positively interacted in terp erso n ally w ith them . W h ile this research found that social influence (i.e., “I g o b ec au se m y frien d s g o ” ) is one o f th e top reaso n s given fo r atten d in g athletic events, c o m m u n icatio n s p ro fessio n als need to find a w ay to m ake these events ones th at stu d en ts w ill w ant to co n tin u e atten d in g , p o ssib ly by in clu d in g p ro m o tio n al incentives. I f D -III ath letic p ro g ra m s ho p e to co n tin u e o p eratin g su ccessfu lly into the future, it is im portant th a t they find w ays to increase stu d en ts’ favorable attitudes to w ard ath letics, w hich w ill h o p efu lly y ield larg er crow ds, m ore loyal fans, and a larg er n u m b e r o f future donors.

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Faculty/Student Research Collaboration Grants program. Special thanks to my undergraduate research assistants: Michael Fiez, Kelsey Karnopp, Kathryn Miller, Taylor Pelissero, Cassandra Rudd, Stephanie Tyink, and Nathan Zeiter

References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91 )90020-T Atkin, C.K., & Friemulh, V.S. (2001). Formative evaluation research in campaign design.

In R.E. Rice & C.K. Atkin (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (3rd ed., pp. 125-145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781452233260.n7

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brokaw, A., Stone, G.W., & Jones, M.A. (2008). A model of the factors contributing to fan support at small-college athletic events. The Sport Journal. Retrieved from www. thesportjournal.org

Choi. Y., Martin, J., Park, M., & Yoh, T. (2009). Motivational factors influencing sport specta­ tor involvement at NCAA Division II basketball games. Journal fo r the Study o f Sports and Athletes in Education, 3, 265-284. doi:10.1179/ssa.2009.3.3.265

Cohen, B. (2014, August 27). At college football games, student sections likely to have empty seats. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from www.wsj.com

Demirel, E. (2013). The D-III revolution: How A m erica’s most violent game may be saving liberal arts colleges. Retrieved from http://w w w.sbnation.com /long- form/2013/10/1/4786810/diii-football-revolution

Engbers. J.L. (2011). An exploration o f challenges facing Division III athletic directors [doctoral dissertation]. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico. Retrieved from http:// hdl.handle.net/1928/17470

Ferreira, M.. & Armstrong, K.L. (2004). An exploratory examination of attributes influenc­ ing students’ decisions to attend college sport events. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13, 194-208.

Fink, J.S., Pastore, D.L., & Riemer, H.A. (2003). Managing employee diversity: Perceived practices and organizational outcomes in NCAA Division III athletic departments. Sport Management Review, 6, 147-168. doi:10.1016/S1441-3523(03)70057-6

Fomelli, T. (2014, April 26). Big Ten schools projected to make $45 million with new TV deal. CBS Sports. Retrieved from www.cbssports.com

IJ S C V o l.9 , No. 3, 2016

Division III Athletic Attendance 3 3 9

Gibbs, C., & Willis, L. (2014, September 4). Prizes awarded for sports event attendance. Tropolitan. Retrieved from http://tropnews.com/4124

Hines, K. (2015). Your guide to surviving this year’s Izzone campout. Retrieved from http:// statenews.com/article/2015/10/izzone-campout-guide

Krohn, F.B.. Clarke, M., & Preston, E. (1998). Psychological and sociological influences on attendance at small college sporting events. College Student Journal, 32(2), 277-288.

McGuire, W.J. (2001). Input and output variables currently promising for constructing per­ suasive communications. In R.E. Rice & C.K. Atkin (Eds.), Public communication cam­ paigns (3rded., pp. 22^18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, doi: 10.4135/9781452233260.n2

Michigan State University. (2013). Izzone participation agreement, 2013-2014. Retrieved from http://www.futurealumni.msu.edu/programs/2013-14%20Izzone%20Agreement. pdf

NCAA. (2014c). About NCAA D ivision II. Retrieved from http://w w w .ncaa.org/ about?division=d2

NCAA. (2014d). NCAA Division I. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/about?division=dl NCAA. (2014a). NCAA Division III: About us. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/

about?division=d3 NCAA. (2014b). NCAA Division III facts and figures. Retrieved from https://www.ncaa.

org/sites/default/files/2015-16%20DIII%20Facts%20and%20Figures%20with%20 B udget%20Facts. pdf

New, J. (2014). Empty seats now, fewer donors later? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://w w w .insidehighered.eom /new s/2014/09/l 1/colleges-w orry-about-future- football-fans-student-attendance-declines

Robinson, C. (2010). Marketing intercollegiate athletics at the NCAA Division III level. Journal o f Sport Administration & Supervision, 2, 67-69.

Sander, L. (2008). Athletics raises a college from the ground up. Chronicle o f Higher Edu­ cation, 55(4), A 1—A 19.

Schurr, K.T., Wittig, A.F., Ruble, V.E., & Ellen, A.S. (1988). Demographic and personality characteristics associated with persistent, occasional, and non-attendance of university male basketball games by college students. Journal o f Sport Behavior, 11, 3-17.

Swanson, S.R., Gwinner, K., Larson, B.V., & Janda, S. (2003). Motivations of college student game attendance and word-of-mouth behavior: The i mpact of gender differences. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 151-162.

University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. (2014). NCAA Division III athletics: University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh: Office of Internal Audit. Retrieved from http://www.uwosh.edu/ osa/official-documents/uw-oshkosh-ncaa-report-final.pdf

Wakefield, K.L., & Sloan, H.J. (1995). The effects of team loyalty and selected stadium fac­ tors on spectator attendance. Journal o f Sport Management, 9, 153-172. doi: 10.1123/ jsm .9.2.153

Wells, D.E., Southall, R.M.. & Peng, H.H. (2000). An analysis of factors related to attend­ ance at Division II football games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9, 203-210.

I J S C V o l .9 , N o . 3, 2016

Copyright of International Journal of Sport Communication is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.