TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

i 2003 AFCA PLAYER SURVEY INTRODUCTION

ii PARTICIPANTS

1 PLAYER PROFILE
2 Sample Characteristics
3 Ethnic Origin
4 Place of Upbringing
5 Family Background
8 ParentsÕ Education
9 ParentsÕ Occupation
12 Major Field of Study
14 Reasons for Playing
15 Attending College Regardless of Football
16 Selecting a College
17 Person of Greatest Influence
19 Two-Sport Athletes

20 ACADEMICS
21 Importance of Graduating
22 Academic Interest
23 High School and College GPAÕs
25 Socioeconomic Background
29 GPA and Ethnic Origin
31 SAT and ACT Scores
32 Number of Test Sittings
33 College Entrance Exams and Ethnic Origin
35 When They Became Aware of NCAA Academic Requirements
36 Who Told Them About NCAA Academic Standards
37 Prepared for College
Contents Continued

39 ECONOMIC ISSUES
40 Type of Financial Aid
41 Type of Aid by Ethnic Origin
43 Necessary Living Expenses

44 RECRUITING
45 Knowledge of the Rules
46 The Recruiting Process
47 Visiting an Institution
48 In-Person Contacts
49 Illegal Inducements
50 Letter of Intent

51 PERSONAL CHOICE
52 Drug Use
53 Alcohol Use
54 Number of Times Tested (freshmen excluded)
55 Players Are Well Informed About Perils of Drug Use
56 Legal Energy Supplements

57 OPINIONS
58 What Players Like Best About College Football
59 Time Commitment to Football
61 Improving The Game

62 TODAYÕS COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER IS A

COLLEGE STUDENT

63 APPENDIX A
 2003 AFCA PLAYER SURVEY

INTRODUCTION

During fall practice of 2002, the American Football Coaches Association

conducted a player survey to obtain information from todayÕs football
playing student-athlete.

College football players were asked to provide information regarding a

variety of topics that included their personal background, academic
experience, personal habits, financial resources and opinions regarding
college football.

Survey forms were distributed to NCAA Division I-A member institutions.

Players were assured anonymity and confidentiality in completing the
questionnaire, and the results were subsequently compiled, cross-tabulated
and analyzed.

Responses were received from 5,474 football players from 66 teams and
represent a cross-section of the Division I-A membership.

The purpose of the survey is to provide information to college administrators

and coaches that will help them to better understand the interests and
perceptions of todayÕs college football player. In addition, the data will
enable those involved with college football to give consideration to the
position of the student-athlete in the development of legislation that impacts
the sport. The AFCA also hopes to educate the public about todayÕs college
football player.

A special thanks to the staff of Pacey Economics Group of Boulder,

Colorado for providing the statistical analysis and assistance with the
interpretation of this data.

Copyright © American Football Coaches Association 2003

All Rights Reserved

i
PARTICIPANTS

Air Force Northern Illinois

Akron Northwestern
Alabama-Birmingham Ohio
Alabama-Tuscaloosa Ohio State
Arizona Oklahoma
Arkansas Oklahoma State
Army Purdue
Auburn Rice
Ball State South Carolina
Baylor Southern California
Boston College Southern Methodist
Central Florida Southern Mississippi
Central Michigan Stanford
Cincinnati Temple
East Carolina Texas
Florida State Texas A&M
Georgia Texas Christian
Georgia Tech Troy State
Illinois Tulane
Indiana Tulsa
Iowa UCLA
Iowa State Utah
Louisiana-Lafayette Utah State
Louisiana-Monroe Vanderbilt
Louisiana State Wake Forest
Marshall Washington State
Maryland West Virginia
Miami-Florida Western Michigan
Miami-Ohio Wisconsin
Michigan State
Minnesota
Mississippi State
Missouri
Nevada-Reno
New Mexico
North Carolina

ii
PLAYER PROFILE

Data generated from the AFCA Player Survey produced a profile of todayÕs
college football player that includes such elements as academic preparation
and achievement, ethnic origin, family situation, place of upbringing,
parentÕs occupation, socio-economic background, financial needs, recruiting
experience, use of drugs and alcohol, and suggestions for improving the
game.

The information found on the following pages provides an in-depth look at

the profile of todayÕs college football player.

1
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

The AFCA Player Survey was conducted during the 2002 football season.

Breakdown of respondents by year: First Year 25%

Second Year 25%
Third Year 23%
Fourth Year 17%
Fifth Year 10%

Players also identified their playing status: New Player 25%

Red Shirt 13%
Substitute 18%
Starter this year 13%
Alternate unit 12%
Two year starter 12%
Three year starter 7%

The position with the most three year starters is Offensive

Line at 23%, compared to Defensive Line at 15%. Only 9%
of Backs and 9% of Linebackers are three year starters.

