Assignment Prompt & Instructions
– ## Benchmarkpeerreview.docx
– ## Benchmark4.pdf
– MWaite_StakeholderProcessGuide_OGL593_DRAFT.pdf
– MWaite_AppliedProjectReport_OGL593_DRAFT.pdf
**## Benchmarkpeerreview.docx**
Benchmark #5: Peer Feedback
Your project will be reviewed by two classmates who will provide constructive feedback. In turn, you will be expected to serve in the same role twice over. You will most easily find your peer assignments in your Canvas "To Do" list, usually on the right-hand side of your screen.
Obviously, the most important goal is to provide constructive feedback that your peers can use to improve their final project. Moreover, it is important to be specific and thorough. A good review will be 200-300 words in length for each classmate you are reviewing.
The form this takes is up to you and will vary depending on the type of project you review, but typically, we will hope to see at least three thorough responses:
·
**First, a positive affirmation**: Provide a clear expression of
**at least**
**one** aspect or characteristic of the draft that seems especially strong or promising.
·
**Second, constructive room for improvement**: Provide specific feedback of
**at least**
**two** portions, aspects, or characteristics that would most benefit from the most improvement. If possible, offer specific examples or guidance on how to approach that improvement.
Again, if you assess that the particular draft you are reviewing would benefit from another approach, I trust you to follow those instincts. The goal here is to provide what will give your peer the most benefit.
Ideally, your peer feedback will be posted through the Canvas peer review system that will automatically assign you to review two of your peers' drafts. If that fails, you can use the discussion board below to post your feedback.
**As soon as your reviews are complete,**
**PLEASE reply below to report whose drafts your reviewed and that your reviews are complete.** This will help track your progress and assign your grade.
## image1.jpeg
**## Benchmark4.pdf**
Navigating the Academic Landscape: Challenges Faced by NCAA Student-Athletes
Liam T. Ferris
Arizona State University
Analyzing Organizations OGL 570
School of Applied Professional Studies
November 9, 2025
Abstract
This applied project will examine the academic performance of Division I student-athletes during
in-season versus out-of-season terms at a large public university in the United States. The
introduction of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights in July 2021 shifted the collegiate
athletics environment toward increased commercialization and financial incentives, raising
questions about academic persistence. This project employed quantitative methods to analyze 10
years of institutional GPA data for student-athletes, examining patterns in seasonality, pre- and
post-NIL trends, and subgroup differences across gender and sport type. The project was
grounded in leadership theory, with a particular focus on transformational and transactional
leadership, organizational change and culture, and student development in the context of higher
education policy. Findings are anticipated to inform the design of academic support strategies,
enhance retention and graduation outcomes, and provide leadership insights into balancing
athletic and academic commitments. Practical implications include strengthening academic
monitoring, aligning institutional leadership with transformational practices, and shaping NIL
policies to reduce conflicts between academic and financial priorities.
Literature Review
Prior research has demonstrated that athletes often record lower GPAs during their competitive
seasons compared to off-season terms, largely due to the combined burdens of practice, travel,
and game commitments (Scott et al., 2008). At the same time, leadership structures and
departmental climates influence outcomes, with transformational leadership, characterized by
vision, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized support, promoting academic
persistence and holistic development, while transactional leadership, which relies on compliance
and performance-based exchanges, can exacerbate academic struggles (Bass & Avolio, 1994;
Comeaux & Harrison, 2011). External forces, such as NIL opportunities and the transfer portal,
further complicate this balance, diverting time and attention toward financial and athletic
priorities at the expense of academics (Davis, 2024; Meares, 2024). The purpose of this project
was to analyze the academic performance of Division I student-athletes during in-season versus
out-of-season periods in order to strengthen academic support strategies. The scope encompassed
10 years of GPA data from a large public university, where student-athletes represented 6.5% of
the total enrollment. The analysis focused on seasonality, gender, team size, sport type, and
NIL-era differences. This literature review highlights three interconnected knowledge areas
within organizational leadership that are central to this project: student-athlete academic
outcomes, leadership and support models in collegiate athletics, and the influence of
commercialization, NIL, and organizational policy.
Research on student-athlete academic outcomes demonstrates that in-season competition
consistently influences GPA performance. Scott, Paskus, Miranda, Petr, and McArdle (2008)
found that GPAs declined during competitive seasons due to increased travel and scheduling
demands. In contrast, Gayles and Hu (2009) observed that student-athletes who spent significant
time on athletic commitments reported reduced opportunities for engagement in meaningful
academic experiences. Similarly, Huml (2020) validated an instrument revealing that athletes
experienced time demands greater than those officially recognized by NCAA standards. Foster
and Huml (2017) further noted that strong athletic identity often led student-athletes to select less
rigorous majors, prioritizing eligibility over long-term academic development. To counter these
challenges, universities have implemented structured academic interventions such as mandatory
study halls and tutoring programs. These supports have shown measurable effectiveness in
mitigating GPA declines, suggesting that intentional academic scheduling and monitoring can
reduce the negative impact of athletic participation on student performance.
Building on these academic outcomes, scholars have emphasized that leadership and
organizational climate are equally critical to student-athlete success. Transformational
leadership, characterized by individualized consideration and motivational vision, promotes
motivation, self-regulation, and performance across both athletic and academic domains (Mach,
Lvina, & Maslowska, 2022). Similarly, Liu, Zhang, Li, and Jannesari (2023) demonstrated that
transformational leadership fulfills athletes’ psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and
relatedness—conditions that encourage thriving in both classroom and competitive settings.
Conners, Page, and Humphrey (2023) reinforced that transformational leaders foster climates
conducive to learning and engagement, whereas transactional leaders, relying on compliance and
rewards, can suppress academic persistence. Complementing this leadership dimension,
institutional academic support systems play a reinforcing role. Northington, Daprano, and Singer
(2016) found that targeted tutoring and mentoring improved GPA and retention, and Comeaux
and Harrison (2011) linked leadership, engagement, and identity development to measurable
academic gains. Case studies of universities adopting transformational leadership within advising
and athletic programs documented increased graduation rates and retention, demonstrating how
leadership and organizational support intersect to produce sustainable success.
