Running head: RETAINING OUR STUDENT ATHLETES

Retaining Our Student-Athletes: A Literature Review

Casey B. Hendricks
Loyola University Chicago

RETAINING OUR STUDENT ATHLETES

Retaining Our Student-Athletes

The retention of college students is a crucial area of concern among higher education
administrators and researchers today. Universities have departments dedicated entirely to
studying and implementing strategies dedicated to the retention of students, a field known as
Strategic Enrollment Management (SEM). Various retention efforts devoted to student
subgroups have emerged as a result of the diverse student populations on college campuses.
Studying the retention of specific student populations is important because the variables that
influence decisions to enroll and withdrawal from school are different (Comeaux & Harrison,
2011; Le Crom, Warren, Clark, Marolla, & Gerber, 2009; Weiss & Robinson, 2013). Traditional
retention efforts may not be as effective when applied to certain student groups such as studentathletes. Student-athletes comprise a unique student group on college campuses. The purpose of
this review is to examine the existing literature on the retention of college student-athletes.
Researchers have marveled at the unique circumstances encountered by student-athletes.
They have identified issues related to their social and academic development, recruitment, and
academic success but there are limited studies related to retention. Various studies exist on the
subgroups found among student-athletes which include: revenue v. non-revenue sports, athletic
ability and scholarship v. non-scholarship (Comeaux & Harrison, 2011). One of the first studies
that investigated the retention of student-athletes in 1985 concluded the structure of universities
with big-time athletic programs undermined the attainment of the student-athletes professional
goals within the educational system (Adler & Adler, 1985). A big-time athletic program is a
phrase used to describe revenue-generating sports at undergraduate Division I institutions that
are governed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The NCAA implements
rules and policies surrounding intercollegiate athletics for everything from recruiting to

RETAINING OUR STUDENT ATHLETES

compliance in academics and championships (National Collegiate Athletic Association, About

us, n.d.).
Some research studies on retention-related issues have found differences among female
athletes and their non-athlete peers and also their male counterparts (Comeaux & Harrison, 2011;
Eitzen, 2009). Race and gender are also important factors for student-athletes retention as they
are for all students (Gaston-Gayles & Baker, 2015). There have also been a number of studies
specifically documenting the impact of participation in intercollegiate athletics on black college
students (Comeaux & Harrison, 2011; Stone, Harrison, & Mottley, 2012). Although the NCAA
has been proactive in establishing minimum requirements for participation in intercollegiate
sports and monitors student-athletes academic success rates there is little known about the
relationship between the NCAA and the retention of student-athletes as the two are undeniably
interconnected. This review revealed significance in various criteria related to a student-athletes
retention that can be categorized as institutional attributes, sport attributes, and student-athlete
attributes.
Analysis & Discussion
Institutional Attributes
There are inherent differences between NCAA Division I, II, & III schools. One of the
most significant differences is observed in the size of the institution. A school must offer a
minimum number of sports for men and women to qualify as a Division I school; single-sex
institutions are not eligible for Division I membership. Participation levels also vary greatly
among the three divisions. Among Division I institutions the average percentage of the student
body participating in intercollegiate sports is 6 %, 14% among Division II, and 21% among
Division III (NCAA, Our three divisions). A study involving a sample of eight schools within a

RETAINING OUR STUDENT ATHLETES

Division I conference investigated the effects of scholarship, gender, and sport-type on studentathlete retention. Results revealed the majority of student-athletes who were not retained from
one year to another were males competing in team sports (Le Crom, et al., 2009). Division II
student-athletes reasons for leaving school resembled those of their non-athlete peers such as for
personal or family reasons (Weiss & Robinson, 2013). This evidence suggests retention issues
for student-athletes at Division I schools are unique compared to their peers in Divisions II & III.
One of the most recent published studies on the retention of student-athletes revealed
significance in the distance an institution is from a student-athletes home. The farther a
student-athletes college is from his or her home the less-likely he or she is to be retained from
the first to second year of school (Johnson, Wessel, & Pierce, 2013). The distance of ones
college is known to be a significant factor in retention for all students but this may be a more
determinate factor for the student-athlete population when considering the recruiting process for
athletes. For some athletes college attendance is dependent upon scholarship offers. The school
with the most valuable offer may win out regardless of geographic location (Johnson, Wessel, &
Pierce, 2013). In addition to its geographic location the campus community within an institution
can also affect retention rates.
The administration staff, faculty, and student body are the primary members who shape a
campus community. Social integration with the campus community is known to positively
influence persistence (Hossler & Bontrager, 2015). Student-athletes integration with their
campus community has been the focus of much research. Athletes at smaller schools reported
higher levels of satisfaction with integration among the rest of the student-body (Bowen &
Levin, 2003). This data aligns with the percentage of student-athletes represented at Division II
and III institutions as these schools tend to be smaller and athletes are less likely to be isolated

