BAYLOR UNIVERSITY
Technology Has Changed Recruiting in College
Athletics
Jordan Cox
4/3/2011
Exploration of how various technological changes have altered college athletics through the foundational work of student-athlete recruitment through the theoretical lenses of motivations, diffusion of innovation, and contextual issues in adoption of innovation for both the institutions and the prospective student-athletes. Issues of regulation are a focus of this work.
1
INTRODUCTION
Technological changes have impacted how college athletics “is done” today. These shifts
range in scope and size. Each of the shifts and their relative adoptions markedly impact the
financial bottom line for institutions via their athletic department. The greatest impact these
technological changes have however, relate to a core foundational matter in collegiate athletics;
the recruitment of the student-athlete by coaches of these institutions. These transformations
have severely influenced the current direction and future path of college athletics.
SCOPE OF WORK
Using three theoretical lenses through which to examine how these technological changes
have impacted college athletic recruiting, this paper will also explore contextual factors involved
in how recruiting athletes has and may change in the future. One of these factors includes
regulatory considerations by institutions and prospects through legislative oversight of the
National Collegiate Athletic Association. The perspective lenses incorporate aspects of
motivation (Pink), diffusion of innovation (Rogers), and issues related to current and future
trends (Kozmetsky).
BACKGROUND
One popular web-based forum aptly points out that “Recruiting is the lifeblood of any
college athletic program. Coaching careers are made or broken, in large part, on the ability to
attract better talent than the competition. Its importance cannot be overstated.”
(UltimateSportsInsider.com, 2009) As it relates to technology advancement in recruiting some
logical questions arise. Have these rapid changes in technology altered college recruiting? Will
future changes continue to see modifications in recruiting methodologies? The short answer is
2
an unequivocal, yes. Further, how will legislation by the governing body of college athletics
foster or temper the uses of these technologies in recruiting?
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE/EVOLUTION OF RECRUITING
While recruiting is still ultimately relationally based through interactive communication
between coach and prospect, it has evolved as connective technologies linking people together
have developed. Both schools and prospects have reached new exposure opportunities. In
addition to institutions having a web-site for prospects to see, now prospects may have a web-site
for coaches to view or even a professional recruiting service that posts video, results, and other
data for coaches to notice. (Hawkins, 2011)
Historically, face-to-face visits between a coach and a prospective student-athlete in the
home of the young person were a traditionally a mainstay of the recruiting process. Prized
recruits would receive hundreds of correspondence the old-fashioned way with a handwritten
letter, an envelope, and stamp. Later, landline telephones allowed for even more efficient and
frequent communication between schools and their would-be athletes. While each of these
methods is still utilized by coaches, they play a much smaller part in the process, as seemingly
more effective means have emerged for both coaches and prospects. (Duarte, 2011) Newer
communication technologies such as personal computers, the Internet, email, social networking
(through popular means such as FaceBook or Twitter), and Skype, have all had major impact.
Today, each of these modes of communication is now available on an individual’s cell phone,
along with texting. Texting has been a volatile topic, particularly as it relates to collegiate
athletic recruiting over the past several years. The cell phone (now “smartphone,” because of the
computing capability) may be the very best exemplar to show just how much recruiting has
3
changed. Today’s smartphones are, in effect, miniature computers, complete with network data
connection, bluetooth, wifi, storage, cameras, microphones, speakers, and fast processors.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
The adoption and utilization of these emerging technologies is paramount in college
athletic recruiting. These, however, cannot be seen in their proper light without some basic
understanding of how they relate to the individuals using the technologies. This is especially true
of the personal motivations of the prospective student-athletes being recruited.
MOTIVATION
In his book, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us , author Daniel Pink
suggests there is Type I and Type X behavior. Type I behavior is a “way of thinking and an
approach to life built around intrinsic, rather than extrinsic, motivators. It is powered by our
innate need to direct or own lives…” (Pink, 2009) Type X behavior is characterized by more
extrinsic desires with more thoughts toward external rewards from an activity or one’s actions.