An evaluation of the respondents by

football position provided the following: Lineman (O) 19%
Linebacker 13%
Receiver 17%
Back 14%
Secondary 17%
Lineman (D) 15%
Specialists 5%
(K,P,KR)

Transfer students accounted for 11.3% of the respondents,

with 40% transfers from another four year college and 60%
from a junior college.
2
ETHNIC ORIGIN

Examination of respondents by ethnic origin reveals that 48% are Caucasian,

44% are African-American, 3% are multiple ethnicity, 2% Hispanic and 3%
Native American, Asian or other.

Analysis of racial and ethnic origin of players by position indicates a similar

mix. Notable exceptions are the offensive line where 72% are Caucasian, the
defensive secondary where 66% are African-American, and the defensive
line with 53% African-Americans.

Ethnic Origin
Hispanic Multipe Race/
2% Ethnicity
Native American
Other 3%
0.7%
2% Asian
0.3%

African American
44%

Caucasian
48%

3
PLACE OF UPBRINGING

High school football remains popular in small communities which in our

survey incorporates the categories Òrural,Ó Òsmall cityÓ and Òmedium-size
city.Ó The reason for this assumption is that all of the respondents
participated in high school football before playing collegiately, and a
majority of the players indicated that they were raised in non-metropolitan
areas. Each of these areas listed above have populations of less than 100,000
and combined are responsible for 54% of the players surveyed, including
62% of the Caucasian players.

Home Town Size

Suburb of Very
Large City Rural
9% 13%

Very Large
(500,000 or more)
12%

Small
Suburb of Large (less than 50,000)
City 23%
11%

Large
(100,000 to 500,000)
14% Medium
(50,000 to 100,000)
18%

4
FAMILY BACKGROUND

When asked what best described their family situation, 68% said they lived
with two parents. Another 25% lived with their mother and 4% were raised
by their father.

There is a significant difference in family composition between Caucasians

and African-Americans. Eighty-four percent of Caucasians lived with two
parents and 15% lived with one parent. For African-Americans, 50% lived
with two parents, 39% lived with their mother, 5% lived with their father and
6% resided with relatives or others.

Few of the responding players are married. Only 2% are married and less
than 1% are married with children.

Family Background
(all raes)
Lived with
Relative(s)
Lived with
2% Lived with
Father only
4% Others
1%

Lived with
Mother only
25%

Lived with
oth arents
%

5
 Family Background
(by race)

Caucasian
Lived with
Mother only
11% Lived with
Father only
4% Lived with
Relative(s)
0.5%
Lived with
Lived with Others
Both Parents 0.5%
84%

African American
Lived with Father only
5%
Lived with Lived with Relative(s)
Mother only 4%
39% Lived with Others
2%

Lived with
Both Parents
50%

Other Ethnicity
Lived with Mother only
Lived with Father only
27%
4%
Lived with Relative(s)
1%
Lived with Others
2%

Lived with
Both Parents
66%

6
 High School GPA by Family Background
45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

7
15%

Percentage of Respondents
10%

5%

0%
Lived with Lived with Lived with Lived with Lived with
Both Parents Mother Only Father Only Relative(s) Others

Family Background
1.5 to 2.0 2.0 to 2.5 2.5 to 3.0 3.0 to 3.5 3.5 to 4.0
PARENTSÕ EDUCATION

The mean level of education attained by mothers of the respondents is 13

years, which translates to one year beyond high school. Ninety-three percent
had completed high school, while 44% had attended college, including 3%
that pursued a graduate degree.

Fathers of respondents have a mean level of education of 14 years, or two

years post-high school. Ninety-four percent have completed high school,
while 47% have attended college, including 4% that pursued a graduate
degree.

8
PARENTSÕ OCCUPATION

Occupations in management are the most popular among the playersÕ

mothers (46%). This includes such pursuits as advertising, banking, and
marketing. The next most prevalent occupational category is service (14%),
including professions such as beautician, factory workers, and retail sales.

Management occupations (28%) are also the most dominant among

respondentsÕ fathers. Another 25% listed technical occupations as their
fathersÕ profession, which include government work, law enforcement, real
estate and insurance.

A list of occupations as they are categorized for the player survey follows on
the next page.

9
PROFESSION CATEGORIES USED
FOR THE AFCA PLAYER SURVEY

Professionals Management
Architect Accounting
Astronaut Advertising
Attorney Banking
Certified Public Accountant Business Owner
Chemist Buyer
Dentist/Doctor Computer Related
Engineer Counselor
Executive Editor
Lawyer Educator
Pharmacist Financial Advisor
Professor Librarian
Manager
Professional/Technicians Marketing
Coach Nurse
Communication President
Fireman Social Worker
Forestry Teacher
Government Writer
Insurance
Law Enforcement Craft & Operatives
Other Business Administration Animal Trainer
Other Medical Related Coal Miner
Other Self-Employed Construction
Professional Golfer Entertainer
Real Estate Farming
Religion Related Heavy Equipment Operation
Sales (NOT RETAIL) Landscaper
Supervisor/Foreman Mechanical/Machinist
Surveyor Military
Technician Operator
Secretarial (Executive)
Service Service Related
Bank Teller Transportation
Beautician Travel Agent
Blacksmith Utility Employee
Clerical
Factory Worker Homemaker/Retired
Janitor/Maintenance Disabled
NurseÕs Aid Homemaker
Restaurant Retired
Retail Sales
TeacherÕs Aid Deceased

