Dillon, Connie G2019-04-272019-04-272011https://hdl.handle.net/11244/318881Intercollegiate athletics has promoted the capacity to develop personal growth and development within participants for over a century but at times is littered with scandal and abuse on campuses (Thelin, 1996). Public exposure of documented problems through the years has resulted in a reform movement and scholarly debate about how to curtail the phenomenon of an academic-athletic divide on campuses. Literature suggests that the roots of academic-athletic divide is complex but highlights that the over-emphasis and dependency on money and winning within athletics above preserving academic values holds much of the blame (Estler, 2005).The heritage of oversight at the NCAA Division II (NCAA-II) level is recognized as promoting an effective balance of academics and athletics (Estler, 1997, 2005). The purpose of this study is to employ role theory in exploring the role of athletic directors to better understand the academic-athletic divide. The significance of this study is to identify strategies for promoting balanced programs through understanding effective administration. Once better understood, effective management strategies may be useful in the field of athletics administration to help avoid the academic-athletics divide in the future.The population of the study included NCAA-II institutions holding membership in a single athletics conference. The sample consisted of athletic directors and data were collected utilizing document reviews and open-ended interviews which focused on the experiences of intercollegiate athletics directors in their roles. The data underwent content analysis reviewing documents and conversational analysis reviewing interview transcripts for the emergence of several themes. First, intercollegiate athletics directors have more experience in athletics administration than in higher education administration. Second, the athletics department philosophies are supportive of the academic missions. Third, intercollegiate athletics directors report that their expectations are clearly communicated and that they experience few signs of an athletic-academic divide on their campuses. Finally, they identify presidents, student-athletes, and the campus community as key constituents and perceive that their expectations of these groups are compatible.The conclusions of the study suggest that NCAA-II institutions do not experience as described in the literature an academic-athletic divide between NCAA intercollegiate athletics programs and their sponsoring institutions.303 pagesapplication.pdfCollege sports--United States--ManagementEducation, Higher--Aims and objectives--United Statestext