RETAINING OUR STUDENT ATHLETES

from the rest of the student population. However, in a 2015 NCAA survey student-athletes of
color reported that some campus and team environments were not inclusive and unaccepting
(NCAA, 2016). Comeaux & Harrison (2011) revealed similar data on Division I black studentathletes low frequency of involvement with the campus community due to hostile racial
climates. This evidence suggests minority student-athletes are less-likely to feel sociallyintegrated on campus. More research is needed to discern the differences between institutional
type and student-athletes integration with the campus community.
Researchers have examined faculty interactions with student-athletes extensively (Adler
& Adler, 1985; Comeaux & Harrison, 2007; Comeaux, 2011; Comeaux & Harrison, 2011).
Faculty-student interactions are not significant factors for the retention of student-athletes at
smaller schools which are more likely to be Division II or III institutions (Weiss & Robinson,
2013). On the contrary, interactions with faculty were a contributing factor in retention among
student-athletes at Division I schools (Weiss & Robinson, 2013). Faculty-interactions have
positive impacts on the academic success of white student-athletes but not with black studentathletes (Comeaux & Harrison, 2007). These results from a study of student-athletes at a
predominately white institution could be explained by the marginalization black student-athletes
report experiencing on campus. At the same time feelings of marginalization and isolation are
common for all student-athletes due to the athletic subculture observed on college campuses.
Sport Attributes
Despite widespread acknowledgement of the NCAAs commercialization of college
sports and its efforts to minimize the negative effects on a student-athletes education, the
domination of athletics remains at the forefront for student-athletes. Researchers often reference
student-athlete subcultures existing on college campuses (Adler & Adler, 1985; Bowen & Levin,

RETAINING OUR STUDENT ATHLETES

2003; Comeaux & Harrison, 2011; Gaston-Gayles & Baker, 2015). The athletic subculture
comprises an athletes collegiate experiences. This subculture is naturally created as a result of
the amount of time dedicated to sports and the interactions student-athletes have with each other.
Preliminary results from the NCAA Goals Study of the Student-Athlete Experience (2016)
revealed athletes are devoting more time to their athletic pursuits than was reported in 2010.
Student-athletes spend up to 40 hours or more per week on sport-related activities (Comeaux &
Harrison, 2011; Jolly, 2008). This is astounding but it is a small improvement from the 50 hours
per week that was reported in 1985 (Adler & Adler, 1985). When a student-athletes time is
consumed by sport-related activities such as practices, work-outs, and studying playbooks there
is little time for extra educational activities outside of athletics. The amount of time an
individual can devote to academics may determine their academic success and indirectly impact
their persistence from year to year.
The athlete subculture exists among teams whether they compete together or as
individuals. Student-athletes participating on team sports account for lower retention rates
compared to individual sports (Weiss & Robinson, 2013). It has been proven that studentathletes in revenue-generating sports have lower scores in nearly every academic measure used
to evaluate them (Johnson, Wessel, & Pierce, 2013). Ironically, at the same time, team-related
factors such as relationships with teammates and coaches are related to positive retention rates.
This could be explained depending on whether a team is having a winning season or not but this
has not been documented.
Playing time could also explain the differences in retention rates between team and
individual sports. Playing time is significantly correlated with retention and a predictor of
retention for student-athletes (Johnson, Wessel, & Pierce, 2013). Individual sports such as