10
 Father's Profession
Homemaker/ Deceased
Retired 2%
Professionals
6% 13%

Craft & Operatives

20%
Professionals/
Technician
25%

Management Service
28% 6%

Mother's Profession
Deceased Professionals
Homemaker/ 1% 3%
Retired Professionals/
12% Technician
13%

Craft & Operatives

11%
Service
14%

Management
46%

11
MAJOR FIELD OF STUDY

Business is the most popular major among the student-athletes surveyed.

Almost one-third (33%) listed this as their field of study. The next most
popular major is social sciences (17%), followed by arts and humanities
(14%). Another 6% are undecided.

A categorized listing of majors used for the player survey can be found on
the next page.

[Note: The figures in parentheses indicate the percentage of student-athletes

in the particular major who have earned a 3.0 or better GPA.]

College Major
Agriculture
1% (21%) Undecided
Engineering 6% (23%)
5% (38%)

Business
Arts & Humanities 33% (35%)
14% (26%)

Natural Sciences
9% (46%)

Communications
9% (20%) Social Sciences
Physical Education 17% (16%)
6% (22%)

12
A CATEGORIZATION OF MAJORS
FOR THE AFCA PLAYER SURVEY

Business Natural Sciences

Accounting Animal Science
Administration Astronomy
Advertising Biology
Computer Science Chemistry
Economics Mortuary Science
Finance Nutrition/Dietitian
Hotel/Restaurant Management Pharmaceutical
Human Resources Physical Therapy
Industrial Relations Physics
Management Physiology
Marketing Pre-Med
Mathematics Rehabilitation Services
Travel/Tourism Zoology

Social Sciences Arts and Humanities

Anthropology Architecture/Drafting
Criminal Justice Commercial Arts
Government Education
Human Development English
Philosophy Fine Arts
Political Science History
Pre-Law Industrial Arts
Psychology Languages
Social Work Music
Sociology Photography
Urban Planning Religion

Physical Education Engineering

Commercial Recreation Drafting

Communications Agriculture
Broadcasting Forestry
Journalism
Public Relations Undecided
Radio
Television

13
REASONS FOR PLAYING

There is a public misconception that a majority of the players consider

college football as a training ground for the pros.

Players were asked what best describes why they play college football.
ÒEnjoyment of the game and/or camaraderieÓ was cited by 57% of the
respondents. Twelve percent responded that football provided a means to
gain an education and 19% played college football in anticipation of an
opportunity to play professionally.

Why Play College Football?

Respect for
Other
Coaches
5%
3%
Camaraderie
8%
Desire to Become
a Coach
4%

Enjoyment of Game
49%
Pro Career
19%

Financial Aid
12%

14
ATTENDING COLLEGE REGARDLESS OF FOOTBALL

Eighty-three percent of the respondents said they would attend college if

they did not play football, including 90% of the Caucasians and 76% of the
African-Americans.

15
SELECTING A COLLEGE

Many factors contribute to a student-athleteÕs decision regarding which

institution to attend to pursue an undergraduate degree. The AFCA Player
Survey provided responses regarding what was important to the prospect in
determining his selection of a college.

Ninety-five percent of the respondents believed the football program was

Òvery importantÓ or Òimportant,Ó while 92% said an institutionÕs academic
reputation was very important or important. Ninety percent said the coach
was very important or important. Next in order of importance were financial
aid, location of the school, specific academic offerings and other athletes.

Factors in Choosing a College

(Respondents listed these factors as Òvery importantÓ or ÒimportantÓ
in the following percentages)
100%
95%
92%
90% 90%

80%
73%
70% 69% 69%
66%
60% 58%

50%

40%
General Specific Football Coaching Other Location Parent Financial
Academic Academic Program Staff Athletes Guardian Aid
Reputation Offering Attending Influence

16
PERSON OF GREATEST INFLUENCE

When asked what individual influenced them most in making their decision
on which university to attend, 43% of Caucasians said it was their father.
Among African-American players, the mother had the greatest influence,
32%, with the father at 25%.

17
 Greatest Influence on Choice of College
(by race)

Caucasian
Other Mother
20% 14%
Alumni or Friend
of University
1%
College Coach
Father
8%
43%
High School Coach
5% Peers
4%
Other Relative
5%

African American
Other
19% Mother
Alumni or Friend 32%
of University
1%
College Coach
5%

High School Coach

8%

Peers Father
3% Other Relative 25%
7%

Other Ethnicity
Other Mother
22% 21%
Alumni or Friend
of University
2%
College Coach
7%
Father
High School Coach 32%
8%
Peers
4% Other Relative
4%

18
TWO-SPORT ATHLETES

Four percent of the college football players surveyed participated in other

sports. The majority of two-sport athletes competed in track (57%) and
baseball (13%).