Comprehension of these facts is important for coaches recruiting athletes. This is evident by the
factors revealed by the motivations of why student-athletes may or may not choose a particular
school or university. Studies have revealed that prospective student-athletes make their
selections on attributes like, the amount of scholarship available, the caliber of athletic program
they were being asked to join, the location of the school, and the academic program. (Doyle and
Gaeth, 1990) Other investigations have shown key attributes important to recruits included, the
coaches commitment to the program and player-coach relations. (Cooper 1996) In a means-end
theory study linking attributes to consequences and personal values, it was discovered “in the
context of athletic recruiting decisions, a means-end chain might well link the attribute “excellent
athletic facilities” with the benefit “improve my skills and abilities” to the higher level benefit
4
“play at the next level” and then to the value “feel a sense of achievement”.” (Klenoksy and
Troutman, 2001) The linking of attributes, how one item leads to another, further accentuates
the need to understand the motivation dynamics of the recruit by the very coaches doing the
recruiting. Prospective student-athletes and those recruiting them are both keen on making sure
pertinent motivations of each side are a good fit for the other.
DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS
Technological advances have seen the emergence of numerous recruiting services
domestically and internationally. Most of these advances are designed to aid the student-athlete
and the school in the recruiting process. These services offer various levels of aid for various
prices. For example, a student-athlete’s profile can be stored in a database, along with digital
files of an athlete’s sport “highlights.” A personal interview is often included so prospective
schools can see and hear from a prospect before contact is actually made. This allows coaches to
observe and learn if motivations might be mutual. One “free” service claiming to be the “largest
and most successful network” connecting prospects and college coaches, even includes a counter
or scoreboard for each of the 18 sports connections it offers clients. The company, called
“beRecruited,” revealed statistics on a given day for the sport of Lacrosse. It showed that 28,326
athletes were registered, 1,133 coaches were registered and 208 connections had been made that
day through the service. (beRecruited.com) Similar services even show the number of views by
coaches so prospects will further recognize the value in the opportunity being provided.
Some students utilize these services because of these companies’ established recognition
and relative success in helping with student-athlete placements. Some students, however, decide
to make a more direct personal appeal using the newer methods. Tiffany Chan, a teenage golfer
from Hong Kong, who was initially contacted by dozens of American universities via email,
5
does not currently use a professional service to help filter her communication and contact with
schools, rather she has created a video of her golf swing and attaches the file to her email
responses to coaches who have not ever seen her play in person. Sunna Vidisdottir, a
prospective female golfer who lives in Iceland, simply posts her videos on “Youtube” and her
own website for interested coaches to view. (www.vidisdottir.weebly.com, 2011)
Charlie Kinnune, head football coach at Mount Si High School in Snoqualmie,
Washington recognizes how drastically altered the communication between universities and
prospective athletes has become over the past decade with respect to how they learn about and
contact each other. According to Kinnune, “Twenty, 15 years ago, I knew exactly who was
talking to my athletes. Now, I find out from the kid who’s talking to them.”
(collegerecruitinginsider.com, 2010)
Coaches at colleges and universities are quickly trying to keep pace with the impact of
new technologies. The use of digital media has most certainly eased the time and budget
constraints on the travel formerly necessary to see a prospect; however, the volume of prospects
through which coaches must filter has exponentially increased because of the ease at which
exposure is now available.
ATTRIBUTES OF INNOVATION ADOPTION
Clearly present in the methodological approaches used by prospects and coaches are two
key elements of Rogers’ theory of Diffusion of Innovation. According to Rogers, innovation
adoption is most influenced by the following factors-- relative advantage and observability.