As leadership structures evolve, the growing commercialization of collegiate athletics has
introduced new pressures that reshape academic priorities. Davis (2024) described a decline in
the traditional “student-athlete” identity, as NIL policies and institutional marketing redefined
athletes as commercial assets. Meares (2024) observed that sponsorships, media obligations, and
brand partnerships are increasingly competing with academic responsibilities, thereby altering
time allocation and attention. Corr and Jensen (2023) found that athletes navigating NIL
opportunities often prioritize short-term financial outcomes over academic persistence. In
contrast, Lovell and Stokes (2023) highlighted how compliance and governance challenges
redirected institutional resources away from academic support. Moreover, Vogel and Kress
(2020) noted that increased recruitment of athletes with marginal academic preparation
compounded these effects, especially when commercialization amplified pressure on teams to
perform. In response, some institutions introduced NIL education programs centered on time
management and financial literacy, demonstrating early success in reducing conflicts between
academic and branding responsibilities. Assessing GPA patterns before and after the adoption of
NIL provides a valuable framework for understanding how these commercial and organizational
shifts influence academic persistence.
The literature established that student-athletes experience predictable academic disadvantages
during competitive seasons, often intensified by shifting leadership approaches and strong
athletic identities. The introduction of NIL rights added further complexity, competing with
academic commitments and altering institutional priorities. While prior research has addressed
elements of these challenges, gaps remain in understanding long-term GPA outcomes within a
single large institution and the interaction of NIL with leadership climates and academic
supports. Addressing these gaps justifies this applied project, which will analyze 10 years of
GPA data. For organizational leadership practice, the implications are significant:
transformational leadership, structured support systems, and carefully designed NIL education
programs are essential for student-athletes to thrive academically. Research has shown that
student-athletes often record lower GPAs during competitive seasons due to the time demands of
travel, practice, and games (Scott et al., 2008). Transformational leadership, characterized by
vision and individualized support, promotes persistence, whereas transactional approaches,
emphasizing compliance, can undermine academic engagement (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Comeaux
& Harrison, 2011). External forces, such as NIL and the transfer portal, have shifted the focus
toward financial and athletic priorities, often at the expense of academic focus (Davis, 2024;
Meares, 2024). This review highlights three interconnected themes: academic outcomes,
leadership and support systems, and commercialization.
Purpose Statement and Research Questions
Division I student-athletes face persistent challenges in balancing academic responsibilities with
athletic demands. Increased travel, practice, and competitive schedules create measurable
declines in academic performance during athletic seasons. These challenges have been amplified
by structural shifts in collegiate athletics, particularly the introduction of Name, Image, and
Likeness (NIL) rights and the expansion of the transfer portal, both of which emphasize financial
gain and athlete mobility over academic development (Davis, 2024; Meares, 2024). In parallel,
the leadership environment within athletic departments has evolved. Transformational
leadership, once defined by individualized support and holistic student-athlete development, has
increasingly been replaced by transactional models that prioritize compliance, performance
metrics, and revenue generation (Comeaux & Harrison, 2011; Conners, Page, & Humphrey,
2023). As a result, leadership attention often centers on athletic branding rather than academic
persistence, leading to inconsistent support structures and uneven expectations across programs
(Liu, Zhang, Li, & Jannesari, 2023; Lovell & Stokes, 2023). These shifts underscore the need to
reevaluate how leadership practices, academic support systems, and commercialization pressures
interact to shape student-athlete success. Accordingly, the proposed applied project will address
these concerns through three interconnected knowledge areas: student-athlete academic
outcomes, leadership and support models, and commercialization, NIL, and organizational
policy.
The project is situated within a large public Division I university with an enrollment exceeding
70,000 students, of which approximately 6.5% are student-athletes (Arizona State University,
n.d.). The athletics department sponsors multiple men’s and women’s sports, including both
revenue and non-revenue programs, and competes as a member of a Power Four conference
governed by NCAA regulations. This organizational setting operates within the broader higher
education and collegiate athletics industry, intersecting academic affairs, compliance, and
leadership domains. The NCAA establishes eligibility standards, regulates NIL policy, and
enforces academic benchmarks such as the Graduation Success Rate and Academic Progress
Rate (NCAA, 2024).
Over time, national policy and market trends have reshaped priorities within collegiate athletics.
Historically, academic underperformance among student-athletes was addressed through NCAA
reforms such as Proposition 48 and the Academic Progress Rate (Stansbury, 2003). In recent
years, however, NIL rights and the transfer portal have transformed the collegiate landscape by
emphasizing athlete mobility, personal branding, and financial gain over academic engagement.
These developments have increased commercialization and intensified institutional focus on
compliance and revenue generation, while emerging trends suggest an expanding emphasis on
NIL education programs, compliance oversight, and enhanced academic support services
(Meares, 2024).
Both external and internal factors impact the organizational environment of this project.
Externally, NCAA governance structures, state NIL legislation, and cultural values that
emphasize financial independence for athletes shape institutional decision-making and resource
allocation. A SWOT analysis of these dynamics identified strengths in program visibility and
access to institutional resources, weaknesses in balancing athletics with academics, opportunities
for NIL education and leadership reform, and threats related to over-commercialization and
compliance obligations (Lovell & Stokes, 2023). Internally, leadership style, team culture, and
institutional priorities also significantly impact student-athlete outcomes. Transformational
leadership and proactive advising structures foster academic persistence and personal
development, whereas transactional approaches focused on short-term performance goals often
diminish academic engagement and support effectiveness. In addition, team cultures that
prioritize athletic success over academic achievement, combined with inconsistent academic
resources across programs, tend to exacerbate the declines in GPA observed during competitive
seasons (Comeaux & Harrison, 2011; Conners, Page, & Humphrey, 2023).
These external pressures and internal dynamics define the organizational context for this applied
project. Understanding how leadership practices interact with commercialization, academic
support, and policy constraints is essential for developing strategies that sustain student-athlete
success and align institutional leadership with educational integrity in the NIL era.
Research Questions
1. How has the introduction of NIL served as a catalyst for decreased academic
performance and distraction among Division I student-athletes?
2. How does athletic season participation influence GPA outcomes for Division I
student-athletes compared to out-of-season terms?
3. How do factors such as sport type, gender, and team size contribute to variations in
academic performance within the NIL era?
