This study examined recreational sports, with a focus on a comparative analysis of the overall, social, intellectual, and fitness perceived benefits associated with participation in three separate recreational program areas: group fitness, intramural sport, and sport clubs. A survey instrument, based upon the Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire (TEOSQ) and Quality and Importance of Recreational Services (QIRS) perceived benefit scale, was administered to 1,176 students at a postsecondary institution. Results revealed a significant difference in perceived benefits between recreational program areas, with sport clubs reporting the greatest mean in all four perceived benefit groups (overall, social, intellectual, fitness). The study also found a significant positive correlation between all perceived benefit groups. These findings have implications for practitioners in terms of perceived benefit differences, suggesting advantages of the sport club program structure and the potential multiple effects of enhancing a perceived benefit group.

Context:Lack of physical activity is a contributor to the obesity epidemic and is speculated to relate to reduced academic performance; however, this link has yet to be examined within the college population.Aims:The purpose of this study in a group of undergraduate students, was to determine if aerobic exercise activity was related to academic performance.Materials and Methods:The participants for this study included 740 students at multiple universities enrolled in nursing and kinesiology studies. The participants completed the Leisure and Physical Activity Questionnaire.Results:Pearson's χ2 analysis revealed differences in grade point average with aerobic activity (χ2 = 44.29, P ≤ 0.001) as well as a trend toward differences in grade point average with weightlifting activity (χ2 = 22.69, P = 0.61).Conclusions:Based on these findings it can be suggested that college students engage in greater aerobic exercise.

Context: Athletic training facilities have been described in terms of general design concepts and from operational perspectives. However, the size and scope of athletic training facilities, along with staffing at different levels of intercollegiate competition, have not been quantified.Objective: To define the size and scope of athletic training facilities and staffing levels at various levels of intercollegiate competition. To determine if differences existed in facilities (eg, number of facilities, size of facilities) and staffing (eg, full time, part time) based on the level of intercollegiate competition.Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Web-based survey.Patients or Other Participants: Athletic trainers (ATs) who were knowledgeable about the size and scope of athletic training programs.Main Outcome Measure(s): Athletic training facility size in square footage; the AT's overall facility satisfaction; athletic training facility component spaces, including satellite facilities, game-day facilities, offices, and storage areas; and staffing levels, including full-time ATs, part-time ATs, and undergraduate students. ) for storage space. Sample staffing means were 3.8 6 2.5 full-time ATs, 1.6 6 2.5 part-time ATs, 25 6 17.6 athletic training students, and 6.8 6 7.2 work-study students. Division I schools had greater resources in multiple categories (P , .001). Differences among other levels of competition were not as well defined. Expansion or renovation of facilities in recent years was common, and almost half of ATs reported that upgrades have been approved for the near future. ResultsConclusions: This study provides benchmark descriptive data on athletic training staffing and facilities. The results (1) suggest that the ATs were satisfied with their facilities and (2) highlight the differences in resources among competition levels.Key Words: sports medicine resources, physical resources, personnel resources Key PointsIn terms of full-time and part-time athletic trainers, National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I institutions had greater staffing resources than all other competition levels. With respect to total square footage in central athletic training facilities, satellite athletic training facilities, office space, and storage space, Division I institutions possessed more athletic training facilities resources than all other levels of competition. Investments to improve athletic training facilities have been common over the past 5 years, with 62.8% of athletic trainers reporting expansion or renovation of facilities and another 44.6% reporting approved upgrades in the near future.

Strength and conditioning training programs are essential components of athletic performance, and the effectiveness of these programs can be linked to the strength and conditioning facilities (SCFs) used by athletes. The primary purpose of this study was to provide a statistical overview of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I SCFs, equipment and maintenance budget, and the relationship between SCF budget and staffing space, and equipment. The secondary purpose was to note differences in SCFs between those schools with and without football programs. An 84-item online survey instrument, developed with expert input from certified strength professionals, was used to collect data regarding the SCFs in NCAA Division I universities. A total of 110 valid and complete surveys were returned for a response rate of 38.6%. Results of Pearson's χ2 analysis demonstrated that the larger reported annual equipment budgets were associated with larger SCFs (χ2 = 451.4, p ≤ 0.001), greater maximum safe capacity of athletes using the facility (χ2 = 366.9, p ≤ 0.001), increased numbers of full-time coaches (χ2 = 224.2, p ≤ 0.001), and increased number of graduate assistant or intern coaches (χ2 = 102.9, p ≤ 0.001). Based on these data, it can be suggested to athletic administrators and strength and conditioning professionals at the collegiate level that budgets need to be re-evaluated as the number of personnel available to monitor student-athletes and the size and safe capacity of the facility are related to the ability of the strength and conditioning staff to safely and adequately perform their duties.