View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Investigating Paternalistic Attitudes in NCAA Division I Power 5 Team Conduct Policies

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Investigating Paternalistic Attitudes in NCAA Division I Power 5 Team Conduct Policies
Language: English
Authors: Daniel Springer (ORCID 0000-0002-0219-4641), Molly Harry, Steffanie Heinrich
Source: Innovative Higher Education. 2025 50(4):1203-1225.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 23
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: College Students, Student Athletes, College Athletics, Intercollegiate Cooperation, Team Sports, Self Determination, Policy, Language Usage, Compliance (Legal), Psychological Needs, Well Being, Student Motivation
DOI: 10.1007/s10755-024-09776-8
ISSN: 0742-5627
1573-1758
Abstract: This study examined whether paternalistic attitudes persist in intercollegiate athletic contexts despite broader shifts away from paternalism across American higher education. We analyzed 98 Division I Power 5 team conduct policies using self-determination theory (SDT) to determine if they exhibited paternalistic attitudes. Findings revealed that team conduct policies often adopted a control-oriented framework, limiting athletes' self-determination and fostering compliance over self-directed growth. This analysis broadens SDT's application to a structural context, highlighting its relevance in policy critique and institutional settings with hierarchical structures. We suggest practical policy language revisions to foster environments that support athletes' basic psychological needs. These recommendations aim to bridge a disconnect between athletic and broader university administration, advocating for policies that can enhance athlete well-being and motivation. Future research could expand this approach to include stakeholder interviews, shedding light on the perceptions and real-world implementation of such policies in athletic environments.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1480387
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwERhskmh4u1S8toWhBrsxiZAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGW_2FCqlp5BImlS8wIBEICBm1pzZPFM67XySZ86ywulRIGiXxJIl4SipWx5bsIq115PzP4FDzqrTHcQjNlnfSV4UZ8P2JKinDVrsDO8Wnzqu42iLFvsjwj_EQY50mUhQyOofIDlLlvNX3QIWfS6_GqYscSJw1M4JScpVgB6EZnNgR7za0-5mriFwm_aicnGTUK79IrhcRclLfKEtpKYpiHyTHH37fblsXB7jxWM
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187381768;ihe01aug.25;2025Aug20.02:30;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187381768-1">Investigating Paternalistic Attitudes in NCAA Division I Power 5 Team Conduct Policies </title> <p>This study examined whether paternalistic attitudes persist in intercollegiate athletic contexts despite broader shifts away from paternalism across American higher education. We analyzed 98 Division I Power 5 team conduct policies using self-determination theory (SDT) to determine if they exhibited paternalistic attitudes. Findings revealed that team conduct policies often adopted a control-oriented framework, limiting athletes' self-determination and fostering compliance over self-directed growth. This analysis broadens SDT's application to a structural context, highlighting its relevance in policy critique and institutional settings with hierarchical structures. We suggest practical policy language revisions to foster environments that support athletes' basic psychological needs. These recommendations aim to bridge a disconnect between athletic and broader university administration, advocating for policies that can enhance athlete well-being and motivation. Future research could expand this approach to include stakeholder interviews, shedding light on the perceptions and real-world implementation of such policies in athletic environments.</p> <p>Keywords: Self-determination theory; Document analysis; Intercollegiate athletics</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <p>Paternalism in American higher education has deep roots, prioritizing student discipline and strict adherence to institutional rules and values, which were considered essential to fostering an environment aligned with educational and moral expectations (Crookston, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref1">16</reflink>]; Manning, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref2">40</reflink>]; Schwartz & Stewart, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref3">52</reflink>]). These practices shifted after the landmark Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref4">20</reflink>]), which sparked a broader movement toward autonomy in governing students' conduct (Dannells, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref5">19</reflink>]). Administrators transitioned from strict oversight to policies informed by ethical principles such as autonomy, non-malfeasance, and beneficence, which now foster fair and supportive environments (ASCA, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref6">4</reflink>]). While these principles guide contemporary conduct policies across higher education, their influence on intercollegiate athletic oversight remains uncertain, especially in contexts where athletes operate within a hierarchical structure that closely regulates their behavior.</p> <p>In athletic environments, paternalistic practices have proven more resistant to change, as evidenced by the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA) restrictive policies that limit athletes' rights to maintain amateurism (Corr et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref7">15</reflink>]; Lever, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref8">38</reflink>]). These policies establish a framework of control, resulting in close oversight of athletes' daily lives (Hatteberg, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref9">28</reflink>]; Southall & Weiler, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref10">57</reflink>]). Administrators wield substantial authority, influencing athletes' experiences, behaviors, and decisions under the guise of promoting discipline and safeguarding athletes' well-being (Hatteberg, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref11">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>This form of paternalism—defined by actions that restrict autonomy under the rationale of protection (Scoccia, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref12">53</reflink>])—opposes the principles of self-determination, which hold that individuals thrive when their autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs are met (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref13">51</reflink>]). This tension becomes particularly evident at the Division I Power 5 level (i.e., Atlantic Coach, Big 10, Big 12, & Southeastern Conferences), where the stakes are heightened by increased visibility and financial pressures (Clotfelter, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref14">13</reflink>]). Paternalistic practices can inhibit athletes' ability to make self-directed choices, fostering dependency.</p> <p>Although scholars have critiqued the persistence of paternalistic dynamics in athletic governance (e.g., Carter, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref15">11</reflink>]; Hawkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref16">29</reflink>]; Southall & Karcher, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref17">56</reflink>]), empirical analysis of how these principles manifest is limited. This study addresses this gap by examining whether the language used in Division I Power 5 team conduct policies communicate paternalistic attitudes that may affect athletes' autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Applying SDT as a framework, we seek to answer the following question:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> RQ: In what ways, if any, might the language used in Division I Power 5 team conduct policies reflect coaches' paternalistic attitudes?</item> </ulist> <p>Through document analysis, we expand the discussion on paternalism in intercollegiate athletics and contribute to a broader understanding of autonomy-supportive environments aligned with SDT's principles.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-2">Self-Determination in Intercollegiate Athletics</hd> <p>SDT posits that individuals are intrinsically motivated to engage in actions that fulfill three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref18">51</reflink>]). According to Ryan and Deci ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref19">50</reflink>]), three dimensions undergird need satisfaction: autonomy support (i.e., nurturing self-regulation), structure (i.e., scaffolding through expectations), and involvement (i.e., relational and emotional resource dedication). Scholars have used SDT to understand athletes' experiences across all participation levels, highlighting how external factors and motivators influence athletes' autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Sullivan, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref20">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>Like parenting, coaching involves a power dynamic where one party influences another's behavior. Thus, like parenting styles, coaching styles can impact athletes' psychological needs and motivation. Mageau and Vallerand ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref21">39</reflink>]) and Amorose and Anderson-Butcher ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>]) found that autonomy-supporting coaching greatly enhanced athletes' intrinsic motivation by meeting their psychological needs. Athletes thrive when coaches foster environments that allow personal input and provide positive feedback, reducing burnout and reinforcing feelings of competence and autonomy (Amorose & Anderson-Butcher, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref23">1</reflink>]; Amorose et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>]; Mageau & Vallerand, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref25">39</reflink>]). This aligns with findings from Bartholomew et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref26">7</reflink>]) and Balaguer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref27">6</reflink>]) that highlighted controlling coaching behaviors were detrimental, increasing adverse outcomes like eating disorders, exhaustion, burnout, or depression.</p> <p>Controlling approaches can also lead to need frustration and disengagement over time, reinforcing the importance of autonomy-supportive practices for sustained engagement (Curran et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref28">17</reflink>]). However, while coaches recognized the value of autonomy-supportive behaviors, Readdy and Raabe ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref29">47</reflink>]) and Matosic et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref30">41</reflink>]) revealed that external pressures (e.g., time constraints, competitive demands, organizational culture) can complicate their consistent application. Further, Readdy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref31">48</reflink>]) illustrated that while extrinsic rewards can increase motivation, they often fail to align with athletes' intrinsic values, especially when paired with controlling behavior.</p> <p>Relationships with teammates also shape athletes' psychological needs. Kimball ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref32">34</reflink>]) introduced the concept of relational autonomy, positing that relationships with teammates and coaches often shape athletes' decisions and sense of autonomy. Taylor and Bruner ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref33">62</reflink>]) echoed this, demonstrating that strong team rapport fostered athletes' goal-setting, leadership, and emotional regulation. Additionally, Rutledge ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref34">49</reflink>]) showed how supportive peer and coach relationships were particularly crucial for Black male athletes to foster resilience and motivation in navigating identity challenges and stereotype threats.</p> <p>Chandler et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref35">12</reflink>]) and Raabe et al. ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref36">46</reflink>]) extended this perspective, suggesting that athletes often draw on team and coach relationships as sources of resilience. Relational support fulfills athletes' need for relatedness and contributes to their emotional and mental well-being, especially in challenging environments or transitions. For example, Yukhymenko-Lescroart ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref37">66</reflink>]) showed that athletes' harmonious passion, grounded in their balanced relationship with sport, supports self-determined motivation, helping them manage athletic and academic roles. Similarly, autonomy-supportive and relatedness-oriented environments were essential for Black male athletes' academic and athletic motivation (Harrison et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref38">24</reflink>]), reinforcing the importance of relational support for positive engagement.</p> <p>Satisfying athletes' basic psychological needs is critical in promoting mental well-being. Medic et al. ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref39">42</reflink>]) and Daniels et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref40">18</reflink>]) showed high autonomy and competence satisfaction were linked with lower burnout rates. Amorose et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref41">2</reflink>]) further highlighted persistent needs support during a competitive season bolstered athletes' well-being. Hollembeak and Amorose ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref42">30</reflink>]) also demonstrated feedback enhanced intrinsic motivation when athletes perceived it as sincere and appropriate. Further, athletes with restricted autonomy often find ways to reinterpret and accept these limitations as part of their commitment to their sport (Kimball, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref43">34</reflink>]). Kimball ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref44">34</reflink>]) noted athletes sometimes see autonomy-limiting structures as a positive challenge, integrating them into their identity.</p> <p>Taken together, these studies highlight how autonomy-supportive environments foster athletes' well-being by meeting their psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and readiness. Yet, scholars have characterized intercollegiate athletic governance as paternalistic, often constraining or impacting those psychological needs. While SDT emphasizes the benefits of self-determination, broader intercollegiate athletic structures reveal a paternalistic approach restricting athletes under the guise of protection and amateurism.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-3">Paternalism in Intercollegiate Athletics</hd> <p>The early college experience was fairly monotonous due to limited student engagement outside rigorous coursework (Urban & Wagoner, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref45">65</reflink>]). As values associated with the European Enlightenment emerged in America, students began exercising more freedom of thought and engaging in extracurricular opportunities (Smith, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref46">54</reflink>]). Sport participation quickly gained prominence (Flowers, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref47">22</reflink>]; Smith, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref48">54</reflink>]). Early on, sport was student-run, with competitions largely occurring between classes at a single institution. However, the proliferation of the railroad expanded competitions from intra-class to intercollegiate competitions between students at peer institutions (Flowers, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref49">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>By the turn of the century, increased attention and time devoted to intercollegiate athletics raised concerns from faculty and administrators who felt students were increasingly focused on practicing their sport or attending competitions rather than tending to their coursework (Flowers, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref50">22</reflink>]). Thus, faculty sought to rein in the burgeoning athletic enterprise, exploring methods to gain official oversight. This eventually resulted in removing student oversight under the guise of safety, generating an early example of paternalism in intercollegiate athletics. Faculty felt their control over sport would address various issues related to sport delivery and protect athletes' academic obligations (Smith, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref51">54</reflink>]). Soon after, the NCAA was established, placing university presidents, faculty, and other academic administrators in the position to oversee how college athletics was governed and delivered nationally.</p> <p>As a governing body, the NCAA created policies, practices, and structures centering academics and amateurism, engendering the ideal of the "student-athlete" (Smith, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref52">54</reflink>]). Over the last century, the NCAA's influence over intercollegiate athletics has grown considerably, prompting it to create progressively restrictive policies to maintain competitive balance and protect the amateur model. These policies reflect a paternalistic approach, as the NCAA assumes the role of an athlete's guardian to preserve academic integrity and amateur ideals (Corr et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref53">15</reflink>]). Thus, athletes are expected to prioritize academics and abide by amateurism for their protection (Hatteberg, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref54">28</reflink>]; Hawkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref55">29</reflink>]; Southall & Weiler, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref56">57</reflink>]). This paternalistic approach limits athletes' autonomy and agency to the potential detriment of their goals/interests (Harry, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref57">25</reflink>]; Smith, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref58">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>It is thought that paternalism remains a common contemporary practice in the NCAA and athletic departments, underscoring a disconnect between broader educational trends in higher education and unique college athletic contexts (Carter, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref59">11</reflink>]; Hawkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref60">29</reflink>]; Southall & Karcher, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref61">56</reflink>]; Southall & Weiler, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref62">57</reflink>]). These disconnects demonstrate how athletic departments and those acting on their behalf exist apart from higher education institutions' broader educational mission, creating separate experiences and expectations for college athletes compared to their non-athlete peers (Harry, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref63">25</reflink>]; Krebs, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref64">35</reflink>]; Springer et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref65">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>The NCAA has long leveraged the legal system to legitimize paternalistic practices across intercollegiate athletics. Southall and Karcher ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref66">56</reflink>]) examined numerous court cases in which the NCAA's paternalistic approach was upheld, with courts often ruling it was in athletes' best interest to "be 'protected' from commercializing influences" and that "since the NCAA and universities have generously given athletes an 'opportunity' to earn a degree, college athletes should feel 'privileged' to have such an opportunity" (p. 217). This perspective is embedded in the NCAA's amateur model, positioning athletes as needing oversight from those in authority to safeguard their welfare (NCAA Bylaw 2.9, as cited in Southall & Karcher, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref67">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Hawkins et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref68">29</reflink>]) reinforced this notion, identifying the two main benefits for athletes (i.e., educational access, avenues to a professional athletic career), suggesting despite appearances of balance, relationships between athletes and institutions heavily favor institutional control. While recent developments, such as athletes' ability to profit from their name, image, and likeness, hint at a shift, they represent concessions reluctantly accepted by the NCAA (Harry, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref69">26</reflink>]; Howe et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref70">31</reflink>]). Nonetheless, intercollegiate athletics, especially at the Power 5 level, operates as a commercial enterprise that maintains the veneer of amateurism, allowing them to "operate an athletic commercial enterprise while minimally compensating its labor force" (Hawkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref71">29</reflink>], p. 322).</p> <p>Athletic departments play a key role in maintaining these paternalistic practices within this framework. Southall and Weiler ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref72">57</reflink>]) likened athletic departments to company towns, with administrators monitoring nearly all facets of college athletes' lives. Hatteberg ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref73">28</reflink>]) elaborated on this surveillance, drawing on Goffman's ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref74">23</reflink>]) concept of the total institution. In Hatteberg's study, athletes reported experiencing blurred boundaries between athletic and non-athletic areas of their lives, social isolation, rigid schedules, and extensive control over personal matters. Additionally, it is worth noting that Hatteberg's analysis extended beyond high-profile revenue-generating sports, demonstrating that athletic departments' use of paternalistic tactics holds across multiple sports, relationships, and dimensions of the athletic environment.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-4">Theoretical Framework</hd> <p>Central to SDT is the understanding that environments supporting psychological needs foster intrinsic motivation, allowing individuals to thrive when they feel a sense of agency and self-direction (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref75">51</reflink>]). Paternalism presents a contrasting approach, characterized by practices that restrict individual autonomy or position authority figures as acting in the supposed best interest of the individual (Husak, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref76">32</reflink>]). Paternalistic policies can manifest as explicit rules or implicit norms that guide or limit individuals' actions to promote well-being and protect against perceived risks. However, these controls may conflict with athletes' psychological needs, making SDT an advantageous framework for analyzing whether team conduct policies respect or frustrate these needs.</p> <p>The Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref77">4</reflink>]) identifies autonomy and beneficence as key principles in creating conduct policies. Autonomy is central to SDT. Policies and practices that allow individuals to make choices and take ownership of their actions are essential for fostering intrinsic motivation and self-determination. Policies that empower choice and self-regulation align closely with the intrinsic motivation SDT advocates. Beneficent actions, particularly those enhancing psychological needs, can create climates conducive to self-determination. Beneficence aligns with SDT's orientation toward support but may conflict if it is imposed through controlling measures. Therefore, analyzing team conduct policies through SDT enables a critical assessment of whether policies genuinely support athletes' self-determination or paternalistically enforce compliance under the guise of support.