4. How can transformational leadership practices within athletic departments mitigate the
academic challenges created by NIL-related obligations and support student-athlete
persistence and success?
Research Methodology and Data Collection Strategy
The project will use a quantitative design to analyze institutional GPA data across 10 academic
years, with team GPA records to be obtained from the Office of Student-Athlete Development
within the university. The data will be grouped by in-season and out-of-season periods, gender,
sport type, and team size. Pre- and post-NIL comparisons will be conducted to assess policy
effects (Scott et al., 2008). Statistical analysis will include descriptive statistics and comparisons
of averages to identify patterns and trends. Validity and reliability will be ensured by relying on
standardized institutional records (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Potential bias will be minimized
by anonymizing data and interpreting findings through established leadership frameworks
(Comeaux & Harrison, 2011; Davis, 2024).
Assumptions and Limitations
This project will operate under several assumptions. It is assumed that institutional GPA
reporting accurately reflects student-athlete academic performance (NCAA, 2024). It is also
assumed that comparing in-season and out-of-season GPA data will provide meaningful
measures of academic variation and workload impact (Scott et al., 2008). Additionally, the
project assumes that NIL policies have reshaped leadership climates within athletic departments
and have indirectly influenced academic outcomes through changing priorities and expectations
(Comeaux & Harrison, 2011).
Limitations will also be acknowledged. GPA data alone will not capture contextual variables
such as tutoring participation, course difficulty, or student stress levels that may also affect
academic performance. The analysis will also not account for differences in majors, which can
vary in rigor, credit load, and time demands, potentially influencing GPA outcomes across
academic disciplines. Because this study will rely on secondary data, control over confounding
variables will be limited (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Furthermore, findings from this single
institutional setting may not be generalizable across all Division I programs due to differences in
institutional resources, leadership structures, and team cultures (Arizona State University, n.d.).
Ethical Considerations
Ethical Considerations
The project will ensure no harm to participants by using anonymized GPA records and excluding
personal identifiers. Student privacy was prioritized, and the research followed ASU’s IRB
Wizard and CITI certification processes, which determined that no additional IRB approval was
required. Bias was minimized through standardized definitions, reliance on objective data, and
use of established leadership theory to guide interpretation (ASU, n.d.; Creswell & Creswell,
2018).
References
Arizona State University. (n.d.). Facts and figures. https://www.asu.edu/about/facts-and-figures
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. SAGE.
Comeaux, E., & Harrison, C. K. (2011). A conceptual model of academic success for
student–athletes. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 235–245.
Conners, B. L., Page, T. E., & Humphrey, N. (2023). Transformational leadership in sport: A
systematic review. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 67, 102412.
Davis, A. R. (2024). Sporting revolutions: The 1970s and the making of modern college
athletics. Cambridge University Press.
Huml, M. R. (2020). A factor structure examination of the student-athlete time demands scale.
Journal of Athlete Development and Experience, 2(2), 101–116.
Liu, H., Zhang, J., Li, H., & Jannesari, M. (2023). Coach transformational leadership and
athletes’ thriving: The mediating role of basic psychological needs. IJERPH, 20(3), 2227.
Lovell, C. D., & Stokes, B. (2023). Name, image, and likeness and the public sector university:
Governance and compliance challenges. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 9(1), 1–23.
Mach, M., Lvina, E., & Maslowska, E. (2022). The effects of transformational leadership in
sports: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 17(3), 606–619.
Meares, K. (2024). College sports’ new NIL consensus: An uneasy truce? Journal of
Intercollegiate Sport, 17(2), 1–28.
NCAA. (2024). Division I graduation rates database.
https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2017/12/12/division-i-graduation-rates-database.aspx
Scott, J. P., Paskus, T. S., Miranda, M., Petr, T. A., & McArdle, J. J. (2008). In-season vs.
out-of-season academic performance of college student-athletes. Journal of Issues in
Intercollegiate Athletics, 1, 101–123.
– Abstract
– Literature Review
– Purpose Statement and Research Questions
– Research Methodology and Data Collection Strategy
– Ethical Considerations
– References
**MWaite_StakeholderProcessGuide_OGL593_DRAFT.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/mwaite-stakeholderprocessguide-ogl593-draft-pdf)
**MWaite_AppliedProjectReport_OGL593_DRAFT.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/mwaite-appliedprojectreport-ogl593-draft-pdf)
**MWaite_AppliedProjectReport_OGL593_DRAFT.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/mwaite-appliedprojectreport-ogl593-draft-pdf)
**## Benchmarkpeerreview.docx**
Benchmark #5: Peer Feedback
Your project will be reviewed by two classmates who will provide constructive feedback. In turn, you will be expected to serve in the same role twice over. You will most easily find your peer assignments in your Canvas "To Do" list, usually on the right-hand side of your screen.
Obviously, the most important goal is to provide constructive feedback that your peers can use to improve their final project. Moreover, it is important to be specific and thorough. A good review will be 200-300 words in length for each classmate you are reviewing.
The form this takes is up to you and will vary depending on the type of project you review, but typically, we will hope to see at least three thorough responses:
·
**First, a positive affirmation**: Provide a clear expression of
**at least**
**one** aspect or characteristic of the draft that seems especially strong or promising.
·
**Second, constructive room for improvement**: Provide specific feedback of
**at least**
**two** portions, aspects, or characteristics that would most benefit from the most improvement. If possible, offer specific examples or guidance on how to approach that improvement.
Again, if you assess that the particular draft you are reviewing would benefit from another approach, I trust you to follow those instincts. The goal here is to provide what will give your peer the most benefit.
Ideally, your peer feedback will be posted through the Canvas peer review system that will automatically assign you to review two of your peers' drafts. If that fails, you can use the discussion board below to post your feedback.
**As soon as your reviews are complete,**
**PLEASE reply below to report whose drafts your reviewed and that your reviews are complete.** This will help track your progress and assign your grade.