(Rogers) (See Appendix A) Using available technologies, coaches and schools gain a relative
advantage in recruiting over institutions that do not use them. The same is true for prospects. A
prospect often gains a significant advantage over student-athletes who do not use newer
6
technologies to communicate to coaches and schools. This factor becomes very important in
vying for limited scholarship dollars in an extremely highly competitive marketplace. Both
school and recruit have the opportunity to be seen.
The emergence of Twitter in 2006 provides an excellent illustration of the importance of
these factors. “Twitter is a social networking and micro-blogging service that allows you answer
the question, "What are you doing?" by sending short text messages 140 characters in length,
called "tweets", to your friends, or "followers."” (Tweeternet.com, 2011) This social networking
experience is a more open method of communication in an ever-enlarging community.
University of Kentucky basketball coach John Calipari, admittedly technologically un-savvy,
stated he thought the idea was crazy, but now with 350,000 followers says, "I'll tell you why it
works," "It's the reason why USA Today worked. It's the reason why people want to see the
ticker on ESPN. [People] don't want large bites. Give me a small bite; make it fast, I'll see what it
is, I'll laugh and I'll move on to something else." (Watson, 2010) This high profile college
basketball coach does not even always send his own tweets. He appoints the university’s sports
information director to perform this duty.
First-year Toledo football coach, Tim Beckman sees Twitter as a way to connect with
recruits and to try to keep local and in-state players' minds on the Rockets. “…I know how
important the recruiting is and getting quality players into your program. We're not able to
communicate with them as much as we'd all like to be able to communicate, so you've got to find
ways to do it. And Twitter just happens to be a way that [Toledo] came to me about, so each day
I learn more and more about it. It's not that I know everything about it, but it's something I think
we need to explore." (Watson, 2010)
7
ADOPTION OF INNOVATION/CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
The availability and diffusion of cell phones in the marketplace and the computing power
integrated in cellar technology into so called “smartphones” is perhaps the best exemplar of how
the recruiting game has changed so drastically. Instant communication and connectivity via
numerous methods now exist in the phones of the coaches and prospects. Internet, email, text,
and face to face conversation through applications like Skype, or Apple’s Face Chat is instantly
available to users. With users in the most deeply penetrated mobile markets migrating toward
higher priced phones with more programming and application options, the trend is for new media
to become even more prominent in the recruiting of athletes. (Bilton, 2011)
George Kozmetsky’s theory of Creative and Innovative Management provides insights as
to how new media can change a marketplace. Kozmetsky identifies key “drivers” that focus on
the needs and problems in markets and how those are related to existing or even future
technological trends. These drivers can lead to creative solutions that involve issues that can
impact successful implementation and diffusion of these technologies, and, therefore, their
successful adoption. Economics is one issue, in particular, that will play a prominent role in how
innovation will impact college athletic recruiting in the future. (Kozmetsky) (See Appendix B)
Schools are continually searching for more frugal ways to do business without sacrificing
functionality; in fact, they want to enhance their relative advantage in the marketplace. Athletic
recruiting budgets are more purposefully spent on prospects with which they already have a
background and relationship because of technology and its applications. For example, there is a
significant cost savings over historical recruiting, where travel, meals, and lodging might be
required simply in “hopes” of finding a legitimate prospect at an event. Other issues include:
8
technological, (which is precisely on-point related to challenges in college recruiting at present),
legal/regulatory, socio-cultural, and even political. (Kozmetsky)
Use of social media in recruiting has made it more competitive among institutions
because of their availability. Social media has also pushed forward the timetable on a prospect’s
commitment to a school’s offering of scholarship opportunities. For example, in the past “a
football prospect could receive a written scholarship offer on Sept. 1 of his junior year, but that
rule has changed. The new rule, which went into effect Aug. 1, 2010 states a prospect cannot be
given a written offer until Aug. 1 of his senior season. The change was made to reduce the
pressure on juniors to make decisions before they have the opportunity to take official visits.”