19
ACADEMICS

We are all familiar with recent efforts to ensure the academic integrity of
intercollegiate athletics. With this in mind, we asked the players a series of
questions related to their academic experience in high school and college.
The information on the following pages reflects the playersÕ responses.

20
IMPORTANCE OF GRADUATING

Earning a degree is foremost on the minds of todayÕs college football

players. When asked the importance of graduating from college, 95% said
Òvery important,Ó regardless of race or ethnicity.

21
ACADEMIC INTEREST

Attending college seems to have the effect of increasing academic interest.

Sixty-nine percent of the respondents said they were Òmuch more interestedÓ
or Òsomewhat more interestedÓ in academics since entering college. Twenty-
five percent had Òabout the sameÓ amount of interest in academics.

Change in Academic Interest Since College

Much Less Interest

Somewhat Less 1%
Interest
5%

Much More
Interest
About the Same 35%
Amount of Interest
25%

Somewhat More
Interest
34%

22
HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE GPAÕS

Player survey respondents were asked to indicate their high school and
college grade point averages.

Sixty percent reported high school GPAÕs between a 3.0 and a 4.0. Another
25% recorded high school GPAÕs of 2.5 to 3.0, and 12% were between a 2.0
and 2.5. The remaining 3% had GPAÕs of less than 2.0.

It is more difficult to attain a high GPA at the collegiate level. Twenty-eight

percent of the players reported college GPAÕs between 3.0 and 4.0, while
34% were between a 2.5 and 3.0. Thirty-four percent indicated GPAÕs
between 2.0 and 2.5, and 4% were below a 2.0.

College Grade Point Average

40%
34% 34%
35%
30%
25%
21%
20%
15%
10%
7%
4%
5%
0%
3.5 to 4.0 3.0 to 3.5 2.5 to 3.0 2.0 to 2.5 less than 2.0

23
 College GPA by Year in School
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

24
15%

Percentage of Respondents
10%

5%

0%
First Second Third Fourth Fifth
Year Year Year Year Year

Year in School
1.5 to 2.0 2.0 to 2.5 2.5 to 3.0 3.0 to 3.5 3.5 to 4.0
SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUND

Each player responding to the survey is assigned a socioeconomic

description based on his parentsÕ education and occupation. The categories
include upper, upper-middle, middle, lower middle, and lower.

The survey indicates that an individualÕs socioeconomic circumstances can

have an influence on high school and college GPA and SAT and ACT test
scores.

Socioeconomic Classification

Upper Lower
14% 20%

Upper-Middle
18%

Lower-Middle
22%

Middle
26%

25
 Socioeconomic Classification

Caucasian

Upper Lower
17% 19%

Upper-Middle
18% Lower-Middle
18%

Middle
28%

African American

Upper
12% Lower
24%

Upper-Middle
18%

Lower-Middle
21%
Middle
25%

26
 GPA BY SOCIOECONOMIC CLASSIFICATION

High School GPA by Socioeconomic Background

Percentage of Percentage of
Socioeconomic Respondents with 3.0 Respondents with G.P.A
Background G.P.A. or better between 2.0 and 2.5

Upper 72% 8%
Upper-Middle 66% 10%
Middle 66% 11%
Lower-Middle 61% 12%
Lower 53% 15%

College GPA by Socioeconomic Background

Socioeconomic 3.0 or 2.5 to 2.0 to Less than
Background better 3.0 2.5 2.0

Upper 37% 34% 25% 4%

Upper-Middle 33% 31% 32% 4%
Middle 30% 37% 30% 3%
Lower-Middle 28% 32% 35% 5%
Lower 22% 37% 36% 5%

27
TEST SCORES BY SOCIOECONOMIC CLASSIFICATION

SAT Scores by Socioeconomic Background

Percentage of Percentage of
Socioeconomic Respondents with SAT Respondents with SAT
Background of better than 1100 of 860 or less

Upper 43% 9%
Upper-Middle 31% 15%
Middle 30% 14%
Lower-Middle 23% 19%
Lower 17% 22%

ACT Scores by Socioeconomic Background

Percentage of Percentage of
Socioeconomic Respondents with 3.0 Respondents with G.P.A
Background G.P.A. or better between 2.0 and 2.5

Upper 43% 24%

Upper-Middle 32% 36%
Middle 36% 33%
Lower-Middle 24% 37%
Lower 24% 43%

28
GPA AND ETHNIC ORIGIN

Analysis of college GPAÕs with regard to the student-athleteÕs ethnic origin

suggests that Caucasians registered higher averages than African-Americans.