## image1.jpeg
**## Benchmark4.pdf**
Navigating the Academic Landscape: Challenges Faced by NCAA Student-Athletes
Liam T. Ferris
Arizona State University
Analyzing Organizations OGL 570
School of Applied Professional Studies
November 9, 2025
Abstract
This applied project will examine the academic performance of Division I student-athletes during
in-season versus out-of-season terms at a large public university in the United States. The
introduction of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights in July 2021 shifted the collegiate
athletics environment toward increased commercialization and financial incentives, raising
questions about academic persistence. This project employed quantitative methods to analyze 10
years of institutional GPA data for student-athletes, examining patterns in seasonality, pre- and
post-NIL trends, and subgroup differences across gender and sport type. The project was
grounded in leadership theory, with a particular focus on transformational and transactional
leadership, organizational change and culture, and student development in the context of higher
education policy. Findings are anticipated to inform the design of academic support strategies,
enhance retention and graduation outcomes, and provide leadership insights into balancing
athletic and academic commitments. Practical implications include strengthening academic
monitoring, aligning institutional leadership with transformational practices, and shaping NIL
policies to reduce conflicts between academic and financial priorities.
Literature Review
Prior research has demonstrated that athletes often record lower GPAs during their competitive
seasons compared to off-season terms, largely due to the combined burdens of practice, travel,
and game commitments (Scott et al., 2008). At the same time, leadership structures and
departmental climates influence outcomes, with transformational leadership, characterized by
vision, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized support, promoting academic
persistence and holistic development, while transactional leadership, which relies on compliance
and performance-based exchanges, can exacerbate academic struggles (Bass & Avolio, 1994;
Comeaux & Harrison, 2011). External forces, such as NIL opportunities and the transfer portal,
further complicate this balance, diverting time and attention toward financial and athletic
priorities at the expense of academics (Davis, 2024; Meares, 2024). The purpose of this project
was to analyze the academic performance of Division I student-athletes during in-season versus
out-of-season periods in order to strengthen academic support strategies. The scope encompassed
10 years of GPA data from a large public university, where student-athletes represented 6.5% of
the total enrollment. The analysis focused on seasonality, gender, team size, sport type, and
NIL-era differences. This literature review highlights three interconnected knowledge areas
within organizational leadership that are central to this project: student-athlete academic
outcomes, leadership and support models in collegiate athletics, and the influence of
commercialization, NIL, and organizational policy.
Research on student-athlete academic outcomes demonstrates that in-season competition
consistently influences GPA performance. Scott, Paskus, Miranda, Petr, and McArdle (2008)
found that GPAs declined during competitive seasons due to increased travel and scheduling
demands. In contrast, Gayles and Hu (2009) observed that student-athletes who spent significant
time on athletic commitments reported reduced opportunities for engagement in meaningful
academic experiences. Similarly, Huml (2020) validated an instrument revealing that athletes
experienced time demands greater than those officially recognized by NCAA standards. Foster
and Huml (2017) further noted that strong athletic identity often led student-athletes to select less
rigorous majors, prioritizing eligibility over long-term academic development. To counter these
challenges, universities have implemented structured academic interventions such as mandatory
study halls and tutoring programs. These supports have shown measurable effectiveness in
mitigating GPA declines, suggesting that intentional academic scheduling and monitoring can
reduce the negative impact of athletic participation on student performance.
Building on these academic outcomes, scholars have emphasized that leadership and
organizational climate are equally critical to student-athlete success. Transformational
leadership, characterized by individualized consideration and motivational vision, promotes
motivation, self-regulation, and performance across both athletic and academic domains (Mach,
Lvina, & Maslowska, 2022). Similarly, Liu, Zhang, Li, and Jannesari (2023) demonstrated that
transformational leadership fulfills athletes’ psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and
relatedness—conditions that encourage thriving in both classroom and competitive settings.
Conners, Page, and Humphrey (2023) reinforced that transformational leaders foster climates
conducive to learning and engagement, whereas transactional leaders, relying on compliance and
rewards, can suppress academic persistence. Complementing this leadership dimension,
institutional academic support systems play a reinforcing role. Northington, Daprano, and Singer
(2016) found that targeted tutoring and mentoring improved GPA and retention, and Comeaux
and Harrison (2011) linked leadership, engagement, and identity development to measurable
academic gains. Case studies of universities adopting transformational leadership within advising
and athletic programs documented increased graduation rates and retention, demonstrating how
leadership and organizational support intersect to produce sustainable success.
As leadership structures evolve, the growing commercialization of collegiate athletics has
introduced new pressures that reshape academic priorities. Davis (2024) described a decline in
the traditional “student-athlete” identity, as NIL policies and institutional marketing redefined
athletes as commercial assets. Meares (2024) observed that sponsorships, media obligations, and
brand partnerships are increasingly competing with academic responsibilities, thereby altering
time allocation and attention. Corr and Jensen (2023) found that athletes navigating NIL
opportunities often prioritize short-term financial outcomes over academic persistence. In
contrast, Lovell and Stokes (2023) highlighted how compliance and governance challenges
redirected institutional resources away from academic support. Moreover, Vogel and Kress
(2020) noted that increased recruitment of athletes with marginal academic preparation
compounded these effects, especially when commercialization amplified pressure on teams to
perform. In response, some institutions introduced NIL education programs centered on time
management and financial literacy, demonstrating early success in reducing conflicts between
academic and branding responsibilities. Assessing GPA patterns before and after the adoption of
NIL provides a valuable framework for understanding how these commercial and organizational
shifts influence academic persistence.
The literature established that student-athletes experience predictable academic disadvantages
during competitive seasons, often intensified by shifting leadership approaches and strong
athletic identities. The introduction of NIL rights added further complexity, competing with
academic commitments and altering institutional priorities. While prior research has addressed
elements of these challenges, gaps remain in understanding long-term GPA outcomes within a
single large institution and the interaction of NIL with leadership climates and academic
supports. Addressing these gaps justifies this applied project, which will analyze 10 years of
GPA data. For organizational leadership practice, the implications are significant:
transformational leadership, structured support systems, and carefully designed NIL education
programs are essential for student-athletes to thrive academically. Research has shown that
student-athletes often record lower GPAs during competitive seasons due to the time demands of
travel, practice, and games (Scott et al., 2008). Transformational leadership, characterized by
vision and individualized support, promotes persistence, whereas transactional approaches,
emphasizing compliance, can undermine academic engagement (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Comeaux
& Harrison, 2011). External forces, such as NIL and the transfer portal, have shifted the focus
toward financial and athletic priorities, often at the expense of academic focus (Davis, 2024;
Meares, 2024). This review highlights three interconnected themes: academic outcomes,
leadership and support systems, and commercialization.