(Chirinos and King, 2011) Official visits are limited to a total number of five for a prospective
student-athlete and no more than one visit at the same school. These cannot occur until the
student begins their senior year of high school. Under the new legislation, colleges are simply
extending verbal offers without any paper trail. Technological advances have created this
dilemma for both schools and prospects.
REGULATORY ISSUES
Another key issue for Kozmetsky is regulatory matters. (Kozmetsky) Regulation can
accelerate or temper the integration or use of these technologies and their emerging applications.
As it relates directly to college recruiting, regulation issues fall to the National College Athletic
Association (NCAA). A veteran senior level compliance director with experience dealing with
oversight at all levels of college athletics, Lori Ebihara, recognizes the difficulty in simply
keeping up with the times. “Technology has significantly impacted NCAA recruiting rules and
regulations,” she states. “Each year it gets more challenging to keep pace with technological
initiatives and the need to seek interpretive guidance from the NCAA on the use of computers
9
and the Internet in the recruiting process also increases.” (Ebihara, 2011) She says the greatest
difficulty is with social networking (e.g., Facebook) that blends email, text messaging, instant
messaging and videoconferencing because it will force the NCAA membership to develop a new
model for how recruiting is regulated. According to Ebihara, admittedly lost in the recruiting
process is the meaningful in-person recruiting contact made by the coach with a prospective
student-athlete. This formal type of contact has been replaced with nonverbal mediums,
including permissible (e.g., emails) and non-permissible (e.g., text messaging, social media)
NCAA regulatory methods. She adds, “Technology has also increased NCAA recruiting
monitoring expectations by compliance personnel. Given limited resources and budgets and
despite the prospect intrusion argument, the NCAA and its membership must seek feasible
solutions, including simply deregulating current legislation.” (Ebihara, 2011) (See Appendix C)
One glaring instance of this regulatory challenge, in an ever shifting sea of technological
change, relates to the issue of texting with prospective student-athletes. Formerly allowed as a
permissible form of communication between coaches and prospects, the NCAA banned texting
as a recruiting option in 2007. The legislative body’s reasoning for the ban included items like,
the volume of texts being received by some prospects, the intrusiveness to the prospects, the
expense and potential expense to the recruit, and coaches using texting to circumvent limits on
phone calls by instructing prospects to call them. (ESPN, 2007) This ban also included
prohibition of other electronic communications like video conferencing, video phones, and use of
message boards on social networking sites. This move was initiated because “Students
complained that coaches were inundating some recruits with dozens of text messages a day,
driving up cell-phone bills and intruding on personal time.” (Thomas, 2008) Coaches argue that
with text messaging there is an opportunity to get a feel for the type of young person with which
10
they may be dealing. As of May 1 2011, though, the complete ban on texting has yet to be lifted.
As of the same date, under existing NCAA regulations, phone calls under which allow video,
like Skype, are permissible. (NCAA)
NCAA POSITION
The NCAA’s position on social media and recruiting is currently one where “The
recruiting process must balance the interests of prospective student-athletes and the
Association’s member institutions. The NCAA recruiting bylaw is designed to promote equity
among member schools in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes and to shield the
recruited individuals from undue pressures that may interfere with their scholastic or athletics
interests.” (NCAA.org, 2011) It is interesting to note that, NCAA Division III has different rules
than other institutions because schools at the Division III level do not offer athletic scholarships,
but rather academic aid only. Regulations regarding use of social media by coaches at these
institutions allows for use of social networking sites to advertise their programs, but still prohibit
these means for person to person contact directly. (NCAA.org, 2011)
Writing rules for constantly changing technology has challenged the NCAA for years
according to University of Oklahoma’s Kenny Mossman, who has suggested that future
regulatory efforts should include people from the technical community. He suggests that,
“Otherwise we are going to be writing rules for technology that is a year old and almost
forgotten,” he said. “I hope that if and when that day comes, we will be wise enough to involve
the technology community to help us figure out the best way for us (to regulate it), if it’s even
possible to have regulation.” He believes there is grand error in letting the technology drive the
policies. This is an approach that consistently leads to a poor governance structure in his opinion.