</p> <p>SDT's meta-theories provide tools for assessing how team conduct policies support or frustrate self-determination (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref78">51</reflink>]). We specifically focus on four meta-theories: 1) cognitive evaluation theory (CET), 2) organismic integration theory (OIT), 3) causality orientations theory (COT), and 4) basic psychological needs theory (BPNT). CET explores how external influences impact intrinsic motivation by supporting or undermining autonomy. Policies that include restrictive measures or emphasize compliance through reward and punishment may signal a paternalistic approach undermining athletes' basic psychological needs, thus stifling intrinsic motivation.</p> <p>OIT considers how individuals internalize extrinsic motivators, ranging from compliance for reward or avoiding punishment (i.e., external regulation) to acting in alignment with personal values (i.e., integrated regulation). In paternalistic frameworks, policies may compel athletes to conform, encouraging compliance without meaningful internalization. Analyzing team conduct policies through OIT can reveal whether they motivate athletes to develop internal schema to guide behavior or enforce rigid adherence to external regulation. COT identifies orientations that are autonomy-oriented, control-oriented, or impersonal. Team policies grounded in paternalism may promote a controlled orientation, reducing athletes' sense of self-determination. COT helps determine whether team conduct policies encourage athletes to view decisions as self-driven or dictated by external authority.</p> <p>Finally, BPNT "serves to tie together the first three" meta-theories (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref79">51</reflink>], p. 2), focusing on the three basic psychological needs. BPNT asserts that satisfying these needs is essential for individuals' psychological health and well-being and influences their motivation and personal development. Through BPNT, we assess whether policies that claim to be beneficial for athletes genuinely satisfy these needs or instead enforce compliance under a paternalistic framework.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-5">Method</hd> <p>We employed document analysis to address whether language in team conduct policies reflected paternalistic attitudes. Document analysis encompasses a systematic review and evaluation that requires interpretation to discover explicit and implicit meanings, messages, and knowledge contained in specific resources (Bowen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref80">9</reflink>]; Corbin & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref81">14</reflink>]). Documents serve as "social facts" that establish and reproduce norms and values that inform and maintain cultures (Atkinson & Coffey, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref82">5</reflink>], p. 47). These norms and values inform and maintain cultures. Document analysis involves various resources, such as advertisements, newspaper articles, or institutional reports (Bowen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref83">9</reflink>]). Extending this analytic method to team conduct policies is appropriate.</p> <p>Document analysis can serve as a "stand-alone method," offering benefits and limitations (Bowen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref84">9</reflink>], p. 29). Regarding benefits, documents offer nuance for understanding the context within which individuals operate. Bowen ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref85">9</reflink>]) argued the necessity of considering documents' purposes and contexts and why they were created. Team conduct policies are likely developed to set boundaries and define rules for athletes, as well as establish and maintain team cultures and dynamics. Accordingly, we viewed these policies as mechanisms that could satisfy or frustrate athletes' basic psychological needs.</p> <p>A significant limitation of document analysis as a stand-alone method is the inability to fully capture how these documents were created or implemented in practice. As Bowen ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref86">9</reflink>]) noted, documents alone may lack sufficient detail to reveal the intent behind their creation, their everyday application, or stakeholders' perceptions toward them. Consequently, this approach often lacks a nuanced understanding of the human elements and interactions surrounding the documents.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-6">Positionality</hd> <p>We approached this research through critical and constructivist paradigms emphasizing the interplay between power, knowledge, and social context. Our experiences working with college athletes as faculty and in student affairs, academic advising, and athletic department roles, as well as our scholarly engagement with intercollegiate athletics and higher education, informed our perspectives. These experiences shaped our critical awareness of intercollegiate athletic environments' complex dynamics.</p> <p>The first author drew on a critical constructivist epistemology and differential ontology. This framework interrogates power structures and resists essentialist understandings of reality. The second author's approach was grounded in a social constructivist paradigm, emphasizing that knowledge is context-dependent and shaped by interaction. A critical paradigm shaped the third author's perspective. Together, these perspectives allowed us to critically examine whether paternalistic attitudes were inherent in team conduct policies while remaining reflexive about how our positionalities influenced our interpretations. Working closely with college athletes enriched our understanding of this work. At the same time, our exclusion from team dynamics gave us a unique vantage point from which to critically analyze the documents included in this research.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-7">Data Collection</hd> <p>We obtained team policy documents from a secondary source that acquired them via multiple open-records requests. The individual who supplied these documents pursued formal open-records requests with multiple university athletic departments for journalistic purposes and made them available for this study upon our request. Although we did not directly obtain these documents, we considered them primary data because they originated directly from the schools and provide direct insights into the subject matter we are investigating. Namely, they give insight into explicit and, in some cases, implicit expectations for athletes, potentially exposing paternalistic attitudes.</p> <p>The full document set spanned multiple NCAA divisions, so we used purposive sampling to focus exclusively on Division I Power 5 teams (Flick, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref87">21</reflink>]). Of the 231 Division I public schools contacted through open-records requests, 62 responded, resulting in a 26.8% response rate. This included 41 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) schools (17.8% of the DI sample), 12 Football Championship Subdivision schools (5.2%), and nine non-football schools (3.9%). Of the 41 FBS respondents, 28 were Power 5 schools (12.1%), and 13 were Group of 5 schools (5.7%). Those 28 Power 5 schools provided 170 total documents.</p> <p>We then narrowed the 28 schools and 170 documents by focusing solely on team conduct policies. Four criteria guided this selection process: 1) authenticity, 2) credibility, 3) meaning, and 4) representativeness (Flick, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref88">21</reflink>]; Kridel, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref89">36</reflink>]). We assessed authenticity and credibility by confirming official institutional branding and references to internal stakeholders (e.g., coaches, athletic staff) and ensuring documents were error-free and unaltered. We determined meaning by each document's clarity and understandability, ensuring they were in plain English and free of complex institutional jargon. Finally, we evaluated representativeness by comparing documents to the general collection and excluding outliers. Outliers included athletic department policies and non-team-related artifacts (e.g., NIL waivers, website screenshots). This is where most of the documents were culled. Altogether, we analyzed 98 team conduct policies from the 2019–2020 season, spanning 21 Division I Power 5 athletic departments and totaling 668 pages (see Table 1). These documents represented 12 sports (see Table 2) and ranged from one to 36 pages, with an average document length of seven pages.</p> <p>Table 1 Schools and conferences</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>School</p></th><th align="left"><p>Conference</p></th><th align="left"><p>#</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Clemson University</p></td><td align="left"><p>ACC</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>North Carolina State University</p></td><td align="left"><p>ACC</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Michigan State University</p></td><td align="left"><p>Big 10</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ohio State University</p></td><td align="left"><p>Big 10</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Purdue University</p></td><td align="left"><p>Big 10</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Rutgers University</p></td><td align="left"><p>Big 10</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>University of Illinois</p></td><td align="left"><p>Big 10</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>University of Iowa</p></td><td align="left"><p>Big 10</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>University of Minnesota</p></td><td align="left"><p>Big 10</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>University of Nebraska</p></td><td align="left"><p>Big 10</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Iowa State University</p></td><td align="left"><p>Big 12</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Texas Tech University</p></td><td align="left"><p>Big 12</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>University of Kansas</p></td><td align="left"><p>Big 12</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>University of Texas</p></td><td align="left"><p>Big 12</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Arizona State University</p></td><td align="left"><p>Pac 12</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>University of California—Los Angeles</p></td><td align="left"><p>Pac 12</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>University of Colorado</p></td><td align="left"><p>Pac 12</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Texas A&M University</p></td><td align="left"><p>SEC</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>University of Georgia</p></td><td align="left"><p>SEC</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>University of Kentucky</p></td><td align="left"><p>SEC</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>University of South Carolina</p></td><td align="left"><p>SEC</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>98</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2 Team policies by sport</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Sport</p></th><th align="left"><p>Gender</p></th><th align="left"><p>#</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Baseball</p></td><td align="left"><p>M</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Basketball</p></td><td align="left"><p>M</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Basketball</p></td><td align="left"><p>W</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Football</p></td><td align="left"><p>M</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Golf</p></td><td align="left"><p>M</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Golf</p></td><td align="left"><p>W</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Rowing</p></td><td align="left"><p>W</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Soccer</p></td><td align="left"><p>M</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Soccer</p></td><td