Purpose Statement and Research Questions
Division I student-athletes face persistent challenges in balancing academic responsibilities with
athletic demands. Increased travel, practice, and competitive schedules create measurable
declines in academic performance during athletic seasons. These challenges have been amplified
by structural shifts in collegiate athletics, particularly the introduction of Name, Image, and
Likeness (NIL) rights and the expansion of the transfer portal, both of which emphasize financial
gain and athlete mobility over academic development (Davis, 2024; Meares, 2024). In parallel,
the leadership environment within athletic departments has evolved. Transformational
leadership, once defined by individualized support and holistic student-athlete development, has
increasingly been replaced by transactional models that prioritize compliance, performance
metrics, and revenue generation (Comeaux & Harrison, 2011; Conners, Page, & Humphrey,
2023). As a result, leadership attention often centers on athletic branding rather than academic
persistence, leading to inconsistent support structures and uneven expectations across programs
(Liu, Zhang, Li, & Jannesari, 2023; Lovell & Stokes, 2023). These shifts underscore the need to
reevaluate how leadership practices, academic support systems, and commercialization pressures
interact to shape student-athlete success. Accordingly, the proposed applied project will address
these concerns through three interconnected knowledge areas: student-athlete academic
outcomes, leadership and support models, and commercialization, NIL, and organizational
policy.
The project is situated within a large public Division I university with an enrollment exceeding
70,000 students, of which approximately 6.5% are student-athletes (Arizona State University,
n.d.). The athletics department sponsors multiple men’s and women’s sports, including both
revenue and non-revenue programs, and competes as a member of a Power Four conference
governed by NCAA regulations. This organizational setting operates within the broader higher
education and collegiate athletics industry, intersecting academic affairs, compliance, and
leadership domains. The NCAA establishes eligibility standards, regulates NIL policy, and
enforces academic benchmarks such as the Graduation Success Rate and Academic Progress
Rate (NCAA, 2024).
Over time, national policy and market trends have reshaped priorities within collegiate athletics.
Historically, academic underperformance among student-athletes was addressed through NCAA
reforms such as Proposition 48 and the Academic Progress Rate (Stansbury, 2003). In recent
years, however, NIL rights and the transfer portal have transformed the collegiate landscape by
emphasizing athlete mobility, personal branding, and financial gain over academic engagement.
These developments have increased commercialization and intensified institutional focus on
compliance and revenue generation, while emerging trends suggest an expanding emphasis on
NIL education programs, compliance oversight, and enhanced academic support services
(Meares, 2024).
Both external and internal factors impact the organizational environment of this project.
Externally, NCAA governance structures, state NIL legislation, and cultural values that
emphasize financial independence for athletes shape institutional decision-making and resource
allocation. A SWOT analysis of these dynamics identified strengths in program visibility and
access to institutional resources, weaknesses in balancing athletics with academics, opportunities
for NIL education and leadership reform, and threats related to over-commercialization and
compliance obligations (Lovell & Stokes, 2023). Internally, leadership style, team culture, and
institutional priorities also significantly impact student-athlete outcomes. Transformational
leadership and proactive advising structures foster academic persistence and personal
development, whereas transactional approaches focused on short-term performance goals often
diminish academic engagement and support effectiveness. In addition, team cultures that
prioritize athletic success over academic achievement, combined with inconsistent academic
resources across programs, tend to exacerbate the declines in GPA observed during competitive
seasons (Comeaux & Harrison, 2011; Conners, Page, & Humphrey, 2023).
These external pressures and internal dynamics define the organizational context for this applied
project. Understanding how leadership practices interact with commercialization, academic
support, and policy constraints is essential for developing strategies that sustain student-athlete
success and align institutional leadership with educational integrity in the NIL era.
Research Questions
1. How has the introduction of NIL served as a catalyst for decreased academic
performance and distraction among Division I student-athletes?
2. How does athletic season participation influence GPA outcomes for Division I
student-athletes compared to out-of-season terms?
3. How do factors such as sport type, gender, and team size contribute to variations in
academic performance within the NIL era?
4. How can transformational leadership practices within athletic departments mitigate the
academic challenges created by NIL-related obligations and support student-athlete
persistence and success?
Research Methodology and Data Collection Strategy
The project will use a quantitative design to analyze institutional GPA data across 10 academic
years, with team GPA records to be obtained from the Office of Student-Athlete Development
within the university. The data will be grouped by in-season and out-of-season periods, gender,
sport type, and team size. Pre- and post-NIL comparisons will be conducted to assess policy
effects (Scott et al., 2008). Statistical analysis will include descriptive statistics and comparisons
of averages to identify patterns and trends. Validity and reliability will be ensured by relying on
standardized institutional records (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Potential bias will be minimized
by anonymizing data and interpreting findings through established leadership frameworks
(Comeaux & Harrison, 2011; Davis, 2024).
Assumptions and Limitations
This project will operate under several assumptions. It is assumed that institutional GPA
reporting accurately reflects student-athlete academic performance (NCAA, 2024). It is also
assumed that comparing in-season and out-of-season GPA data will provide meaningful
measures of academic variation and workload impact (Scott et al., 2008). Additionally, the
project assumes that NIL policies have reshaped leadership climates within athletic departments
and have indirectly influenced academic outcomes through changing priorities and expectations
(Comeaux & Harrison, 2011).
Limitations will also be acknowledged. GPA data alone will not capture contextual variables
such as tutoring participation, course difficulty, or student stress levels that may also affect
academic performance. The analysis will also not account for differences in majors, which can
vary in rigor, credit load, and time demands, potentially influencing GPA outcomes across
academic disciplines. Because this study will rely on secondary data, control over confounding
variables will be limited (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Furthermore, findings from this single
institutional setting may not be generalizable across all Division I programs due to differences in
institutional resources, leadership structures, and team cultures (Arizona State University, n.d.).
Ethical Considerations
Ethical Considerations
The project will ensure no harm to participants by using anonymized GPA records and excluding
personal identifiers. Student privacy was prioritized, and the research followed ASU’s IRB
Wizard and CITI certification processes, which determined that no additional IRB approval was
required. Bias was minimized through standardized definitions, reliance on objective data, and
use of established leadership theory to guide interpretation (ASU, n.d.; Creswell & Creswell,
2018).