(eyeonsportsmedia.com, 2009)
11
Critics of the NCAA’s regulatory posture on such issues are difficult to follow. One
university was compelled by the NCAA to take down a fan page for a player they were trying to
recruit because the recruit's name was in the title and subject matter, which is specifically
prohibited. Ironically, there is no rule stopping a “fan” from posting such information unless they
have been labeled as a “booster.” Adding further challenge and irony is the knowledge that
“There is also no way of stopping someone from a competing college or university from setting
up a fake page to get their rival in trouble.” (Byrne, 2009)
CONCLUSION
The disruptive technologies presently being adopted in the athletic community culture
have changed college athletic recruiting. Traditional recruiting methods used by coaches have
become antiquated or at least now have been modified to utilize current technology. These newer
modes of communication have also allowed for prospective student-athletes to engage more
actively in the recruiting process by more easily allowing them to market themselves. The new
communication avenues have changed generational expectations and, therefore, the approaches
to being recruited for college athletics. Today’s prospective young recruit wants to be able to
“choose” their methods of communication exactly how what they want, when they want, as they
want. In fact, these are the preferred methods of those doing the recruiting.
Evidence from this study suggests the following observations:
1. Motivation of a prospective-student athlete should be a foundational consideration for
a school recruiting that prospect.
2. Because of technological innovation diffusion, schools and prospects are now using
new technologies in the recruiting process to provide for mutual relative advantage
and observability in the college athletic marketplace.
12
3. Regulation plays a contextual factor in NCAA college athletics and a key role in the
advancement and temperament of how technology innovation adoption and usage
occurs in both schools and with prospects.
FUTURE RESEARCH
Further research is needed on a more comprehensive and empirical scale. The
ramifications of innovation adoption are enormous as more rapid diffusion of technology takes
place in culture and impacts interpersonal communication-- the cornerstone of recruiting in
college athletics. Bringing members of the “tech” community to the forefront in order to aid in
appropriate regulation would perhaps allow for a more “zero time” response to the technology
initially. Forecasting the future of how recruiting will be done in college athletics can only be
done through modeling the diffusion of various new innovations and their adoption patterns.
Each of these accepted models need to include contextual factors, such as economics and
regulatory issues, which are of great significance in the arena of college athletics and recruiting.
Accurate projection of trajectories of new technology advancement will be a correct and precise
way to gauge how future athletic recruiting by colleges might be conducted.
13
14
15
16
Appendix C
166
GLOSSARY
Creative and Innovative Management A framework of management science pioneered by George Kozmetsky. In Kozmetsky’s framework, creative management consists of new ideas, concepts, methods, directions, and new modes of operation. Innovative management consists of the ability to implement creative ideas and move successfully in new directions. Creative and Innovative Management focuses on the coupling or linking of creative management and innovative management.
Diffusion of Innovation A theory that seeks to explain how, why, and at what rate technology and new ideas spread through culture. The concept was first studies in the late 1800s, however the synthesized research of sociology professor Everett Rogers in 1962 produced a working theory for adoption of innovations among individuals and organizations.
FaceBook A social networking service and website launched in 2004 and privately owned and operated by FaceBook, Incorporated. In January of 2011 FaceBook reported 600 million active users.
Face Time Video calling application for users of appropriately equipped Apple electronic products.
N.C.A.A. National Collegiate Athletic Association. The legislative body comprised of member institutions to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner. Founded in 1906, the stated purpose of the NCAA is “integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education and protect the student-athlete.”
Prospective Student-Athlete Generic term for a student who has the possibility, expectation, chance, and/or hope to be recruited by an institution of higher learning to participate in collegiate athletics whether they should receive athletic scholarship aid or not. With earlier qualifications possible, the NCAA generally considers a young person to be a prospective student-athlete beginning in ninth grade.