align="left"><p>W</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Softball</p></td><td align="left"><p>W</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Swimming & diving</p></td><td align="left"><p>M & W</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Tennis</p></td><td align="left"><p>M</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Tennis</p></td><td align="left"><p>W</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Track & field/CC</p></td><td align="left"><p>M & W</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Volleyball</p></td><td align="left"><p>W</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Wrestling</p></td><td align="left"><p>M</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Women's</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>45</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Men's</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>41</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Coed</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>12</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>98</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0187381768-8">Data Analysis</hd> <p>We analyzed the 98 team documents using Bowen's ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref90">9</reflink>]) three-step process. First, we superficially examined the documents, skimming for general content and concepts. We then thoroughly examined and deeply read the documents. Finally, we interpreted the documents and their implicit and explicit meaning (Bowen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref91">9</reflink>]; Corbin & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref92">14</reflink>]). This consisted of an iterative process of content and thematic analysis (Bowen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref93">9</reflink>]). Content analysis "entail[ed] a first-pass document review, in which meaningful and relevant passages of text or other data [were] identified" (Bowen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref94">9</reflink>], p. 32). Thematic analysis was beneficial for the second and third phases of interpretation, which consisted of pattern recognition and uncovered pertinent themes across the documents (Bowen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref95">9</reflink>]). We combed through documents and "perform[ed] coding and category construction, based on the data's characteristics, to uncover themes pertinent to a phenomenon" (Bowen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref96">9</reflink>], p. 32). Once familiar with the documents, we engaged in deductive, theory-driven coding using SDT tenets.</p> <p>Throughout our coding, we addressed trustworthiness by consistently documenting our decisions and processes while engaging in individual and collective reflexivity (Miles et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref97">43</reflink>]). We also held recurring meetings to discuss similarities and differences between our codes, allowing us to capture greater detail and strengthen our analysis (Bowen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref98">9</reflink>]; Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref99">10</reflink>]). We coded the data over six weeks, meeting weekly to discuss codes and reflexive notes created in the previous week. These meetings broadened our understanding, clarified ambiguity, and addressed how one another's biases might affect our interpretations. Our analysis focused on explicit and implicit meanings communicated through the documents. Once we reached consensus on our codes, we generated themes to address our research question and, through iterative discussions, refined and developed those themes before presenting our final analysis. Our final analysis offers a thick description of the policies and interpretations, furthering the trustworthiness of our findings.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-9">Findings</hd> <p>We conducted a document analysis on data collected from 98 Division I Power 5 team conduct policies to explore whether their content reflected paternalistic attitudes. Generally, the documents comprised statements reminding athletes of their embedded status within the team, athletic department, and university, as well as policies covering academic guidelines, eligibility, athletic compliance, competitive behavior, and permissible conduct (e.g., drug and alcohol use, social media). Our analysis revealed recurring tensions between coaches' authority and athletes' psychological needs, reflecting paternalistic attitudes that constrained self-determination across three core areas: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The following sections explore how these three psychological needs were frequently restricted within the policies, underscoring the limits on athletes' self-determination.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-10">Autonomy</hd> <p>Collectively, the team conduct policies revealed tensions between coaches' authority and athletes' autonomy. The language in these policies granted coaches a level of control that often conflicted with athletes' cognitive, emotional, social, spatial, medical, and bodily autonomy. This control risks creating environments where athletes' independent thought is devalued if not outright penalized. Similarly, restrictions on emotional expression, social interactions, personal space, medical choices, and bodily freedom reinforce a highly regulated setting that standardizes behavior and thought patterns for smoother management and control. These policies extended beyond athletic contexts into athletes' personal lives, granting coaches a paternalistic influence that non-athletes may not experience from other campus authorities. This further showcases the bifurcated institution wherein athletic departments continue to engage paternalistically with college athletes in ways the broader institution does not.</p> <p>Many rules included in team conduct policies were essential for teams' smooth functioning and protecting athletes' welfare. Examples included North Carolina State's swim and dive policy directing athletes to "Take care of your body and health," Michigan State's men's tennis policy expressing that "Communication is very important," and Ohio State University's men's soccer team reminding athletes they "are first and foremost a student at Ohio State University and will strive for academic excellence." These and similar policies appeared to remind athletes about their priorities and establish a baseline for them to interact within the team environment. Their inclusion created explicit expectations for athletes to prioritize academics over athletics, even though aspects of athletic cultures may implicitly fail to reinforce these expectations (Jayakumar & Comeaux, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref100">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, there was a recurring theme concerning restricting athletes' personal choices and autonomy over their actions, time, and personal expression. Rather than setting boundaries that allow athletes to interpret and make autonomous decisions, many policies opted for setting narrow parameters, restricting their abilities to make decisions for themselves. Many policies included language dictating athletes' actions in the classroom and time management. For example, Clemson baseball directed their athletes to "sit in the front, in the middle" and "Be 15 min early for class when allowable to ensure [they could] sit up front." Policies like this were common throughout team documents. While not completely unreasonable, they minimized athletes' ability to determine the appropriateness of their actions and, thus, limited their autonomy and sense of self-determination.</p> <p>Beyond actions and time management, several policies limited athletes' choices regarding personal expression in various ways (e.g., appearance, social media, communication). Multiple policies included language about athletes' appearance, including how they presented themselves and what they wore. Iowa men's basketball provided an example of the former, requiring athletes "to maintain a neat, clean appearance at all times. In addition, hair must be neatly trimmed and combed at all times." Regarding the latter, Clemson men's golf mandated that their athletes "wear nice clothes and shoes. No flip flops!" in the airport. Social media policies were another avenue for control, with many policies outlining expectations for athletes' conduct online. For example, the North Carolina State swim and dive team explicitly required athletes to allow athletic personnel to monitor their activity, mandating that "All Social media apps must be open for staff to follow if requested. No social media outlets are private to staff members or members associated with the Athletic Department." It is worth reiterating here that these policies pre-date athletes' gaining the right to monetize their name, image, and likeness.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-11">Competence</hd> <p>The authority team conduct policies afforded to coaches to impose disciplinary actions accentuated an imbalance in the power dynamics between them and athletes. Scholarships and team membership often came with stipulations, generating tension between athletes' obligations toward their institution and their individual rights. Failure to adhere to these obligations typically induced penalties, including added physical exercise, monetary fines, reduced playing time, suspension, or loss of scholarship. In other policies, specific disciplinary actions were not always listed for particular infractions. Instead, they were left open-ended and vague, which may lead to discipline that is "so procedurally casual that it border[s] upon arbitrariness and capriciousness" (Lake, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref101">37</reflink>], p. 5).</p> <p>Policies often adopted a prescriptive rather than flexible approach, limiting athletes' ability to develop self-determination and confidence in their competence. Many specified where athletes should be, when to be there, and how they should behave. For example, Iowa men's basketball prohibited "the wearing of earrings at any team function," including "meetings with coaches, weight room activities, pre-season conditioning, etc." Policies also held athletes to higher accessibility standards than athletic department employees would likely be held to, with Minnesota men's basketball requiring athletes to "Respond to ALL texts and emails from the coaching staff, academic staff, and professors immediately."</p> <p>Rather than establishing boundaries to encourage independent decision-making, policies opted for overly normative ethics, regulating every aspect of athletes' campus life (e.g., athletic, social, health, academic, travel). Some policies were prescriptive to the point of trivial detail, such as Iowa men's basketball's requirement that athletes "remove [their] hat" when they "enter a building." Others focused on attendance (e.g., North Carolina State swim and dive's policy mandating "100% attendance at all competitions, team functions and practices"), in-class behavior, or curfews, as seen in Iowa football's rule that "First year players [must] have a 10:00 p.m. downtown curfew every night including Saturday." Further, these overly prescriptive policies were often proscriptively reinforced through ambiguous threats of punishment, with Iowa State men's wrestling warning that "substantial disruptions to the program [would] not be tolerated." Such policies underscored a paternalistic stance, casting doubt on athletes' competence to make independent decisions.</p> <p>Many team conduct policies implied that coaches doubted athletes' competence to carry out basic tasks or manage their lives independently. Certain guidelines suggested athletes were incapable of conducting themselves appropriately in public (e.g., Kentucky women's basketball discouraging "public displays of affection") or hosting guests (e.g., Texas A&M women's basketball requiring "All visitors [to] be approved by ALL roommates, and staff member must be notified"). Other guidelines implied that athletes could not maintain basic hygiene (e.g., Kentucky women's basketball's requirement for athletes to acknowledge "the necessity of proper personal hygiene and cleanliness") or ensure their safety independently (e.g., Minnesota men's basketball's instruction to "not drive scooters in inclement weather, and always wear protective eyewear").