Thesis (Ed.D.)--Boston University / PLEASE NOTE: Boston University Libraries did not receive an Authorization To Manage form for this thesis or dissertation. It is therefore not openly accessible, though it may be available by request. If you are the author or principal advisor of this work and would like to request open access for it, please contact us at open-help@bu.edu. Thank you. / The purpose of this study was to investigate expectations of collegiate head coaches about sport psychology consulting. There were two null hypotheses in this study: first, there will be no difference in expectations of sport psychology consulting between male and female collegiate head coaches of NCAA Division I, II, and III athletic programs; second, there will be no difference in expectations of sport psychology consulting between head coaches of male and female athletic programs at Division I, II, and III level. Items from the Expectations About Spmt Psychology Consulting (EASPC) questionnaire (Martinet al, 2001) were revised to reflect a head coaches' perspective. The revised instrument, Coaches' Expectations About Sport Psychology Consulting (CESPC) questionnaire, was administered to 404 collegiate head coaches (244 male coaches and 160 female coaches) of both male and female team sports (248 female teams and 156 male teams) from NCAA Division I, II, and III athletic teams. Results of a 2 (Gender of the Sport) X 3 (NCAA Level of Competition) MANOVA indicated a significant main effect for gender of the sport. Univariate ANOVAs indicated a significant effect for personal commitment. In addition, results of the 2 (Gender of the Coach) X 3 (NCAA Level of Competition) MANOV A indicated a significant main effect for gender of the head coach. Univariate ANOV As indicated a significant effect for personal commitment. Subsequent univariate A VOV As also revealed a significant interaction between the level of sport (e.g. , CAA Division I, Division II, and Division III) and gender with respect to SPC expertise. Results indicated that the CESPC instrument might be a valuable tool for determining head coaches ' expectations about sport psychology consulting. Interpretations of the results for each hypothesis are included and implications for sport psychology consultants are discussed based on these findings. Finally, study limitations are identified and suggestions for future research are made. / 2999-01-01

The purpose of this study was to examine the legal strategy of utilizing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to compel change to the racial composition of head coaches at NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision institutions. To accomplish this, the researcher examined the guidelines for bringing a Title VII case, researched statutory requirements and case law precedents, and compiled and analyzed the outcomes of prior employment discrimination cases. In addition, the researcher investigated the proposition that Title VII could do for minority football coaches what Title IX did in athletics for girls and women. Investigation of Title VII procedural guidelines revealed that plaintiffs are disadvantaged when pursuing a claim. This is due in part to the fact that plaintiffs must exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing a complaint with a court. As a result, the Title VII remedy requires a protracted process. In addition, review of salient sport and non-sport cases revealed that courts are highly deferential to employers when evaluating the employers’ proffered hiring criteria. Analysis of prior Title VII case outcomes revealed a significant disparity in plaintiff and defendant success rates. During 1998-2006, plaintiffs succeeded in opposing motions for summary judgment only 1.84% of the time in U.S. District Courts. Plaintiffs were more successful if they were able to get their cases heard by a court. Plaintiffs prevailed in 37.9% of jury trials and in 26.7% of bench trials. It was also determined that Title VII is unlikely to provide results similar to Title IX. This is asserted for two main reasons. First, unlike Title IX, Title VII complaints cannot be filed directly in a court without exhausting administrative remedies. Second, because standing is not an issue in filing a Title IX complaint with the Office for Civil Rights, the investigation of an institution can commence upon the filing of a complaint by an interested party. Thus, a coach or administrator does not have to be directly involved. It was concluded that for these and other reasons, it is unlikely that Title VII litigation can affect change. Minority coach advocates should instead try less adversarial approaches.