RETAINING OUR STUDENT ATHLETES

swimming or tennis ensure playing time given the nature of the sport. Playing time is not
guaranteed for players on team sports like football or basketball. Female student-athletes exhibit
higher retention rates than their male counterparts (Le Crom, et al., 2009). There may be a
relationship between the higher retention rates for females and that the most at-risk studentathletes are those playing revenue-generating football and basketball (Johnson, Wessel, & Pierce,
2013). Basketball is also a female sport but participation does not include the same heightened
media attention and demands attributed to NCAA mens basketball (Eitzen, 2009).
The status of football and basketball players has been documented as celebrity-like due in
part to the visibility, commercialization, and heightened media attention of the NCAA. Adler &
Adler (1985) described this celebrity-like status exhibited by student-athletes contributed to the
athletic pressures and distracted attention from academics. Comeaux & Harrison (2011)
discovered student-athletes have little time for academic pursuits and other educationally
beneficial activities beyond attending required classes. The time constraints of participating in
intercollegiate sports present obstacles to student-athletes fulfilling their academic goals and are
warranted attention in future retention research.
Student-Athlete Attributes
The commercialization of college sports is limited to Division I football and basketball.
Black males account for only 12% of all Division I student-athletes but represent 55% of players
in Division I basketball and 47% of Division I football players. The percentage of black studentathletes represented in the total Division I student-athlete population is significant and deserves
special attention. Researchers have consistently shown the graduation gap between white
students and students of color in higher education. In 2004 61.5 % of white students graduated
compared to 39.5% of black students (Hossler & Bontrager, 2015). A recent study on student-

RETAINING OUR STUDENT ATHLETES

athlete retention found race to be the most important demographic variable and significantly
contributes to predicting retention from the first to second year (Johnson, Wessel, & Pierce,
2013). Black student-athletes have a greater risk of not being retained for various reasons.
Student-athletes often hold unrealistic expectations of playing sports professionally yet a
very small percentage go on to play in professional leagues (Eitzen, 2009, Le Crom, et al., 2009;
NCAA, Probability). According to NCAA researchers only 6.5% out of one million high school
football players will play in college and only 1.6% will be drafted by the NFL (NCAA, 2014).
Black males are twice as likely as white males to believe they can earn a living playing
professional sports (Eitzen, 2009). A commonly held belief among the African American
community is that the only way out of poverty is through professional sports and an emphasis is
placed on athletic success (Eitzen, 2009). Student-athletes expectations for his or her education
can be a significant factor related to their persistence in college.
Another notable finding in the differences between male and female student-athletes may
be attributed to the fact that there are more opportunities for a lucrative career playing
professional sports (e.g., NBA, NFL) for males than females. Female athletes are known to be
retained at higher rates than their male peers (Eitzen, 2009). One explanation is in the observed
differences between expectations of male and female student-athletes. These high expectations
could also lead to a weakened commitment to academics.
Student-athletes often struggle in balancing their dual roles within academic and athletic
realms. Balancing the two identities makes managing academics difficult and can lead to
burnout making student-athletes inherently at risk for college departure (Johnson, Wessel, &
Pierce, 2013; Jolly, 2008; Weiss & Robinson, 2013). How strongly a student-athlete identifies
with one role over the other can affect his or her level of commitment to academics and athletics.