</p> <p>Other policies suggested athletes were incapable of making common decisions regarding their physical health (e.g., North Carolina State men's tennis instructing athletes to "call our athletic trainer and he or she will determine if you will participate in practice or competition"), travel (e.g., Iowa men's basketball compelling athletes "to inform the coaching staff" if they "plan to go home for the weekend or any other period of time"), course management (e.g., Texas A&M women's basketball policy that "It is not permissible to drop a class without speaking to and receiving permission from Coach Blair, as well as the Women's Basketball academic advisor"), or communication (e.g., Arizona State women's basketball requiring athletes "to respond back to text messages and voicemails that I receive from any coach or support staff member by the end of the day") without input or permission from coaches or other athletic personnel.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-12">Relatedness</hd> <p>Policies impacting athletes' relatedness frequently attempted to build camaraderie or accountability but often in ways that aligned with coaches' goals rather than athletes' social needs. Many policies appeared to show concern for athletes' welfare and promoted teamwork, ostensibly supporting relatedness. Illinois softball, for example, included a policy instructing athletes to "Take care of your teammates. We are family." However, these policies frequently served dual purposes, fostering an environment where athletes were also expected to prioritize the team's reputation and on-field performance.</p> <p>This dual connotation was most evident in policies regarding mandated reporting related to student conduct or legal issues (e.g., Arizona State women's basketball mandating "All criminal charges must be reported to the Head Coach and Athletic Director within 24 h"), injuries or health issues (e.g., Illinois softball's requirement that "All illnesses and injuries should be immediately reported to our athletic training staff"), or alcohol consumption for those who were 21 and older (e.g., Minnesota women's soccer requiring "All team members 21 yrs of age & above [to] abstain from drinking any form of alcohol for the entirety of the Fall season").</p> <p>On one hand, these policies could demonstrate coaches' beneficence toward athletes by helping them navigate health and conduct issues. For instance, coaches may be concerned about the adverse physical and mental effects of alcohol or wish to help athletes navigate misconduct reporting processes. On the other hand, these policies could serve to ensure that coaches retain control over athletes' actions, allowing for swift disciplinary or dismissive actions when necessary to sustain the on-field product. Alcohol restrictions, for example, may stem from a desire to avoid on-field issues associated with alcohol use, so rather than promoting responsible consumption, coaches may opt to enforce strict abstinence. The reality likely exists in a middle ground between the two.</p> <p>Finally, many team conduct policies made it challenging for athletes to maintain outside relationships, reinforcing an expectation to prioritize team obligations over personal connections. Kansas women's golf, for example, instructed athletes to "not make plans to go out of town... without first speaking with Coach O'Neil. This also includes plans to go home for the holidays," complicating efforts to visit family and friends. Texas A&M women's basketball restricted athletes' personal lives by mandating, "All visitors must be approved by ALL roommates, and staff member must be notified," placing additional hurdles on athletes who wished to have non-team affiliated guests. Texas softball prohibited any "parent/friend/significant other interaction between games on the same day unless instructed otherwise." Adding another layer of control, Texas Tech softball limited athletes' "public display of affection on any media outlet," including "kissing." Colorado women's basketball went further, instructing athletes to "keep [their] personal life separate from [their] professional life" and to prioritize "the TEAM's NEEDS." Collectively, these policies imposed strict boundaries on athletes' social lives under the guise of team cohesion.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-13">Discussion</hd> <p>Our analysis of 98 team conduct policies across 21 NCAA Division I Power 5 institutions provides empirical insight into the paternalistic attitudes within the documents. This examination revealed that these conduct documents serve multiple functions beyond behavior regulation and exposed deeper implications for athletes' self-determination. The documents generally framed athletes' behavior through extrinsic controls, reinforcing compliance by coupling deviation with punishments and consequences (Corr et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref102">15</reflink>]; Hatteberg, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref103">28</reflink>]). We draw on SDT's meta-theories to unpack our findings and identify theoretical and practical implications arising from our study.</p> <p>Cognitive evaluation theory posits that external factors like rewards, punishments, and surveillance can undermine intrinsic motivation by shifting focus from self-directed goals to compliance with external controls (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref104">51</reflink>]). The restrictive policies limited athletes' personal choices and autonomy. This dynamic was evidenced in the structured environments fostered by the policies, outlining a paternalistic atmosphere that may be conducive to achieving team goals but is counter to athletes' self-determination (Curran et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref105">17</reflink>]; Southall & Karcher, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref106">56</reflink>]; Taylor & Bruner, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref107">62</reflink>]). For example, athletes' agency was curtailed in areas such as personal appearance, social interactions, and academic behaviors. The strict adherence expected, alongside the often-vague disciplinary consequences for non-compliance, depicted a structured environment that reflected a desire for control (Hawkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref108">29</reflink>]; Hollembeak & Amorose, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref109">30</reflink>]; Southall & Weiler, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref110">57</reflink>]). Further, by emphasizing uniformity over autonomy, team conduct policies may lead to frustration, disengagement, or burnout among athletes (Bejar et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref111">8</reflink>]; Daniels et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref112">18</reflink>]; Readdy et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref113">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>Organismic integration theory describes how external motivations range from externally regulated behaviors (i.e., actions driven by compliance) to integrated behaviors (i.e., actions driven by personal values; Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref114">51</reflink>]). Our findings revealed that team conduct policies largely impeded genuine internalization, as many policies appeared to enforce values through externally imposed guidelines (Curran et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref115">17</reflink>]; Rutledge, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref116">49</reflink>]). While emphasizing safety, uniformity, and professional conduct can align with athletes' values if framed collaboratively, the policy's paternalistic nature often reduced them to externally regulated behaviors. For instance, policies mandating abstention from alcohol or constant coach accessibility primarily function as mechanisms for control rather than supporting genuine value alignment (Amorose & Anderson-Butcher, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref117">1</reflink>]). The focus on behaviors that align with coaches' definitions of professionalism and discipline also illustrated this issue. For example, imposing strict dress codes and communication standards reflected an attempt to instill a specific image of professionalism rather than fostering athletes' self-directed understanding of these values. This approach limits the extent to which athletes internalize these guidelines, potentially leading to shallow compliance rather than deep integration or internalization (Balaguer et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref118">6</reflink>]; Yukhymenko-Lescroart, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref119">66</reflink>]).</p> <p>Causality orientation theory offers insight into how the presence or absence of autonomy shapes individuals' motivations (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref120">51</reflink>]). Team conduct policy's prescriptive nature fostered a control orientation. Language included in the policies emphasized specific behaviors and penalties for non-compliance, prioritizing external demands over internal goals (Hollembeak & Amorose, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref121">30</reflink>]; Medic et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref122">42</reflink>]). Policies that required athletes to sit in specific classroom seats, adhere to curfews, or maintain constant availability to coaches reinforced this external orientation, urging athletes to seek approval and direction rather than act autonomously (Harrison et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref123">24</reflink>]; Readdy & Raabe, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref124">47</reflink>]). Further, vague, open-ended disciplinary measures foster an impersonal orientation, where athletes may be unable to predict or influence their circumstances. This can lead to helplessness or apathy (Chandler et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref125">12</reflink>]; Raabe et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref126">46</reflink>]), where athletes rely on external cues for direction due to limited agency.