We analyzed the highest group Ð players earning GPAÕs of 3.0 or better and
those between 2.0 and 2.5. Forty-one percent of Caucasian players and 14%
of African-Americans earned a GPA of 3.0 or better. A look at the players
earning lower GPAÕs reveals 25% of Caucasian players and 53% of African-
American players registered a 2.5 GPA or less. The relationship was similar
for high school GPAÕs.

Respondents from a two-parent family background registered a higher high

school and college GPA than those who lived with one parent or with others.

29
COLLEGE GPA

Percentage of Percentage of
GPA Total Caucasians African-Americans

> 3.0 28% 41% 14%

2.5 to 3.0 34% 34% 33%

2.0 to 2.5 34% 22% 47%

< 2.0 4% 3% 6%

HIGH SCHOOL GPA

Percentage of Percentage of
GPA Total Caucasians African-Americans

> 3.0 60% 74% 45%

2.5 to 3.0 25% 17% 33%

2.0 to 2.5 13% 8% 19%

< 2.0 2% 1% 3%

30
SAT AND ACT SCORES

Since the NCAA established minimum academic requirements, both ACT

and SAT test scores have been utilized to determine initial eligibility.

The survey reveals that 90% of the respondents recorded 68 or better on the
ACT and 94% scored 820 or better on the SAT.

SAT Score
819 and
below 820 to 860
6% 12%

1101 and 861 to 930

above 16%
26%

1011 to 1100 931 to 1010

18% 22%

ACT Score
67 or below
10%
79 or above
29% 68 to 71
28%

72 to 78
33%

31
NUMBER OF TEST SITTINGS

Forty-one percent of the players took the ACT or SAT twice. Thirty percent
took the test once and 29% had three or more attempts at one of the exams.

Times Taken SAT or ACT

One Time 3 or more

30% times
29%

Two Times
41%

32
COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAMS AND ETHNIC ORIGIN

Analysis of ACT and SAT scores in relation to a playerÕs ethnic origin

reveals that a greater percentage of Caucasians earned higher scores than did
African-Americans.

Forty-one percent of Caucasian players scored 1101 or higher on the SAT.

Two percent of Caucasian players and 11% of African-American players
recorded an SAT score of 819 or below. Also, 4% of Caucasian players and
21% of African-American players scored between 820 and 860.

The numbers were similar for student-athletes taking the ACT.

33
ACT TEST SCORES

Percentage of Percentage of
Score Total Caucasians African-Americans

79 and above 29% 43% 16%

72 to 78 33% 34% 32%

68 to 71 28% 19% 37%

67 or below 10% 4% 15%

SAT TEST SCORES

Percentage of Percentage of
Score Total Caucasians African-Americans

1101 and above 26% 41% 11%

1011 to 1100 18% 23% 12%

931 to 1010 22% 20% 24%

861 to 930 16% 10% 21%

820 to 860 12% 4% 21%

819 and below 6% 2% 11%

34
WHEN THEY BECAME AWARE OF
NCAA ACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS

Since the inception of Proposition 48 in 1986, there have been significant

efforts to inform high school students as early as possible of the academic
standards required to participate in intercollegiate sports.

When asked when they first became aware of the NCAA requirements, 38%
said during their junior year in high school. Twenty-four percent learned of
the requirements during their sophomore year, 20% as seniors, and 18% were
informed during their freshman year.

High School Year That Players Became

Aware of NCAA Requirements

45%
40% 38%
35%
30%
24%
25%
20%
20% 18%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
Year Year Year Year

35
WHO T OLD THEM ABOUT
NCAA ACADEMIC STANDARDS

It appears that high school coaches are the most effective source for
informing players about NCAA academic requirements needed to participate
in intercollegiate athletics. When asked who first told them about NCAA
academic requirements for financial aid and eligibility, 38% of the players
said their high school coach. High school guidance counselors informed
34% of the respondents about academic standards.

Another 12% learned about the requirements from their parents, while 12%
were informed by a college coach and 4% learned from other sources.

36
PREPARED FOR COLLEGE

Are high schools doing a good job of preparing their students for college?

Eighty-three percent of the players believed that they were prepared Òto a
large degreeÓ or Òsomewhat preparedÓ for the academic challenges
encountered in college. Fourteen percent said they had Òvery littleÓ
preparation, while 3% said they were prepared Òalmost not at all.Ó

Quality of Academic Preparation

(all races)
Almost Not
at All
3% Very Little
14%

To a Large
Degree
37%

Somewhat
46%

37
 PREPARED FOR COLLEGE
(by race)

Caucasian
Almost Not
at All
2% Very Little
12%

To a Large
Degree
42%

Somewhat
44%

African American
Almost Not
at All
4% Very Little
To a Large 15%
Degree
31%

Somewhat
50%

Other Ethnicity
Almost Not
at All
4% Very Little
13%
To a Large
Degree
37%

Somewhat
46%

38
ECONOMIC ISSUES

Financial integrity is another issue facing college athletics today. Where

does the student-athlete stand in terms of the financial aspects of college
football? The information on the following pages provides a general profile
of todayÕs college football player and his financial situation.

