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