Recruiting Services Commercial or non-profit entities that exist to aid prospective student-athletes and/or institutions of higher learning to create mutually beneficial relationships leading to the prospective student-athletes to find opportunities for scholarships or placements on college sports teams.
Skype A software application that allows users to make calls, including video calls, over the internet at no additional charge to the users internet service. This includes internet capable cell phones.
17
SmartPhone A mobile phone that offers more advanced computing ability and connectivity than a contemporary feature phone. Often considered to be a handheld computer with an integrated mobile telephone.
Social Media Internet based applications that provide highly accessible and scalable communication techniques for users.
Twitter A social networking and microblogging service. Users send short text messages of 140 characters or less, called "tweets", to friends, or "followers," answering the question, "What are you doing?"
Type I behavior Actions defined by author Daniel Pink as ones more intrinsically motivated than extrinsically motivated. Type I, according to Pink, is a person’s “default setting,” the way they naturally are.
Type X behavior Actions defined by author Daniel Pink as ones that are motivated primarily by external rewards.
YouTube A video sharing website launched in 2006 as an Limited Liability Corporation where users may upload and share video content. In 2011, Youtube operates as a subsidiary of Google, a company whose stated mission is “to organize the world’s information and make it more universally accessible and useful.”
Sources: The Economic Transformation of the United States 1950-2000, by Kozmetsly and Yue, 2005, chapter 9; Diffusion of Innovations, by Evertt Rogers, 1995; FaceBook.com; Apple.com/iphone; NCAA.org; Skype.com; Twitter.com, Drive, by Daniel Pink; YouTube.com
18
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Athletic recruiting: Have we reached the lowest common denominator? ~ Ultimate Sports Insider.
(n.d.). . Retrieved March 3, 2011, from http://www.ultimatesportsinsider.com/2009/07/athletic-
recruiting-have-we-reached.html
Beinbrink, A. (n.d.). SportsForce - College Sports Recruiting Videos, Tips, Tools and Premium
Services. Retrieved March 3, 2011, from
http://www.sportsforceonline.com/blogs/author/andrew-beinbrink/
Bennett, B. (n.d.). Online social networks change recruiting landscape for high school athletes -
ESPN. Retrieved March 3, 2011, from http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/columns/story?
columnist=bennett_brian&id=4311480
beRecruited.com: Free College Recruiting Service and NCAA Athletic Scholarships Network. (n.d.). .
Retrieved April 2, 2011, from http://www.berecruited.com/
Big changes on the horizon for NCAA recruiting? (n.d.). . Retrieved March 3, 2011, from
http://www.collegerecruitinginsider.com/ncaa/2010/08/big-changes-on-the-horizon-for-ncaa-
recruiting/
Bigbie, C. (n.d.). Athletic Recruiting Technology Moving Beyond Just Keeping Track of Prospects | |
Dan Tudor. Retrieved March 3, 2011, from http://dantudor.com/athletic-recruiting-technology-
moving-beyond-just-keeping-track-of-prospects/
Bilton, N. (n.d.). Mobile App Revenue to Reach $38 Billion by 2015, Report Predicts. Mobile App
Revenue to Reach $38 Billion by 2015, Report Predicts. Retrieved from
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/mobile-app-revenue-to-reach-38-billion-by-2015-
report-predicts/?scp=1&sq=mobile%20ad%20revenue&st=cse
19
Byrne, C. (n.d.). Eye On Sports Media: NCAA Social Media Rules for Recruitment Defy Logic,
Common Sense. Retrieved March 3, 2011, from
http://www.eyeonsportsmedia.com/2009/06/ncaa-social-media-rules-for-require.html
Chirinos, C., & King, C. (n.d.). Social media, new rules change recruiting game - Sports -
TheState.com. Social media, new rules change recruiting game. Retrieved April 3, 2011, from
http://www.thestate.com/2011/01/31/1672237/social-media-new-rules-change.html
Coaches and colleges explore new frontier of social networking - ESPN. (n.d.). . Retrieved March 3,
2011, from http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=4308218
College Sports Recruiting Services – Should You Use Them? | Elite Xposure. (n.d.). . Retrieved April
4, 2011, from http://elitexposureinc.com/blog/college-sports-recruiting-services-should-you-use-
them/
Coulter, J. (n.d.). Technology Fuels Newton Allegations - Track Em Tigers. Retrieved March 3, 2011,
from http://www.trackemtigers.com/2010/11/12/1809597/technology-fuels-newton-allegations
Dohrmann, G. (2009). You’ve Got (Too Much) Mail. Sports Illustrated, 111(4), 56-61.