39
TYPE OF FINANCIAL AID

Seventy-four percent of the players received a full athletic grant-in-aid,

which includes tuition, books and room and board. Twenty-two percent
received no aid, while 3% were on partial grants.

Form of Financial Assistance

No Aid
22%

Tuition Waiver
1%
Partial
3%

Full Athletic
74%

40
TYPE OF AID BY ETHNIC ORIGIN

Observation of the type of aid received by ethnic origin reveals that 64% of
Caucasian players and 85% of African-American players received a full
athletic grant-in-aid. Thirty-two percent of Caucasian players and 11% of
African-American players are not receiving athletic aid.

41
 Form of Financial Assistance
(by race)

aucaian
No Aid Full Athletic
32% 64%

Tuition Waiver
1%
Partial
3%

Arican Aerican
No Aid
Tuition Waiver 11%
1%
Partial
3%

Full Athletic
85%

ther thnicit
No Aid
20%
Tuition Waiver
1%
Partial
4%

Full Athletic
75%

42
NECESSARY LIVING EXPENSES

NCAA regulations stipulate that a maximum grant-in-aid may consist of

room, board, books, tuition and mandatory fees. For those that qualify,
additional financial assistance is available through a Pell Grant. With that in
mind, we asked the players what amount of additional money they estimated
was required on a per-month basis to meet necessary living expenses while
attending college.

Fifty-nine percent of the players on a full athletic grant said $200 or more per
month, while 19% indicated between $151 to $200. Eleven percent would
like between $101 and $150, and 11% would be satisfied with $100 or less.

Estimated Monthly Living Expenses

(For those on full athletic scholarship)
$0 to $50
6% $51 to $100
5%

$101 tp $150
11%

More than $200

59%

$151 to $200
19%

43
RECRUITING

The American Football Coaches Association has made recruiting one of the
foremost issues on its agenda. AFCA sponsored recruiting seminars have
been successful in educating coaches about NCAA rules pertaining to
recruiting.

The following pages contain information about experiences during the

recruiting process.

44
KNOWLEDGE OF THE RULES

Colleges are working to inform those who want to play college football that
athletes must understand recruiting rules as established by the NCAA.
Seventy percent of the players indicated that they had a Òvery good
knowledgeÓ (21%) or Ògood knowledgeÓ (39%) of the rules and regulations
that pertain to them as prospective student-athletes.

45
THE RECRUITING PROCESS

How actively was a student-athlete recruited? Nearly three-quarters of the

players indicated that they were Òvery activelyÓ (44%) or ÒactivelyÓ (27%)
recruited.

Level of Recruitment
No Effort
7%
Minimally
9%

Very Actively
Moderately 44%
13%

Actively
27%

46
VISITING AN INSTITUTION

Fourteen percent of the players did not receive an expense-paid trip during
the recruiting process, while 30% received one paid visit.

A large number of prospective college football players visited institutions at

their own expense. Sixty-one percent paid for one or more visits at their
own expense.

Recruiting Visits Paid for by Institution

Five Visits
6% No Visits
Four Visits 14%
9%

Three Visits
18%
One Visit
30%

Two Visits
23%

47
IN-PERSON CONTACTS

The study attempted to ascertain the number of institutions that made in-
person contacts by coaches, excluding telephone calls and written
communications, during the recruiting process.

Recruiting Visits Paid for by Institution

Seven
Six 5%
6%

Five Eight or More

12% 32%

Four
10%

None
Three 6%
13% One
Two 6%
10%

48
ILLEGAL INDUCEMENTS

Of particular interest is the fact that 97% of the players surveyed reported
that they had not received any illegal inducements during the recruiting
process.

49
LETTER OF INTENT

Coaches have discussed the possibility of developing an early signing date

for football. Those players on aid were asked if they would have signed a
National Letter of Intent in December, rather than wait until February.
Seventy percent responded Òno,Ó while 30% would have signed an early
letter.

50
PERSONAL CHOICE

It appears that many of todayÕs college football players are saying ÒnoÓ to
drugs. AFCA Player Survey respondents were asked a series of personal
questions.

51
DRUG USE

AFCA Player Survey respondents were asked if they had used drugs (non-
alcohol) since entering college and 90% said they had not used drugs since
attending college. Of the 10% who indicated they had used drugs since
attending college, a significant majority (91%) had used marijuana, whereas
a minimal number of respondents had indicated use of other drugs including
steroids.

52
ALCOHOL USE

Players were asked a series of questions regarding the consumption of

alcoholic beverages. Two-thirds of the respondents indicated that they drink
alcoholic beverages.

Of those that had consumed alcoholic beverages, 79% did not drink
regularly, while 21% indicated they did. Beer was the preferred beverage
(85%) of the respondents.

53
NUMBER OF TIMES TESTED (freshmen excluded)

The NCAA conducts a random drug-testing program for all its national
championships and year-round testing of Division I football players. In
addition, the institutions that participated in the survey have their own drug-
testing programs. According to the AFCA Player Survey, 82% of the
respondents have been tested for drugs.

