Submitted to: UNH Athletic Advisory Committee
Subcommittee Report on
Duplication of Services
UNH Athletic Departments
February 22, 1996
Committee Members:
Tom Fairchild, Professor of Nutritional Science
Michael Merenda (Chair), Professor of Strategic Management
Amanda Woods, Student Representative
Gib Chapman, Advisory, Director of Men's Athletics
Judy Ray, Advisory, Director of Women's Athletics
Charge to Duplication of Services Sub-committee:
Evaluate the services provided to athletic teams and make
recommendations for enhancement and reduction. Identifying and reducing
duplication of services in both athletic department.
A questionnaire was constructed and used to collect information from
athletes, coaches, program support personnel, and administrators
(Appendix 1). In all, fifty individuals (respondents) provided
information to the committee. The subcommittee met with these
individuals during December and January to have them complete the
questionnaire and participate in a round table discussion on
duplication of services and program enhancement. The committee sought
answers to the following questions:
1. How would you rate program management effectiveness and efficiency
under the current separate administrative support program structure
(two athletic directors) for men's and women's athletics?
2. How would you rate specific services provided to athletes under
the existing structure?
3. Could a major change in current administrative structure improve
the services provided to the athletic teams? If yes, what program
option would you recommend?
The recommendations made in this report are primarily based on the
questionnaire data and round table discussions. The subcommittee is
very appreciative to the individuals who participated in this project
and thanks them for their time, dedication and commitment to
intercollegiate athletics.
FINDINGS
Two Athletic Director Administrative Structure
The respondents strongly believe that the current two intercollegiate
athletic director structure is ineffective and inefficient and should
be changed. Of the forty-five individuals responding to the question:
could a major change in the structure improve the services provided to
the athletic teams? thirty (66%) of the respondents said yes; three
(7%) no; and twelve (12%) unsure or did not respond. Four of the seven
male athletes responded yes and three were unsure. Female athletes
were the most divided on this question: three yes; three no; and 4
unsure. Two of the seven female coaches were unsure, while five
responded yes. The six male coaches were unanimous in their support of
a major change to the current structure. Eight of the eleven support
service personnel supported a major change to the existing structure.
The remaining three support staff were unsure.
Program Management Effectiveness and Efficiency
Respondents were asked to rate the quality of program management from 1
(not effective) to 5 (extremely effective) for fifteen quality service
or program delivery factors under the two athletic director structure.
Ratings were largely consistent across respondent groups. The average
scores for the fifteen factors indicated that respondents felt that the
existing structure was only slightly to moderately effective. The
factor scores were (from lowest to highest in effectiveness):
1. meeting men's program mission (1.53);
2. meeting women's program mission (1.73);
3. waiting time for service (2.00);
4. meeting the overall mission of the intercollegiate athletics (2.09);
5. consistency in delivery (2.22);
6. timeliness when promised (2.29);
7. responsiveness (2.33);
8. adequacy completeness of services provided (2.42);
9. efficiency (2.46);
10. communications (2.49);
11. coordination (2.49);
12. accessibility/convenience to obtain (2.53);
13. recruitment of athletes (2.59).
14. accuracy (2.69); and
15. courtesy (3.07).
Furthermore, respondents were consistent in both their written and oral
responses regarding a lack of a clearly communicated mission statement
for Men's and Women's Athletic Programs.
Service Ratings
Respondents were asked to rate from 1 (poor) to 5 (exceptional) the
services provided for each of the fifteen departments or areas
operating under the two athletic director structure. Respondents were
asked to make their evaluations based on the adequacy of present
program administrative support given existing staffing and funding
levels under the current structure.
Eight departments or service areas were rated good to very good:
financial center (3.0); insurance (3.0); sports medicine (3.49);
equipment room (3.53); housekeeping (3.17); compliance (3.41); academic
support (3.71); and ticket office (3.0). While sports medicine, weight
room, and the equipment room received very favorable ratings, comments
from athletes and support personnel indicated inadequate funding and
staffing in these areas. Seven departments or service areas were rated
fair to good: sports information (2.20); promotion and marketing
(1.92); facility scheduling (2.24); grounds (2.63); weight room (2.4);
fundraising (1.93); and athletic program management (2.53). A
sixteenth area--Arena Management--was too new to evaluate. Concerns
were raised with the adequacy of the Promotions and Marketing
department's efforts, especially for Women's Athletics. It was also
reported that sports information lacks a clear mission and is often
confused with Promotion and Marketing.