Duarte, J. (n.d.). Technology changes recruiting game - San Antonio Express-News. Retrieved March
3, 2011, from http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Technology-changes-recruiting-
game-985628.php
Everson, D. (2011). In College Football Recruiting, The Star Player Is the Fax Machine. Wall Street
Journal - Eastern Edition, 257(26), A1-A14.
Facebook pages could be NCAA recruiting violation :: WRAL.com. (n.d.). . Retrieved March 3, 2011,
from http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4945435/
Feinstein, J. (2010). Conference musical chairs leaves no spot for tradition. Sporting News, 234(15),
76.
20
Fera, B. (n.d.). College athletic recruits, coaches learning about the pitfalls of social media - Science
& Technology in Arizona. Retrieved March 3, 2011, from
http://www.technewsarizona.com/Article.aspx?d=20090309&t=2105
Fielitz, L. R., & Mohsen, B. (2000). Using the Internet for Athletic Recruiting. JOPERD: The Journal
of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 71(2), 13.
Finley, P. (2006). Building the “Recruit-Friendly” Cross-Country Web Site. Coach & Athletic
Director, 75(10), 76-77.
Goral, T. (2004). At All COSTS. University Business, 7(5), 40-51.
Grayner, R. (2009, July 22). High School Athletes: Perfect Fit U. might have a scholarship for you.
The Showcase. Retrieved March 3, 2011, from http://student-athleteshowcase.blogspot.com/
Hanson, T. L., Drumheller, K., Mallard, J., McKee, C., & Schlegel, P. (2011). Cell Phones, Text
Messaging, and Facebook: Competing Time Demands of Today’s College Students. College
Teaching, 59(1), 23-30. doi:10.1080/87567555.2010.489078
Hoch, D. (2006). Help with the Recruiting Process. Coach & Athletic Director, 76(5), 14-15.
Horrow, R., & Swatek, K. (2010). BCS: Buckets of Cash Series. BusinessWeek.com, 18.
How the football recruiting process has changed over the last 25 years | Recruiting 101. (n.d.). .
Retrieved March 3, 2011, from http://recruiting-101.com/how-the-football-recruiting-process-
has-changed-over-the-last-25-years/
How to be… a new recruit. (2007). Golf Magazine, 49(10), 100-101.
Kiser, C. (n.d.). Facebook, College Sports, and Recruiting: Be Careful What You Post | College
Recruiting Blog - Athletic Scholarships Blog | NCSA. Retrieved March 3, 2011a, from
http://www.ncsasports.org/blog/2011/02/01/facebook-and-college-sports-recruiting-be-careful-
what-you-post/
21
Kiser, C. (n.d.). College Sports Recruiting, Social Media Privacy | College Recruiting Blog - Athletic
Scholarships Blog | NCSA. Retrieved March 3, 2011b, from
http://www.ncsasports.org/blog/2011/01/27/college-sports-recruiting-social-media-privacy/
Klenosky, D. B., & Troutman, J. A. (2001). Recruiting Student Athletes: A Means-End Investigation
of School-Choice Decision Making. Journal of Sport Management, 15(2), 95.