References
Arizona State University. (n.d.). Facts and figures. https://www.asu.edu/about/facts-and-figures
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. SAGE.
Comeaux, E., & Harrison, C. K. (2011). A conceptual model of academic success for
student–athletes. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 235–245.
Conners, B. L., Page, T. E., & Humphrey, N. (2023). Transformational leadership in sport: A
systematic review. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 67, 102412.
Davis, A. R. (2024). Sporting revolutions: The 1970s and the making of modern college
athletics. Cambridge University Press.
Huml, M. R. (2020). A factor structure examination of the student-athlete time demands scale.
Journal of Athlete Development and Experience, 2(2), 101–116.
Liu, H., Zhang, J., Li, H., & Jannesari, M. (2023). Coach transformational leadership and
athletes’ thriving: The mediating role of basic psychological needs. IJERPH, 20(3), 2227.
Lovell, C. D., & Stokes, B. (2023). Name, image, and likeness and the public sector university:
Governance and compliance challenges. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 9(1), 1–23.
Mach, M., Lvina, E., & Maslowska, E. (2022). The effects of transformational leadership in
sports: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 17(3), 606–619.
Meares, K. (2024). College sports’ new NIL consensus: An uneasy truce? Journal of
Intercollegiate Sport, 17(2), 1–28.
NCAA. (2024). Division I graduation rates database.
https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2017/12/12/division-i-graduation-rates-database.aspx
Scott, J. P., Paskus, T. S., Miranda, M., Petr, T. A., & McArdle, J. J. (2008). In-season vs.
out-of-season academic performance of college student-athletes. Journal of Issues in
Intercollegiate Athletics, 1, 101–123.
– Abstract
– Literature Review
– Purpose Statement and Research Questions
– Research Methodology and Data Collection Strategy
– Ethical Considerations
– References
**MWaite_StakeholderProcessGuide_OGL593_DRAFT.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/mwaite-stakeholderprocessguide-ogl593-draft-pdf)
**MWaite_AppliedProjectReport_OGL593_DRAFT.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/mwaite-appliedprojectreport-ogl593-draft-pdf)
**## Benchmarkpeerreview.docx**
Benchmark #5: Peer Feedback
Your project will be reviewed by two classmates who will provide constructive feedback. In turn, you will be expected to serve in the same role twice over. You will most easily find your peer assignments in your Canvas "To Do" list, usually on the right-hand side of your screen.
Obviously, the most important goal is to provide constructive feedback that your peers can use to improve their final project. Moreover, it is important to be specific and thorough. A good review will be 200-300 words in length for each classmate you are reviewing.
The form this takes is up to you and will vary depending on the type of project you review, but typically, we will hope to see at least three thorough responses:
·
**First, a positive affirmation**: Provide a clear expression of
**at least**
**one** aspect or characteristic of the draft that seems especially strong or promising.
·
**Second, constructive room for improvement**: Provide specific feedback of
**at least**
**two** portions, aspects, or characteristics that would most benefit from the most improvement. If possible, offer specific examples or guidance on how to approach that improvement.
Again, if you assess that the particular draft you are reviewing would benefit from another approach, I trust you to follow those instincts. The goal here is to provide what will give your peer the most benefit.
Ideally, your peer feedback will be posted through the Canvas peer review system that will automatically assign you to review two of your peers' drafts. If that fails, you can use the discussion board below to post your feedback.
**As soon as your reviews are complete,**
**PLEASE reply below to report whose drafts your reviewed and that your reviews are complete.** This will help track your progress and assign your grade.
## image1.jpeg
**## Benchmark4.pdf**
Navigating the Academic Landscape: Challenges Faced by NCAA Student-Athletes
Liam T. Ferris
Arizona State University
Analyzing Organizations OGL 570
School of Applied Professional Studies
November 9, 2025
Abstract
This applied project will examine the academic performance of Division I student-athletes during
in-season versus out-of-season terms at a large public university in the United States. The
introduction of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights in July 2021 shifted the collegiate
athletics environment toward increased commercialization and financial incentives, raising
questions about academic persistence. This project employed quantitative methods to analyze 10
years of institutional GPA data for student-athletes, examining patterns in seasonality, pre- and
post-NIL trends, and subgroup differences across gender and sport type. The project was
grounded in leadership theory, with a particular focus on transformational and transactional
leadership, organizational change and culture, and student development in the context of higher
education policy. Findings are anticipated to inform the design of academic support strategies,
enhance retention and graduation outcomes, and provide leadership insights into balancing
athletic and academic commitments. Practical implications include strengthening academic
monitoring, aligning institutional leadership with transformational practices, and shaping NIL
policies to reduce conflicts between academic and financial priorities.
Literature Review
Prior research has demonstrated that athletes often record lower GPAs during their competitive
seasons compared to off-season terms, largely due to the combined burdens of practice, travel,
and game commitments (Scott et al., 2008). At the same time, leadership structures and
departmental climates influence outcomes, with transformational leadership, characterized by
vision, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized support, promoting academic
persistence and holistic development, while transactional leadership, which relies on compliance
and performance-based exchanges, can exacerbate academic struggles (Bass & Avolio, 1994;
Comeaux & Harrison, 2011). External forces, such as NIL opportunities and the transfer portal,
further complicate this balance, diverting time and attention toward financial and athletic
priorities at the expense of academics (Davis, 2024; Meares, 2024). The purpose of this project
was to analyze the academic performance of Division I student-athletes during in-season versus
out-of-season periods in order to strengthen academic support strategies. The scope encompassed
10 years of GPA data from a large public university, where student-athletes represented 6.5% of
the total enrollment. The analysis focused on seasonality, gender, team size, sport type, and
NIL-era differences. This literature review highlights three interconnected knowledge areas
within organizational leadership that are central to this project: student-athlete academic
outcomes, leadership and support models in collegiate athletics, and the influence of
commercialization, NIL, and organizational policy.