</p> <p>Basic psychological needs theory integrates SDT's core components by emphasizing that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are essential for motivation and psychological well-being (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref127">51</reflink>]). Our findings suggest that team conduct policies included language often restricting athletes' ability to satisfy these needs, constraining their self-determination and fostering a paternalistic environment. Environments that fail to fulfill these basic needs may diminish athletes' motivation and well-being (Daniels et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref128">18</reflink>]; Harrison et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref129">24</reflink>]; Taylor & Bruner, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref130">62</reflink>]). The team conduct policy's restrictive nature frequently impinged on athletes' autonomy by enforcing strict compliance with expectations, from personal grooming to academic conduct. The lack of autonomy-supportive policies may erode athletes' motivation, leading to frustration and other adverse outcomes (Bartholomew et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref131">7</reflink>]; Curran et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref132">17</reflink>]; Readdy et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref133">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>Additionally, policies implying athletes' incompetence in making independent decisions communicated a lack of trust in their abilities (Amorose & Anderson-Butcher, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref134">1</reflink>]; Mageau & Vallerand, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref135">39</reflink>]). These messages can hinder athletes' competence, reinforcing a dependency on external oversight rather than fostering self-determination. While some policies aimed to support team cohesion and accountability, they often did so at the expense of authentic connection. For example, social interactions were heavily regulated, with athletes expected to align with coaches' preferences rather than engage in self-directed relationships (Balaguer et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref136">6</reflink>]; Kimball, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref137">34</reflink>]). When relatedness is conditional, as framed in the policies we examined, athletes may struggle to feel genuinely connected, leading to isolation or disconnection from the team (Carter, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref138">11</reflink>]; Chandler et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref139">12</reflink>]; Hollembeak & Amorose, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref140">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Needs satisfaction is linked to stronger mental health and well-being, engagement, and performance (Amorose et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref141">2</reflink>]; Curran et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref142">17</reflink>]; Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref143">51</reflink>]; Taylor & Bruner, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref144">62</reflink>]). Accordingly, incorporating conduct policies that foster greater autonomy, competence, and relatedness can allow athletes to find intrinsic rewards from their athletic participation (Readdy et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref145">48</reflink>]). Many of the team conduct policies we examined focused on establishing extrinsic motivations and pressures through punitive measures. Policies like these are more likely to frustrate athletes' psychological needs, which can lead to burnout, exhaustion, or depression (Balaguer et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref146">6</reflink>]; Bartholomew et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref147">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>Beyond motivation, mental health, and well-being, scholars have also connected self-determination with development, particularly in sport settings, where athletes often face identity-shaping experiences (Amorose & Anderson-Butcher, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref148">1</reflink>]; Chandler et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref149">12</reflink>]; Kimball, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref150">34</reflink>]; Rutledge, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref151">49</reflink>]; Taylor & Bruner, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref152">62</reflink>]; Yukhymenko-Lescroart, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref153">66</reflink>]). Understanding these developmental links provides a holistic view of why supporting athletes' needs is essential for athletic and academic success and their long-term personal growth and life skills beyond athletic participation. Scholars have demonstrated that autonomy-supportive environments help athletes integrate their athletic experiences into a cohesive self-concept, fostering coping mechanisms that serve them beyond athletics (Kimball, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref154">34</reflink>]; Taylor & Bruner, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref155">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>Additionally, need satisfaction strengthens resilience and emotional awareness, particularly in challenging contexts, equipping athletes to navigate pressures within and outside of sport (Chandler et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref156">12</reflink>]; Raabe et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref157">46</reflink>]; Yukhymenko-Lescroart, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref158">66</reflink>]). Through key transitional moments, such as moving from high school to college, SDT-aligned support can enable athletes to retain a flexible, growth-oriented identity, which is crucial for adapting to new environments and demands (Daniels et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref159">18</reflink>]; Medic et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref160">42</reflink>]). Fostering autonomy, competence, and relatedness provides athletes with psychological resources needed to reframe challenges, pursue self-determined goals, and develop a resilient, adaptive mindset (Amorose & Anderson-Butcher, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref161">1</reflink>]; Readdy et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref162">48</reflink>]). Our findings suggest SDT should be recognized for its motivational insights and significant implications for promoting holistic development in athletic settings.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-14">Theoretical Implications</hd> <p>Our findings offer empirical support for theoretical assumptions about the prevalence of paternalism in intercollegiate athletic environments, suggesting team conduct policies can create environments that undermine athletes' autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Our findings also support perceptions that intercollegiate athletic departments exist in an uneasy marriage with other higher education spaces (Clotfelter, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref163">13</reflink>]; Harry & Weight, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref164">27</reflink>]; Smith, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref165">55</reflink>]; Sperber, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref166">58</reflink>]; Thelin, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref167">63</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref168">64</reflink>]). While contemporary higher education conduct policies encourage student autonomy and self-governance (ASCA, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref169">4</reflink>]), our findings revealed that paternalistic attitudes are prevalent throughout the intercollegiate athletic hierarchy, from the NCAA (Corr et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref170">15</reflink>]; Lever, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref171">38</reflink>]) down to individual teams. This highlights a gap between athletic and non-athletic administrative philosophies.</p> <p>Our work extends SDT from a framework mainly focused on interpersonal or individual motivation to explore how institutional policies or procedures can support or frustrate basic psychological needs. Our study also adds a critical dimension to SDT by focusing on how policy language enforces compliance and control, addressing the power dynamics embedded within hierarchical athletic team structures that can obstruct self-determination. Thus, scholars can use SDT in future studies to examine or expose structural or policy-level factors in sport and other hierarchical institutions within and beyond education.</p> <p>Finally, our study revealed an inherent tension between paternalistic practices and SDT's foundational principles. Paternalism, characterized by restrictive oversight and control under the guise of protection, directly opposes SDT's emphasis on autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Our findings contribute to the broader discourse on how hierarchical structural power dynamics within intercollegiate athletics can hinder autonomy-supportive environments and highlight the need for a philosophical shift that aligns with SDT's principles.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-15">Practical Implications</hd> <p>We suggest the following steps to translate our findings into actionable recommendations for intercollegiate athletic administrators. First, administrators can reframe policies to support autonomy and allow flexibility and athlete choice wherever feasible, especially in areas like time management, attire, or class attendance. For example, reframing a strict policy like "You must be 15 min early to class" to "Arriving early to class is encouraged to allow time to settle in and prepare" promotes choice. This reframing respects athletes' autonomy by inviting, rather than demanding, behaviors that benefit the athlete and the team.</p> <p>Second, administrators can include explanations within policies that link policies to competence-building goals, framing them as tools to support athletes' self-regulation skills. For example, including a note on a time management policy like "Consistent attendance and punctuality helps develop skills like responsibility and time-management that are essential for success in athletic and academic pursuits." This approach can reinforce athletes' competence by positioning policies as opportunities to build practical, transferable skills, helping them feel empowered rather than controlled.</p> <p>Next, administrators can adjust policy language that affects relatedness to reduce control and intrusiveness, instead fostering supportive team and non-team relationships. For example, rather than mandating "all visitors be approved by all roommates and staff," a revised policy might state, "Athletes are encouraged to communicate with roommates about visitors to maintain a respectful shared space." This approach promotes a balance between team cohesion and social autonomy. By respecting athletes' needs to build relationships outside the team, conduct policies can support authentic connections and well-being rather than enforcing a sense of isolation or forced loyalty (Anderson & Dixon, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref172">3</reflink>]). It can also aid athletes when they retire and transition out of athletic participation (Moore et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref173">44</reflink>]; Oshiro et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref174">45</reflink>]; Stoltenburg et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref175">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, administrators can clearly outline consequences focusing on reflection, growth, and accountability rather than punitive measures, using transparent, non-punitive language to communicate standards. Replacing ambiguous language like "Disciplinary action will be taken" with growth-oriented statements such as "For a first infraction, a conversation with the coach will occur to discuss the athletes' perspective and any needed adjustments." This shifts the focus from punishment to growth, fostering a sense of accountability that supports autonomy and self-regulation. By clearly defining non-punitive responses, the policies can encourage athletes to view accountability as part of their athletic journey rather than a threat.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-16">Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research</hd> <p>While this study provides in-depth insight into the language included in NCAA Division I Power 5 team conduct policies, it does not offer insight into how these policies were designed or practically enforced. This limited scope also does not account for other significant forms of communication and messages athletes receive across higher education and on campus, which may also influence their experiences. Moreover, this study lacks insight related to how coaches or athletes perceive these documents and how those perceptions align with or deviate from the policies as written. To address these limitations, we suggest future researchers interview stakeholders on their perceptions of team conduct policies to better understand the meaning attached to these documents, their influence on the team and individuals, and idiosyncrasies related to their creation and implementation. Further, the team conduct policies framed compliance as non-negotiable for continued participation. However, athletes may respond to these policies with activism or resistance to assert their agency or autonomy. Future research could explore how this process unfolds. Finally, to expand the study's scope, future research could examine whether team conduct policy creation and implementation impacts outcomes related to SDT, such as athletes' mental health, well-being, or development.