The Current State of NCAA Division I Collegiate Strength Facilities

Abstract

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.

The Size and Scope of Collegiate Athletic Training Facilities and Staffing

“…Recent investments in athletic training facility renovation were common, with more than 60% of the sample reporting that athletic training facility renovations had been completed within 5 years of the survey. This type of facility investment was consistent with the findings of the exploration of DI strength and conditioning facilities by Judge et al 16 Respondents indicated that another 40% of the schools had received approval to improve some aspect of their athletic training facilities in the near future. Although a majority of athletic training facilities had been improved recently and staff members were positive about the changes to their facilities, the idea that their facilities were meeting the needs of the staff and student-athletes was rated as neutral at all 4 competitive levels.…”

“…These questions were derived from previous work on high school athletic facilities including athletic training areas 17 as well as strength facilities studies at the high school and collegiate levels that assessed facility satisfaction, safety, and adequacy. 16,18 However, neither those studies [16][17][18] nor the present study assessed the validity or reliability of those items.…”

“…Failing to evaluate differences among DI institutions could have resulted in an imprecise evaluation of staffing and facilities at that level. Research 16 on ancillary areas of the athletic department suggests that differences between these 2 levels within DI could exist. Future researchers should focus on identifying differences in staffing and facilities within this division, which could further reflect the role that football plays in athletic training facilities' size and staffing.…”

“…Athletic training program budgets were not directly assessed. Examinations of other intercollegiate facilities 16,25,26 suggest that facility differences might be associated with budget disparities. Therefore, future explorations of athletic training facilities should determine if facility differences are also directly associated with budgetary discrepancies within and perhaps outside of the athletic departments within the institutions.…”

“…Although it has been theorized that institutions at higher levels of competition would have larger and better-equipped facilities, 15 to date, no known studies have quantitatively assessed the differences in athletic training facilities by level of competition (ie, NCAA, NAIA). Judge et al 16 examined NCAA DI strength and conditioning facilities and found that significant differences in facilities and staffing existed based on football status. Institutions sponsoring a football program reported more numerous and larger spaces for strength and conditioning.…”