Krause, C. (2007). RECRUITING 2.0. Coach & Athletic Director, 77(1), 38-42.
Maher, M. (2007). You’ve Got Messages: Modern Technology Recruiting Through Text-Messaging
and the Intrusiveness of Facebook. Texas Review of Entertainment & Sports Law, 8(1), 125-151.
Murphy, A. (2006). Generation Text. Sports Illustrated, 104(6), 29.
O’Neil, D. (n.d.). Social networking exposes gray areas in college recruiting - ESPN. Retrieved
March 3, 2011, from http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/columns/story?
columnist=oneil_dana&id=4309373
Peluchette, J., & Karl, K. (2009). Examining Students’ Intended Image on Facebook: “What Were
They Thinking?!”. Journal of Education for Business, 85(1), 30-37.
doi:10.1080/08832320903217606
Pennington, B. (2010, May 22). Search for Athletes Continues to Change. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/sports/23recruit.html
Roberts, D. (2011). MONEY BOWL. Fortune, 163(1), 14.
Sander, L. (2008a). For College Athletes, Recruiting Is a Fair (but Flawed) Game. (Cover story).
Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(17), A1-A17.
Sander, L. (2008b). New Web-Monitoring Service Worries Some Legal Experts. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 54(20), A21.
Smith, W. (2001). The Selling of Albert Means. U.S. News & World Report, 131(9), 24.
22
Social media and recruiting - NCAA.org. (n.d.). . Retrieved April 3, 2011a, from
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Issues/Recruiting/
Social+Media+and+Recruiting
Social media and recruiting - NCAA.org. (n.d.). . Retrieved March 3, 2011b, from
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Issues/Recruiting/
Social+Media+and+Recruiting
Soden, J. M. (n.d.). Questions for a Recruiting Coach | eHow.com. Retrieved March 3, 2011, from
http://www.ehow.com/list_7372330_questions-recruiting-coach.html
Sports and Athletic Recruiting Software is our expertise: Front Rush. (n.d.). . Retrieved March 3,
2011, from http://www.frontrush.com/web/about-us/index.html
Stinson, C. (n.d.). The Computerization of NCAA Women’s Volleyball. Retrieved March 3, 2011,
from http://courses.cs.vt.edu/cs3604/lib/Impact/Assignments/Volleyball.html
Student warned over Facebook site wooing prospect - ESPN. (n.d.). . Retrieved March 3, 2011, from
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=4060673
Suggs, W. (2001). As More Coaches Recruit Foreign Talent, All-Americans Aren’t Always
American. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(30), A50.
Sunna Vidisdottir - Home. (n.d.). . Retrieved April 3, 2011, from http://vidisdottir.weebly.com/
Tepper, S. (n.d.). The price of talent | The Eyeopener. Retrieved March 3, 2011, from
http://theeyeopener.com/2011/03/the-price-of-talent/
Text-messaging ban to be implemented Aug. 1 - College Sports - ESPN. (n.d.). . Retrieved April 3,
2011, from http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2850555
THAMEL, P. (2009). Who’s That on the Court? For $295, We'll Tell You. New York Times, 1.
23
THOMAS, K. (2010). Watchdog Proposes Dividing N.C.A.A. Money Based on Academics. New
York Times, 14.
Top Three Ways Recruiting is Changing : Colorado Avalanche Cares. (n.d.). . Retrieved March 3,
2011, from http://www.coloradoavalanchecares.com/columns/recruiting/top-three-ways-
recruiting-is-changing/
Watson, G. (n.d.). Coaches and colleges explore new frontier of social networking - ESPN. Retrieved
March 3, 2011, from http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=4308218
What is Twitter —. (n.d.). . Retrieved April 2, 2011, from http://tweeternet.com/
Wolverton, B. (2007). NCAA Bans Text Messaging, Frustrating Some Coaches and Relieving Others.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(35), A46.
24