RETAINING OUR STUDENT ATHLETES

A student-athlete with a high sport commitment is assumed to have lower priorities for
academics which can diminish institutional commitment (Comeaux & Harrison, 2011). A
student-athlete with a low institutional commitment is at risk for persisting from year to year
(Comeaux & Harrison, 2011). Differences have been noted between males and females
depending on their institutional and academic commitments. Le Crom et al. (2009) found male
student-athletes departed more for academic reasons such as poor grades when women left
college for more complex and personal reasons. If black-student male athletes are motivated
more so by their commitment to the sport and have higher expectations for playing sports
professionally they are a high-risk student group and should be the focus of retention research.
A difference in retention rates among student-athletes who play individual versus team
sports was previously discussed yet another factor that may allude to that difference is seen in
scholarship awards. Researchers compared differences in scholarship amounts and the effect on
student-athletes retention rates by comparing those playing individual or team sports. As
scholarship award amounts decrease so do the retention rates for individuals participating in
team sports (Le Crom, et al., 2009). The same study also discovered that within team sports the
student-athletes who persisted from year to year, compared to their teammates who did not, had
higher amounts in scholarship awards. Researchers investigating intrinsic motivation and
relationships with student-athletes scholarship status found that partial scholarship funding is
related to higher levels of intrinsic motivation (Amorose & Horn, 2000). An athlete with
intrinsic motivation plays sports for internal reasons such as playing for fun or pleasure
(Amorose & Horn, 2009). A player who is externally motivated is playing primarily for social
status or material awards (Amorose & Horn, 2009). This could help explain why retention rates
are higher among individual sports. Student-athletes playing individual sports receive more

RETAINING OUR STUDENT ATHLETES

10

partial scholarships in comparison to athletes playing team sports (Le Crom, et al., 2009).
However, in a comprehensive study of student-athletes at eight Division I institutions revealed
only 13% of the sample population were recipients of 100% scholarship funding (Le Crom, et
al., 2009). Further investigation into the relationship of scholarships and retention is needed.
Conclusion
Various criteria related to student-athlete retention have been identified in this review but
considering the power conferred by institutions to the NCAA it is necessary to include the
organizations efforts related to retaining student-athletes. Amid widening concern for studentathletes academic success the NCAA revamped its commitment to the well-being and success of
college athletes when it introduced the Academic Progress Rate (APR) in 2002 (LaForge &
Hodge, 2011). APR was a comprehensive effort focused on changing the institutional academic
support and guidance for student-athletes, strengthening academic success and improving
academic progress, retention, and graduation (LaForge & Hodge, 2011). One of the limitations of
APR is that it only considers student-athletes receiving scholarships which may provide
inconclusive data for researchers studying the affect scholarships have on retention rates. Many
schools also provide services dedicated entirely to supporting student-athletes on campus. These
services include academic advising, designated residential facilities, and mental health support
programs all of which are known indicators used to measure retention criteria (Hossler &
Bontrager, 2015). Even though services exist to promote the academic success of studentathletes, which is unequivocally related to retention, there are few programs designed solely to
retaining athletes. Who is ultimately responsible for ensuring the success of a student-athlete?
The NCAA and the institution both have responsibilities but do they complement one another or

RETAINING OUR STUDENT ATHLETES

11

do they conflict in their missions? The purpose of this review was to identify specific factors
that contribute to or hinder a student-athletes retention in college.
The current literature on student-athletes retention in college can be categorized as
institutional, sport, and student-athlete specific attributes. Institutional attributes include
geographic location, size, and engagement with the campus community. Sport attributes related
to retention include team sports versus individual and most importantly the athletic culture that
permeates intercollegiate sports. Finally, some noteworthy student-athlete related attributes are
gender, race, and scholarship status. All of these attributes are interconnected which may explain
why isolating particular retention-related issues for student-athletes is difficult. One aspect that
was not within the scope of this review is the recruitment of student-athletes but deserves some
attention.
It is difficult to examine retention rates without considering recruiting processes and how
student-athletes are admitted to institutions. Athletes are known to receive admissions
advantages and are admitted to school with significantly lower academic credentials compared to
the rest of the incoming student body (Bowen & Levin, 2003; Eitzen, 2009). The biggest
differences have been documented in Division I schools when examining SAT scores of studentathletes compared to general student body (Weiss & Robinson, 2013). This fact further
highlights the retention risks for high-profile, revenue-generating sports like Division I football
and basketball. If our student-athletes are being admitted underprepared it is not surprising that
mens Division I football and basketball players perform less-well academically than other
athletes in college (as cited in Comeaux & Harrison, 2011).
College sports have evolved into a commercialized industry as a result of extreme media
attention, pressures to secure winning seasons and corporate sponsorship (Comeaux & Harrison,