Ten percent of the players have undergone drug testing 10 or more times,
21% have been tested five to nine times, and 51% have been tested one to
four times. The remaining 18%, basically first year players, have not been
tested.

54
PLAYERS ARE WELL INFORMED
ABOUT PERILS OF DRUG USE

A majority of the players surveyed (88%) believed that the institution they
are attending is making a serious attempt to inform them about the hazards
of using drugs, including alcohol.

55
LEGAL ENERGY SUPPLEMENTS

The respondents were asked if they used legal energy supplements. A

majority (55%) indicated they do not use supplements, 45% responded
affirmatively.

56
OPINIONS

AFCA Player Survey respondents were asked a series of questions

concerning their opinions and perceptions of college football.

57
WHAT PLAYERS LIKE BEST
ABOUT COLLEGE FOOTBALL

Players were asked to express in their own words what they liked best about
college football and what benefits they have gained. Seventy-four percent
indicated that Òplaying the gameÓ was Ònumber one.Ó Included in this group
were such answers as Òcompetitive challenge,Ó Òplaying the big game,Ó
Òexcitement and pageantryÓ and Òthrill of winning.Ó Another 16%
appreciated the camaraderie and team atmosphere. The remaining 10% cited
Òpersonal reasonsÓ.

As far as benefits are concerned, 33% said that Òfinancial aid for educationÓ
is the greatest advantage from playing college football. Another 35% said
they had learned to be responsible and included such answers as Òdiscipline,Ó
Òwork ethicÓ and Òtime management.Ó Ten percent gained from meeting new
people and becoming part of a team, 12% matured as result of the
experience, and 10% cited personal reasons.

Benefits of College Football

Friends Personal
10% 10%

Maturity
12%

Discipline
35%

Education
33%

58
TIME COMMITMENT T O FOOTBALL

Players (not including freshmen) were asked about the time they spent on
football during the season and in the spring.

59
 TIME SPENT ON FOOTBALL

Time Spent on Football in Season

(First Year Players Excluded)

45%
40%
40%
35%
30% 28%

25%
20%
20%
15% 12%
10%
5%
0%
15 to 19 Hours 20 to 25 Hours 26 to 30 Hours More Than 30 Hours
per Week per Week per Week per Week

Time Spent on Football in Spring

(First Year Players Excluded)

80%
72%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% 18%

10% 8%
2%
0%
2 to 4 Hours 5 to 8 Hours 9 to 15 Hours Other
per Week per Week per Week

60
IMPROVING THE GAME

Players were asked to advance suggestions for improving college football for
the athletes.

Sixty-two percent of those responding recommended more financial support,

with many indicating that it was difficult to live on the money provided
through their scholarships.

Thirty percent suggested that more personal time would be appreciated. The
remaining responses advanced proposals for fewer regulations, more
opportunities for walk-ons and less commercialism.

Suggestions for Improvement

Other
8%

More Personal
Time More Financial
30% Support
62%

61
T ODAYÕS COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER
IS A COLLEGE STUDENT

The college football player is bigger, faster and stronger than most, but he is
a regular college student. TodayÕs player enjoys the game, believes in the
importance of education, is an average student and could use a little more
spending money. Simply stated, he is not much different than other young
men his age.

The media and public often stereotype the college football player in
unflattering terms. While our survey suggests that this is not true, changing
the publicÕs perception is a difficult job. One way to achieve this is to do a
better job of presenting the team as individual players. Hopefully, the
information found in the AFCA Player Survey can be of assistance.

The other objective of this study is to familiarize administrators and coaches

about the athlete. We hope that the data gleaned from the survey will aid
decision-makers in the development of legislation that will be productive for
college football players, both today and tomorrow.

62
 APPENDIX A

The College Football Association conducted football player surveys from

among its membership in 1996, 1991, 1986 and 1980. The CFA surveys
included approximately 3,000 players and more than 50 teams that were
representative of the membership. A comparison of the responses from the
2002 AFCA survey of 5,474 athletes from 66 teams and previous surveys
indicates similar responses in most areas, yet changes in others.

Those responding in terms of class standing were basically the same in all
four surveys (e.g., 25% of the respondents in three of the surveys were first
year players; 17% of the 2002 respondents, 18% of the 1996 respondents,
14% of the 1991 respondents and 19% of the 1986 respondents were fourth
year players).