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-17">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study provides empirical support for the notion that NCAA athletic departments continue to employ paternalistic attitudes. Analyzing the language and underlying attitudes included in NCAA Division I Power 5 team conduct policies highlights a disconnect between athletic and non-athletic administrative philosophies in American higher education. Team conduct policies reflected paternalistic attitudes that may frustrate athletes' basic psychological needs. This approach undermines athletes' self-determination and positions athletic departments at odds with broader administrative approaches emphasizing ethical principles like autonomy and beneficence (ASCA, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref176">4</reflink>]). In response, we offer insights for administrators to create more supportive documents that can support athletes' psychological needs and lead to better mental health and well-being. Additionally, our study lays the groundwork for future research to further explore the implications of these documents, including their creation and implementation.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-18">Authors' Contributions</hd> <p>Daniel Springer: Conceived and designed the analysis, collected the data, performed the analysis, wrote the paper. Molly Harry: Collected the data, performed analysis, wrote the paper. Steffanie Heinrich: Wrote the paper.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-19">Funding</hd> <p>None.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-20">Data Availability</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are not available beyond what is contained in the manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-21">Code Availability</hd> <p>The codes that support the findings of this study are not available beyond what is contained in the manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-22">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187381768-23">Ethics Approval</hd> <p>Not applicable.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-24">Consent to Publish</hd> <p>Not applicable.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-25">Competing Interests</hd> <p>Not applicable.</p> <hd id="AN0187381768-26">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0187381768-27"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref22" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Amorose JA, Anderson-Butcher D. Autonomy-supportive coaching and self-determined motivation in high school and college athletes: A test of self-determination theory. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2007; 8; 5: 654-670. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.11.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref24" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Amorose JA, Anderson-Butcher D, Cooper J. Predicting changes in athletes' well-being from changes in need satisfaction over the course of a competitive season. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2009; 80; 2: 386-392. 10.1080/02701367.2009.10599575</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref172" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson AJ, Dixon MA. How contextual factors influence athlete experiences of team cohesion: An in-depth exploration. European Sport Management Quarterly. 2019; 19; 3: 353-372. 10.1080/16184742.2018.1527381</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref6" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> ASCA. (2017). Ethical principles and practices in student conduct administration. Retrieved September 26, 2024, from https://<ulink href="http://www.theasca.org/assets/pdf/ASCA+Principles+and+Practices+-+Feb+2017/">www.theasca.org/assets/pdf/ASCA+Principles+and+Practices+-+Feb+2017/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref82" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Atkinson PA, Coffey ASilverman D. Analysing documentary realities. Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice. 1997; SAGE: 45-62</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref27" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Balaguer I, González L, Fabra P, Castillo I, Mercé J, Dude JL. Coaches' interpersonal style, basic psychological needs and the well- and ill-being of young soccer players: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Sports Science. 2012; 30; 15: 1619-1629. 10.1080/02640414.2012.731517</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref26" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bartholomew KJ, Ntoumanis N, Ryan RM, Thøgersen-Ntoumani C. Psychological need thwarting in the sport context: Assessing the darker side of athletic experience. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2011; 33; 1: 75-102. 10.1123/jsep.33.1.75</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref111" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bejar MP, Raabe J, Zakrajsek RA, Fisher LA, Clement D. Athletic trainers' influence on national collegiate athletic association Division I athletes' basic psychological needs during sport injury rehabilitation. Journal of Athletic Training. 2019; 54; 3: 245-254. 10.4085/1062-6050-112-18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref80" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bowen GA. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal. 2009; 9; 2: 27-40. 10.3316/QRJ0902027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis: A practical guide. 2021; SAGE</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carter W. Responding to the perversion of in loco parentis: Using nonprofit organization to support student-athletes. Indiana Law Review. 2002; 35; 3: 851-924</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chandler GE, Kalmakis KA, Chiodo L, Helling J. The efficacy of a resilience intervention among diverse, at-risk, college athletes: A mixed-methods study. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association. 2020; 26; 3: 269-281. 10.1177/1078390319886923</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clotfelter CT. Big-time sports in American universities. 2019; Cambridge University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 20083; SAGE</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corr, C, Southall, C, Hawkings, B, & Southall, R. M. (2023). College football "kids": Infantilizing language in Football Bowl Subdivision bowl game broadcasts. Sociology of Sport Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.2022-0185</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crookston BB. An organizational model for student development. NASPA Journal. 1972; 10; 1: 3-13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curran T, Hill AP, Ntoumanis N, Hall HK, Jowett GE. A three-wave longitudinal test of self-determination theory's mediation model of engagement and disaffection in youth sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2016; 38; 1: 15-29. 10.1123/jsep.2015-0016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniels R, Cormier J, Gore J, McMahan E. The impact of need satisfaction on college athlete burnout. The Sport Journal. 2021; 24; 1: 2-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dannells, M. (1997). From discipline to development: Rethinking student conduct in higher education (1st ed, Vol. 25). ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education. (1961). 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir.).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flick U. An introduction to qualitative research. 20186; SAGE</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flowers RD. Institutionalized hypocrisy: The myth of intercollegiate athletics. American Educational History Journal. 2009; 36; 2: 343-360</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goffman E. Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. 1961; Doubleday & Co</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrison CK, Martin BE, Fuller R. "Eagles don't fly with sparrows": Self-determination theory, African American male scholar-athletes and peer group influences on motivation. The Journal of Negro Education. 2015; 84; 1: 80-93. 10.7709/jnegroeducation.84.1.0080</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harry M. Reconceptualizing Division I intercollegiate athletics participation as a high impact practice. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport. 2023; 16; 2: 135-164. 10.17161/jis.v16i2.18444</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harry M. Hegemony and the National Collegiate Athletic Association: A critical discourse analysis of National Collegiate Athletic Association resources concerning name, image, and likeness. Sociology of Sport Journal. 2024; 41; 2: 152-162. 10.1123/ssj.2023-0017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harry M, Weight EA. Education through athletics: Interest in an athletics performance curriculum. Journal of Applied Sport Management. 2019; 11; 4: 15-28. 10.18666/JASM-2019-V11-I4-9608</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hatteberg SJ. Under surveillance: Collegiate athletics as a total institution. Sociology of Sport Journal. 2018; 35; 2: 149-158. 10.1123/ssj.2017-0096</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawkins B, Baker AR, Brackebusch VBComeaux E. Intercollegiate athletics and amateurism. Introduction to intercollegiate athletics. 2015; Johns Hopkins University Press: 312-325</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hollembeak J, Amorose AJ. Perceived coaching behaviors and college athletes' intrinsic motivation: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 2005; 17; 1: 20-36. 10.1080/10413200590907540</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howe JE, Black WL, Jones WA. Exercising power: A critical examination of National Collegiate Athletic Association discourse related to name, image, and likeness. Journal of Sport Management. 2023; 37; 5: 333-344. 10.1123/jsm.2022-0151</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Husak DMarmor A. Paternalism. The Routledge companion to philosophy of law. 2012; Routledge: 467-480</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jayakumar UM, Comeaux E. The cultural cover-up of college athletics: How organizational culture perpetuates an unrealistic and idealized balancing act. The Journal of Higher Education. 2016; 87; 4: 488-515. 10.1080/00221546.2016.11777411</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kimball AC. "You signed the line": Collegiate student-athletes' perceptions of autonomy. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2007; 8; 5: 818-835</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krebs, P. M. (2004, October 22). Coaching the student in the student-athlete. The Chronicle of Higher Education.https://<ulink href="http://www.chronicle.com/article/coaching-the-student-in-the-student-athlete/">www.chronicle.com/article/coaching-the-student-in-the-student-athlete/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kridel CHe MF, Schultz BD, Schubert WH. The biographical and documentary milieu. The SAGE guide to curriculum in education. 2015; SAGE: 311-318</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lake, P. F. (1999). Rise of duty and the fall of in loco parentis and other protective tort doctrines in higher education law. Missouri Law Review, 64(1), 1–28. https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol64/iss1/6/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lever, M. K. (2023). "Yes, coach": The rhetoric of paternalism in college sports. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas]. UT Electronic Theses and Dissertations.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mageau GA, Vallerand RJ. The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational model. Journal of Sports Science. 2003; 21; 11: 883-904. 