Research on student-athlete academic outcomes demonstrates that in-season competition
consistently influences GPA performance. Scott, Paskus, Miranda, Petr, and McArdle (2008)
found that GPAs declined during competitive seasons due to increased travel and scheduling
demands. In contrast, Gayles and Hu (2009) observed that student-athletes who spent significant
time on athletic commitments reported reduced opportunities for engagement in meaningful
academic experiences. Similarly, Huml (2020) validated an instrument revealing that athletes
experienced time demands greater than those officially recognized by NCAA standards. Foster
and Huml (2017) further noted that strong athletic identity often led student-athletes to select less
rigorous majors, prioritizing eligibility over long-term academic development. To counter these
challenges, universities have implemented structured academic interventions such as mandatory
study halls and tutoring programs. These supports have shown measurable effectiveness in
mitigating GPA declines, suggesting that intentional academic scheduling and monitoring can
reduce the negative impact of athletic participation on student performance.
Building on these academic outcomes, scholars have emphasized that leadership and
organizational climate are equally critical to student-athlete success. Transformational
leadership, characterized by individualized consideration and motivational vision, promotes
motivation, self-regulation, and performance across both athletic and academic domains (Mach,
Lvina, & Maslowska, 2022). Similarly, Liu, Zhang, Li, and Jannesari (2023) demonstrated that
transformational leadership fulfills athletes’ psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and
relatedness—conditions that encourage thriving in both classroom and competitive settings.
Conners, Page, and Humphrey (2023) reinforced that transformational leaders foster climates
conducive to learning and engagement, whereas transactional leaders, relying on compliance and
rewards, can suppress academic persistence. Complementing this leadership dimension,
institutional academic support systems play a reinforcing role. Northington, Daprano, and Singer
(2016) found that targeted tutoring and mentoring improved GPA and retention, and Comeaux
and Harrison (2011) linked leadership, engagement, and identity development to measurable
academic gains. Case studies of universities adopting transformational leadership within advising
and athletic programs documented increased graduation rates and retention, demonstrating how
leadership and organizational support intersect to produce sustainable success.
As leadership structures evolve, the growing commercialization of collegiate athletics has
introduced new pressures that reshape academic priorities. Davis (2024) described a decline in
the traditional “student-athlete” identity, as NIL policies and institutional marketing redefined
athletes as commercial assets. Meares (2024) observed that sponsorships, media obligations, and
brand partnerships are increasingly competing with academic responsibilities, thereby altering
time allocation and attention. Corr and Jensen (2023) found that athletes navigating NIL
opportunities often prioritize short-term financial outcomes over academic persistence. In
contrast, Lovell and Stokes (2023) highlighted how compliance and governance challenges
redirected institutional resources away from academic support. Moreover, Vogel and Kress
(2020) noted that increased recruitment of athletes with marginal academic preparation
compounded these effects, especially when commercialization amplified pressure on teams to
perform. In response, some institutions introduced NIL education programs centered on time
management and financial literacy, demonstrating early success in reducing conflicts between
academic and branding responsibilities. Assessing GPA patterns before and after the adoption of
NIL provides a valuable framework for understanding how these commercial and organizational
shifts influence academic persistence.
The literature established that student-athletes experience predictable academic disadvantages
during competitive seasons, often intensified by shifting leadership approaches and strong
athletic identities. The introduction of NIL rights added further complexity, competing with
academic commitments and altering institutional priorities. While prior research has addressed
elements of these challenges, gaps remain in understanding long-term GPA outcomes within a
single large institution and the interaction of NIL with leadership climates and academic
supports. Addressing these gaps justifies this applied project, which will analyze 10 years of
GPA data. For organizational leadership practice, the implications are significant:
transformational leadership, structured support systems, and carefully designed NIL education
programs are essential for student-athletes to thrive academically. Research has shown that
student-athletes often record lower GPAs during competitive seasons due to the time demands of
travel, practice, and games (Scott et al., 2008). Transformational leadership, characterized by
vision and individualized support, promotes persistence, whereas transactional approaches,
emphasizing compliance, can undermine academic engagement (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Comeaux
& Harrison, 2011). External forces, such as NIL and the transfer portal, have shifted the focus
toward financial and athletic priorities, often at the expense of academic focus (Davis, 2024;
Meares, 2024). This review highlights three interconnected themes: academic outcomes,
leadership and support systems, and commercialization.
Purpose Statement and Research Questions
Division I student-athletes face persistent challenges in balancing academic responsibilities with
athletic demands. Increased travel, practice, and competitive schedules create measurable
declines in academic performance during athletic seasons. These challenges have been amplified
by structural shifts in collegiate athletics, particularly the introduction of Name, Image, and
Likeness (NIL) rights and the expansion of the transfer portal, both of which emphasize financial
gain and athlete mobility over academic development (Davis, 2024; Meares, 2024). In parallel,
the leadership environment within athletic departments has evolved. Transformational
leadership, once defined by individualized support and holistic student-athlete development, has
increasingly been replaced by transactional models that prioritize compliance, performance
metrics, and revenue generation (Comeaux & Harrison, 2011; Conners, Page, & Humphrey,
2023). As a result, leadership attention often centers on athletic branding rather than academic
persistence, leading to inconsistent support structures and uneven expectations across programs
(Liu, Zhang, Li, & Jannesari, 2023; Lovell & Stokes, 2023). These shifts underscore the need to
reevaluate how leadership practices, academic support systems, and commercialization pressures
interact to shape student-athlete success. Accordingly, the proposed applied project will address
these concerns through three interconnected knowledge areas: student-athlete academic
outcomes, leadership and support models, and commercialization, NIL, and organizational
policy.
The project is situated within a large public Division I university with an enrollment exceeding
70,000 students, of which approximately 6.5% are student-athletes (Arizona State University,
n.d.). The athletics department sponsors multiple men’s and women’s sports, including both
revenue and non-revenue programs, and competes as a member of a Power Four conference
governed by NCAA regulations. This organizational setting operates within the broader higher
education and collegiate athletics industry, intersecting academic affairs, compliance, and
leadership domains. The NCAA establishes eligibility standards, regulates NIL policy, and
enforces academic benchmarks such as the Graduation Success Rate and Academic Progress
Rate (NCAA, 2024).
Over time, national policy and market trends have reshaped priorities within collegiate athletics.
Historically, academic underperformance among student-athletes was addressed through NCAA
reforms such as Proposition 48 and the Academic Progress Rate (Stansbury, 2003). In recent
years, however, NIL rights and the transfer portal have transformed the collegiate landscape by
emphasizing athlete mobility, personal branding, and financial gain over academic engagement.