The following comparisons may be of interest:

1. Place of upbringing:
2002 Ð 54% from communities with less than 100,000 population
1996 Ð 55% from communities with less than 100,000 population
1991 Ð 55% from communities with less than 100,000 population
1986 Ð 57% from communities with less than 100,000 population

2. Marital status:
2002 Ð 98% single, 2% married
1996 Ð 97% single, 3% married
1991 Ð 97% single, 3% married
1986 Ð 96% single, 4% married

63
3. Ethnic origin:
2002 Ð 48% Caucasian, 44% African-American, 3% multiple
ethnicity, 5% other
1996 Ð 45% Caucasian, 50% African-American, 5% other
1991 Ð 52% Caucasian, 43% African-American, 5% other
1986 Ð 60% Caucasian, 40% non-Caucasian

4. Major field of study:

2002 Ð 32% business, 15% social sciences, 13% arts & humanities,
6% physical education
1996 Ð 32% business, 19% social sciences, 11% arts & humanities,
6% physical education
1991 Ð 31% business, 20% social sciences, 11% arts & humanities,
7% physical education
1986 Ð 34% business, 14% social sciences, 9.5% physical education

5. Why play college football:

2002 Ð 60% enjoyment of the game, 15% necessity of aid for
education, 19% opportunity for a professional career
1996 Ð 66% enjoyment of the game, 15% necessity of aid for
education, 15% opportunity for a professional career
1991 Ð 65% enjoyment of the game, 20% necessity of aid for
education, 11% opportunity for professional career
1986 Ð 72% enjoyment of the game, 16% necessity of aid for
education, 9% opportunity for a professional career

6. Socioeconomic status of playerÕs family:

2002 Ð 14% upper, 18% upper middle, 26% middle, 22% lower
middle, 20% lower
1996 Ð 3% upper, 31% upper middle, 40% middle, 19% lower
middle, 7% lower
1991 Ð 14% upper, 28% upper middle, 30% middle, 16% lower
middle, 12% lower
1986 Ð 12% upper, 16% upper middle, 39% middle, 26% lower
middle, 7% lower

64
7. Percentage of players who would have attended college without
playing football:
2002 Ð 83%
1996 Ð 84%
1991 Ð 84%
1986 Ð 79%

8. Type of financial aid:

2002 Ð 75% full aid, 22% no aid
1996 Ð 76% full aid, 21% no aid
1991 Ð 81% full aid, 17% no aid
1986 Ð 83% full aid, 14% no aid

[Note: In 2002, 33% of Caucasian players and 14% of African-

American players were not receiving aid, compared to 31% of
Caucasian and 11% of African-American players in 1996 who were
not on aid. In 1986, 19% of Caucasian and 8% of African-American
players were not receiving athletic aid. It is important to remember
that the number of allowable grants-in-aid for football has been
reduced since 1986.]

9. Necessary living expenses:

2002 Ð 62% of the respondents said that $200 or more per month was
required to meet expenses while attending college
1996 Ð 52% responded that $200 or more per month was required to
meet expenses while attending college
1991 Ð 37% responded that $200 or more per month was required to
meet expenses while attending college
1986 Ð 47% responded that $100 or more per month was required to
meet expenses while attending college

65
10. Recruiting:
2002 Ð 71% indicated they were actively recruited
1996 Ð 71% indicated they were actively recruited
1991 Ð 73% indicated they were actively recruited
1986 Ð 75% indicated they were actively recruited

11. Expense paid trips during recruiting process:

2002 Ð 6% 5 visits, 9% 4 visits, 18% 3 visits, 23% 2 visits, 30% one
visit, 14% none
1996 Ð 10% 5 visits, 14% 4 visits, 23% 3 visits, 22% 2 visits, 20%
one visit, 11% none
1991 Ð 16% 5 visits, 18% 4 visits, 24% 3 visits 18% 2 visits, 14% one
visit, 10% none
1986 Ð 19% 5 visits, 17% 4 visits, 24% 3 visits, 17% 2 visits, 12%
one visit, 10% none
12. College in person contacts during the recruiting process:
2002 Ð 57% 0 to 5 contacts, 25% 6 to 10 contacts, 18% 11 or
more contacts
1996 Ð 47% 0 to 5 contacts, 27% 6 to 10 contacts, 18% 11 or
more contacts
1991 Ð 47% 0 to 5 contacts, 28% 6 to 10 contacts, 25% 11 or
more contacts
1986 Ð 47% 0 to 5 contacts, 27% 6 to 10 contacts, 22% 11 or
more contacts

13. Multi-sport athletes:

2002 Ð 96% football only, 4% multi-sport athletes
1996 Ð 93% football only, 7% multi-sport athletes
1991 Ð 94% football only, 6% multi-sport athletes
1986 Ð 95% football only, 5% multi-sport athletes

66
14. Use of drugs:
2002 Ð 10% indicated they had used drugs while in college
1996 Ð 12% indicated they had used drugs while in college
1991 Ð 10% indicated they had used drugs while in college

[Note: Of those who indicated that they had used drugs while
attending college, a significant majority had used marijuana.]

All four surveys devoted a considerable number of questions to academic

preparation and achievement. Specific comparisons between the surveys
reveal a strong correlation between SAT and ACT test scores and high school
and college grade point averages. Also, a playerÕs family situation (two
parents) and socio-economic status have a significant impact upon testing
performance and academic achievement.

67