10.1080/0264041031000140374</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manning K. Organizational theory in higher education. 20172; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matosic D, Cox AE, Amorose AJ. Scholarship status, controlling coaching behavior, and intrinsic motivation in collegiate swimmers: A test of cognitive evaluation theory. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology. 2014; 3; 1: 1-12. 10.1037/a0031954</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Medic N, Mack DE, Wilson PM, Starkes JL. The effects of athletic scholarships on motivation in sport. Journal of Sport Behavior. 2007; 30; 3: 292-306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. 20204; SAGE</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore HS, Walton SR, Eckenrod MR, Kossman MK. Biopsychosocial experiences of elite athletes retiring from sport for career-ending injuries: A critically appraised topic. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. 2022; 31; 1: 1095-1099. 10.1123/jsr.2021-0434</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oshiro KF, Hardie A, Dixon M. Transitioning out of sport for collegiate female athletes: Individual and organizational implications. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics. 2023; 16; 1: 60-82</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raabe J, Readdy T, McHenry L, Leyhr D, Ryan T. Need fulfillment in intercollegiate student-athletes' dual roles: A mixed-methods, person-oriented investigation. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport. 2022; 15; 1: 76-100. 10.17161/jis.v15i1.15400</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Readdy T, Raabe J. Use of autonomy-supportive and controlling behaviors: A mixed-methods investigation in NCAA Division I football. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport. 2016; 9; 2: 326-351. 10.1123/jis.2016-0016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Readdy T, Raabe J, Harding JS. Student-athletes' perceptions of an extrinsic reward program: A mixed-methods exploration of self-determination theory in the context of college football. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 2014; 26; 2: 151-171. 10.1080/10413200.2013.816801</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rutledge ME. Understanding the importance of intrinsic motivation: An analysis of intrinsic motivation and positive student athlete experience integration. Research Issues in Contemporary Education. 2019; 4; 1: 45-62</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. 2017; The Guilford Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan RM, Deci ELMaggino F. Self-determination theory. Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. 2022; Springer International Publishing: 1-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwartz R, Stewart DSchuh JH, Jones SR, Torres V. The history of student affairs. Student services: A handbook for the profession. 20166; Jossey-Bass: 20-38</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scoccia DGrill K, Hanna J. The concept of paternalism. The Routledge handbook of the philosophy of paternalism. 2018; Routledge: 11-23</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith RA. Pay for play: A history of big-time college athletic reform. 2011; University of Illinois Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith RA. The myth of the amateur: A history of college athletic scholarships. 2021; University of Texas Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Southall RM, Karcher RT. Distributive injustice: An ethical analysis of the NCAA's "collegiate model of athletics" and its jurisprudence. The International Sports Law Journal. 2016; 15; 1: 210-225. 10.1007/s40318-015-0084-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Southall RM, Weiler JD. NCAA Division-I athletic departments: 21st century athletic company towns. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics. 2014; 7; 1: 161-186</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sperber M. Beer and circus: How big-time college sports has crippled undergraduate education. 2000; Macmillan</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Springer D, Anderson A, Foster SJL, Dixon MA. Organizational capacity and dual mission achievement in NCAA Division I Power Five athletic programs. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics. 2023; 16; 1: 131-154</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoltenburg, A. L, Kamphoff, C. S, & Bremer, K. L. (2011). Transitioning out of sport: The psychosocial effects of collegiate athletes' career-ending injuries. Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of Sport Psychology, 13(2).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sullivan GS. Servant leadership in sport. 2019; Palgrave Macmillan</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor IM, Bruner MW. The social environment and developmental experiences in elite youth soccer. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2012; 13; 4: 390-396. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.01.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thelin JR. Games college play: Scandal and reform in intercollegiate athletics. 1996; Johns Hopkins University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thelin JR. A history of American higher education. 2011; Johns Hopkins University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Urban WJ, Wagoner JL. American education: A history. 2014; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yukhymenko-Lescroart MA. The role of passion for sport in college student-athletes motivation and effort in academics and athletics. Research Open. 2021; 2; 1: 1-12. 10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100055</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Daniel Springer; Molly Harry and Steffanie Heinrich</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Daniel Springer Daniel Springer is an assistant professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Oklahoma. He received a Ph.D. in sport management and a Master's in educational leadership, emphasizing college student development. His research examines the nexus of sport and higher education to construct a better contextual understanding of formal sport environments, focusing especially on their philosophical and structural characteristics.</p> <p>Molly Harry Molly Harry is an assistant professor in the Department of Sport Management at the University of Florida. Through predominantly qualitative and mixed methods approaches, her research explores ways to integrate big-time athletics into the American academy with a focus on two areas: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref177">1</reflink>) Understanding the relationship between the NCAA, institutions, and athletic departments, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref178">2</reflink>) examining ways the NCAA, institutions, and athletic departments can improve athletes' developmental opportunities and experiences.</p> <p>Stefanie R. Heinrich Steffanie Heinrich is a doctoral candidate in Educational Studies at the University of Oklahoma. Her research focuses on the relationship between sport and educational institutions and how both can serve to challenge and reproduce social, cultural, and economic ideologies.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref166"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref167"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref168"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref173"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref174"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref175"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1480387
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Investigating Paternalistic Attitudes in NCAA Division I Power 5 Team Conduct Policies
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Daniel+Springer%22">Daniel Springer</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0219-4641">0000-0002-0219-4641</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Molly+Harry%22">Molly Harry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Steffanie+Heinrich%22">Steffanie Heinrich</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Innovative+Higher+Education%22"><i>Innovative Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 50(4):1203-1225.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 23
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Athletes%22">Student Athletes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Athletics%22">College Athletics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intercollegiate+Cooperation%22">Intercollegiate Cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Team+Sports%22">Team Sports</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Determination%22">Self Determination</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Policy%22">Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Usage%22">Language Usage</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Compliance+%28Legal%29%22">Compliance (Legal)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Needs%22">Psychological Needs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well+Being%22">Well Being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Motivation%22">Student Motivation</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10755-024-09776-8
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0742-5627<br />1573-1758
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study examined whether paternalistic attitudes persist in intercollegiate athletic contexts despite broader shifts away from paternalism across American higher education. We analyzed 98 Division I Power 5 team conduct policies using self-determination theory (SDT) to determine if they exhibited paternalistic attitudes. Findings revealed that team conduct policies often adopted a control-oriented framework, limiting athletes' self-determination and fostering compliance over self-directed growth. This analysis broadens SDT's application to a structural context, highlighting its relevance in policy critique and institutional settings with hierarchical structures. We suggest practical policy language revisions to foster environments that support athletes' basic psychological needs. These recommendations aim to bridge a disconnect between athletic and broader university administration, advocating for policies that can enhance athlete well-being and motivation. Future research could expand this approach to include stakeholder interviews, shedding light on the perceptions and real-world implementation of such policies in athletic environments.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1480387
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1480387
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10755-024-09776-8
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 23
        StartPage: 1203
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Athletes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Athletics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intercollegiate Cooperation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Team Sports
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Determination
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Usage
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Compliance (Legal)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Needs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Well Being
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Motivation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Investigating Paternalistic Attitudes in NCAA Division I Power 5 Team Conduct Policies
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Daniel Springer
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Molly Harry
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Steffanie Heinrich
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0742-5627
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1758
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 50
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Innovative Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1