These developments have increased commercialization and intensified institutional focus on
compliance and revenue generation, while emerging trends suggest an expanding emphasis on
NIL education programs, compliance oversight, and enhanced academic support services
(Meares, 2024).
Both external and internal factors impact the organizational environment of this project.
Externally, NCAA governance structures, state NIL legislation, and cultural values that
emphasize financial independence for athletes shape institutional decision-making and resource
allocation. A SWOT analysis of these dynamics identified strengths in program visibility and
access to institutional resources, weaknesses in balancing athletics with academics, opportunities
for NIL education and leadership reform, and threats related to over-commercialization and
compliance obligations (Lovell & Stokes, 2023). Internally, leadership style, team culture, and
institutional priorities also significantly impact student-athlete outcomes. Transformational
leadership and proactive advising structures foster academic persistence and personal
development, whereas transactional approaches focused on short-term performance goals often
diminish academic engagement and support effectiveness. In addition, team cultures that
prioritize athletic success over academic achievement, combined with inconsistent academic
resources across programs, tend to exacerbate the declines in GPA observed during competitive
seasons (Comeaux & Harrison, 2011; Conners, Page, & Humphrey, 2023).
These external pressures and internal dynamics define the organizational context for this applied
project. Understanding how leadership practices interact with commercialization, academic
support, and policy constraints is essential for developing strategies that sustain student-athlete
success and align institutional leadership with educational integrity in the NIL era.
Research Questions
1. How has the introduction of NIL served as a catalyst for decreased academic
performance and distraction among Division I student-athletes?
2. How does athletic season participation influence GPA outcomes for Division I
student-athletes compared to out-of-season terms?
3. How do factors such as sport type, gender, and team size contribute to variations in
academic performance within the NIL era?
4. How can transformational leadership practices within athletic departments mitigate the
academic challenges created by NIL-related obligations and support student-athlete
persistence and success?
Research Methodology and Data Collection Strategy
The project will use a quantitative design to analyze institutional GPA data across 10 academic
years, with team GPA records to be obtained from the Office of Student-Athlete Development
within the university. The data will be grouped by in-season and out-of-season periods, gender,
sport type, and team size. Pre- and post-NIL comparisons will be conducted to assess policy
effects (Scott et al., 2008). Statistical analysis will include descriptive statistics and comparisons
of averages to identify patterns and trends. Validity and reliability will be ensured by relying on
standardized institutional records (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Potential bias will be minimized
by anonymizing data and interpreting findings through established leadership frameworks
(Comeaux & Harrison, 2011; Davis, 2024).
Assumptions and Limitations
This project will operate under several assumptions. It is assumed that institutional GPA
reporting accurately reflects student-athlete academic performance (NCAA, 2024). It is also
assumed that comparing in-season and out-of-season GPA data will provide meaningful
measures of academic variation and workload impact (Scott et al., 2008). Additionally, the
project assumes that NIL policies have reshaped leadership climates within athletic departments
and have indirectly influenced academic outcomes through changing priorities and expectations
(Comeaux & Harrison, 2011).
Limitations will also be acknowledged. GPA data alone will not capture contextual variables
such as tutoring participation, course difficulty, or student stress levels that may also affect
academic performance. The analysis will also not account for differences in majors, which can
vary in rigor, credit load, and time demands, potentially influencing GPA outcomes across
academic disciplines. Because this study will rely on secondary data, control over confounding
variables will be limited (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Furthermore, findings from this single
institutional setting may not be generalizable across all Division I programs due to differences in
institutional resources, leadership structures, and team cultures (Arizona State University, n.d.).
Ethical Considerations
Ethical Considerations
The project will ensure no harm to participants by using anonymized GPA records and excluding
personal identifiers. Student privacy was prioritized, and the research followed ASU’s IRB
Wizard and CITI certification processes, which determined that no additional IRB approval was
required. Bias was minimized through standardized definitions, reliance on objective data, and
use of established leadership theory to guide interpretation (ASU, n.d.; Creswell & Creswell,
2018).
References
Arizona State University. (n.d.). Facts and figures. https://www.asu.edu/about/facts-and-figures
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. SAGE.
Comeaux, E., & Harrison, C. K. (2011). A conceptual model of academic success for
student–athletes. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 235–245.
Conners, B. L., Page, T. E., & Humphrey, N. (2023). Transformational leadership in sport: A
systematic review. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 67, 102412.
Davis, A. R. (2024). Sporting revolutions: The 1970s and the making of modern college
athletics. Cambridge University Press.
Huml, M. R. (2020). A factor structure examination of the student-athlete time demands scale.
Journal of Athlete Development and Experience, 2(2), 101–116.
Liu, H., Zhang, J., Li, H., & Jannesari, M. (2023). Coach transformational leadership and
athletes’ thriving: The mediating role of basic psychological needs. IJERPH, 20(3), 2227.
Lovell, C. D., & Stokes, B. (2023). Name, image, and likeness and the public sector university:
Governance and compliance challenges. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 9(1), 1–23.
Mach, M., Lvina, E., & Maslowska, E. (2022). The effects of transformational leadership in
sports: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 17(3), 606–619.
Meares, K. (2024). College sports’ new NIL consensus: An uneasy truce? Journal of
Intercollegiate Sport, 17(2), 1–28.
NCAA. (2024). Division I graduation rates database.
https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2017/12/12/division-i-graduation-rates-database.aspx
Scott, J. P., Paskus, T. S., Miranda, M., Petr, T. A., & McArdle, J. J. (2008). In-season vs.
out-of-season academic performance of college student-athletes. Journal of Issues in
Intercollegiate Athletics, 1, 101–123.
– Abstract
– Literature Review
– Purpose Statement and Research Questions
– Research Methodology and Data Collection Strategy
– Ethical Considerations
– References
**MWaite_StakeholderProcessGuide_OGL593_DRAFT.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/mwaite-stakeholderprocessguide-ogl593-draft-pdf)
**MWaite_AppliedProjectReport_OGL593_DRAFT.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/mwaite-appliedprojectreport-ogl593-draft-pdf)
– 1
– 2
– 3
– 4