RETAINING OUR STUDENT ATHLETES

12

2011). The most concerning data for student-athletes at risk of college departure surrounds highprofile sports. It is evident Division I football and basketball programs should be the focus of
future retention research. There is a scarcity of resources at many NCAA institutions except for
those schools with big-time, revenue-generating programs (Jolly, 2008; Weiss & Robinson,
2013) which is why retention efforts for Division I athletes should be and can be further
investigated given the resources these schools have to allocate towards their student-athletes
success. A theoretical model devoted exclusively to Division I student-athletes can lead to an
understanding of their processes of interaction within the college environment (Comeaux &
Harrison, 2011, p. 235). Research appears to support this conclusion yet many studies do not
target the big-time schools that are of the utmost concern. Would we find that NCAA
compliance requirements undermine the goals of higher education? Perhaps many sports fans
like myself, who cannot imagine Saturday afternoons without college football, are afraid of what
they may find if they were to dig a little deeper.

RETAINING OUR STUDENT ATHLETES

13

References
Adler, P., & Adler, P. A. (1985). From idealism to pragmatic detachment: The academic
performance of college athletes. Sociology of Education, 58(Oct.), 241-250.
Amorose, A. J., & Horn, T. S. (2000). Intrinsic motivation: Relationships with collegiate athletes
gender, scholarship status, and perceptions of their coaches behavior. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 22, 63-84.
Bowen, W. G., & Levin, S. A. (2003). Revisiting 'The Game of Life': Athletics at Elite Colleges.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(4), B12.
Comeaux, E. (2011). Examination of faculty attitudes toward division I college student-athletes.
College Student Affairs Journal, 30(1), 75-87.
Comeaux, E., & Harrison, C. K. (2007). Faculty and male student-athletes: Racial differences in
the environmental predictors of academic achievement. Race, Ethnicity, and Education,
10(2), 99-214. doi: 10.1080/13613320701330726
Comeaux, E., & Harrison, C. K. (2011). A conceptual model for academic success for studentathletes. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 235-245. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11415260
Gaston-Gayles, J., & Baker, A. (2015). Opportunities and challenges for first-year studentathletes transitioning from high school to college. In D. A. Stenta, & C. W. McFadden
(Eds.), New Directions for Student Leadership (no.147, pp. 43-51). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Hossler, D. & Bontrager, B. (2015). Handbook of strategic enrollment management. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

RETAINING OUR STUDENT ATHLETES

14

Johnson, J. E., Wessel, R. D., Pierce, D. A. (2013). Exploring the influence of select
demographic, academic, and athletic variables on the retention of student-athletes.
Journal of College Student Retention, 15(2), 135-155.
Jolly, C. J. (2008). Raising the question #9: Is the student-athlete population unique? And why
should we care? Communication Education, 57(1), 145-151. doi:
10.1080/03634520701613676
LaForge, L., & Hodge, J. (2011). NCAA academic performance metrics: Implications for
institutional policy and practice. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(2), 217-235.
Le Crom, C. L., Warren, B. J., Clark, H. T., Marolla, J., Gerber, P. (2009). Factors contributing to
student-athlete retention. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 14-24.
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved from
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/ncaa-101/what-ncaa
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2016). NCAA Goals study. Retrieved from
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/ncaa-goals-study
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (n.d.). Probability of competing in sports beyond high
school. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/probabilitycompeting-beyond-high-school?division=d1http%3A/ /web1.ncaa.org /rgdsearch/ exec/
sasearch
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (n.d.). Finances. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/
about/resources/finances
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2014). Football. Retrieved from
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/football

RETAINING OUR STUDENT ATHLETES

15

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (n.d.). Our three divisions. Retrieved from
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/ncaa-101/our-three-divisions
Stone, J., Harrison, C. K., & Mottley, J. V. (2012). "Dont call me a student-athlete": The effect of
identity priming on stereotype threat for academically engaged african american college
athletes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 99-106.
doi:10.1080/01973533.2012.655624
Weiss, S. M., & Robinson, T. L. (2013). An investigation of factors relating to retention of
student-athletes participating in NCAA Division II athletics. Interchange, 44, 83-104.
doi: 10.1007/s10780-013-9198-7