Program Options
Three program options were provided to respondents for consideration:
Option A - Maintain current separate (two athletic directors) program
structure with minor changes.
Option B - Maintain current separate (two athletic directors) program
structure with major changes.
Option C - Centralize Men's and Women's programs under one
administrative support structure (one intercollegiate athletic
director) with service changes as needed.
Respondents were asked which option they would recommend from 1 (do not
recommend) to 5 (strongly recommend). Of the three program options,
Option C--Centralized Athletic Director Administrative Structure-- was
largely recommended with an average score of 3.95, followed by Option B
(2.3) and Option A (1.5). Female coaches were less supportive than men
coaches for Option C, but still preferred Option C (3.86) over Options
A (1.14) and Option B (3.0). Female athletes had a moderate preference
for Option B (2.90) compared to Options C (2.25) and Option A (2.56).
Support staff strongly supported Option C (4.4) over Option A (1.0) and
Option B (1.5). Male athletes strongly favored Option C (4.29) over
Option A (1.57) and Option B (2.43). Representative written and oral
responses to this question included (Appendix 2):
"One director with appropriate support staff will enhance the overall
morale within the department. This will improve the communication
process with support staff."
"I'm honestly not sure what advantages/disadvantages would be gained by
having one or two athletic directors, but major changes must be made."
"The schools which I deal with have one centralized athletic director.
Roles for support staff are more clearly defined and it eliminates the
competition between men and women for services."
"The Athletic Department needs to have one administrator who can
provide equal leadership to both the men's and women's departments.
Currently the structure has perpetuated animosity within the men and
women's departments."
"We need someone to oversee both programs and break the tie."
"I feel that if two programs were combined, women's athletics would be
completely overshadowed."
"If you combine the departments there would be much more communication
between administrators, coaches and athletes of male and female sports.
I feel if they are combined they will help to improve all of the
athletic programs at this school"
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on analysis of written and oral responses it is recommended that:
Men and women's intercollegiate athletics be consolidated under one
athletic director and at least one senior associate athletic director
reporting to the director. The director, in consultation with the
senior associate director, would be charged with making recommendations
to the president regarding the number and responsibilities of
assistant athletic directors.
The director of intercollegiate athletics report directly to the
president.
The director and senior associate director positions reflect a male and
female balance. This recommendation is based on input from respondents
and reflects current NCAA practices.
Departments or program service areas with separate men and women
reporting structures (e.g., Sports Information) be consolidated into
one department, reporting directly to the athletic director or senior
associate athletic director.
The Athletic Director and Senior Associate Athletic Director shall be
full-time administrators and be prohibited from holding coaching
positions.
The recent restructuring of the financial center reporting directly to
the director of intercollegiate athletics be continued.
Other Concerns and Recommendations
Concerns over the structure and responsibility for fundraising were
consistently brought to the committee's attention. Fundraising by
coaches and athletic administrators is becoming of critical importance
to the operating budgets for intercollegiate athletics. Coaches
strongly support appointment of a person as a liaison or full-time
fundraiser, reporting directly to intercollegiate athletics. The
committee shares these concerns and recognizes the importance of proper
administration and adherence to strict guidelines for intercollegiate
athletic fundraising. Given this, the committee recommends:
Appointment of a full-time fundraiser for Women's and Men's athletic
teams and this person report directly to the intercollegiate
athletic director or senior associate director. It was also brought to
the committee's attention that because of the importance of NCAA
compliance, the UNH compliance officer be staff within intercollegiate
athletics and this person report directly to the University's NCAA
faculty representative. The committee recognizes and shares these
concerns and recommends:
Appointment of a full-time compliance officer within the
Intercollegiate Athletic Department. This person will report directly
to the president or president's designate, with appropriate oversight
review of the compliance officer by the University's NCAA faculty
representative. Growth in intercollegiate athletic teams and all
recreational programs over the last decade has severely strained
delivery of program services and availability of athletic facilities.
The committee believes that a change to a centralized administrative
structure will help to establish a clear mission for intercollegiate
athletics at UNH and will provide greater attention to standard
operating procedures and practices. Specifically, the committee
recommends:
The director or senior associate athletic director shall have authority
for and control over scheduling of all intercollegiate athletic fields
and facilities specifically dedicated or shared with recreational
sports with standard operating procedures in place to handle scheduling
priorities and conflicts.
The director or senior associate athletic director, after careful
investigation, shall make recommendations to the president regarding
the structure, level of staffing, funding and delivery of services for
all departments, particularly sports marketing and promotion, weight
room, sports medicine, and the equipment room.