I. IntroductionII. Review of Related LiteratureIII. Methodology IV. Purpose of ResearchV. ResultsVI. DiscussionVII.Conclusion/Questions

The dire situation facing amateur wrestling

Program eliminations: 363 in 1981 to 234 in 2005 (Student-athlete, 2006)

Recent eliminations: Four college programs in first month of 2009 (Moyer, personal interview, January 26, 2009)

Blaming Title IX?

How to improve sustainability?1.Improve revenues realized at local level

2.Enhancement of marketing efforts

3.Critical: Analysis of core product

Customer Satisfaction Theory: “A judgment that a product or service feature, or the product or service itself, provided (or is providing) a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment” (Oliver, 1997).

Implications:• Enhancement of loyalty levels (Trail,

Anderson, & Fink, 2005; Oliver, 1977; Oliver, Rust, & Varki, 1997)

• Increased revenues through repeat purchases (Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994; Anderson & Mittal, 2000; Laverie & Arnett, 2000)

• Increase in positive word-of-mouth advertising (Kotlar, 1994)

• Core product is made up of the following elements (Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 2007):

1. Game form (rules/techniques)2. Players (athletes/coaches)3. Equipment and apparel4. Venue

• “In game” rules have a significant impact on the entertainment value offered at sport events (Aylott & Aylott, 2007; Partori & Corredoira)

• Must implement rules that increase action and scoring to maximize consumer interest (Paul & Weinbach, 2007)

Purpose: To survey stakeholders of college wrestling to identify their level of satisfaction with the core wrestling product being offered in intercollegiate athletics

Implications1. Gain base understanding of fan’s

perceptions of core product being offered

2. Understanding of fan’s perceptions based on segmentation

3. Suggestions for improvements

4. Improve core product to maximize consumer appeal

Survey Instrument: Wrestling Consumer Satisfaction Scale (WCSS): based on past similar scales (Tsuji et al., 2007)

Construct validity: Four collegiate wrestling coaches, four collegiate wrestlers, four professors, and one survey compilation specialists

Survey Distribution: Stratified: national message board; regional message boards

Test-Retest reliability (Correlation; Spearman- Brown Coefficient)

• Surveys returned (n=1095); Usable surveys (n=1023 [93.4%])

Demographics:

1. Gender (Male = 95.1%; Female = 4.9%)

2. Age (Mean = 26-34)

3. Background Fan (n = 583; 53.6%)

• High School Coach (n =475; 43.7%)

College Coach (n = 112; 10.3%)

Satisfaction with Entertainment Value: One-Sample T-Test and Effect Size

Entertainment Factors (N = 1040) t p Cohen’s d

Aggressiveness of athletes -12.94 .000 .80

Character of athletes 2.26 .014 .15

Skill of athletes 24.74 .000 1.53

Teaching style of coaches -3.70 .000 .23Character of coaches -5.60 .000 .35

Skill of coaches 6.94 .000 .43

Overall atmosphere -17.15 .000 1.06

Entertainment -28.33 .000 1.76

Location of conference tournaments -18.74 .000 1.16

Location of NCAA tournaments -8.99 .000 .56Announcers -16.64 .000 1.03

Wrestling Stakeholder Satisfaction with Current Rules and Regulations

Factor Responses Mean Standard Deviation

Rules & Regulations (N = 1023) 3.48 .092

Stalling implementation within matches 2.68 1.053

Individual/team ranking systems 3.68 .795

Tournament seeding methods 3.67 .761

NCAA Qualification System 3.30 1.007

Consistency of referees 2.87 1.035

Length of matches 4.01 .772

Weigh-in procedures 3.66 .917

Length of season 3.56 .935

Post-season schedule 3.47 1.044

Style of wrestling 3.77 1.058

Overall rules and regulations 3.62 .816

Age and Rules & Regulation Satisfaction

Factor (N = 1023) F PMean

DifferenceCohen’s

DOverall rules and regulations

7.293*** .000

18-25 v 56-65 .000 .484*** .61 18-25 v 66-75 .005 .638** .81 26-35 v 56-65 .001 .432** .55 26-35 v 66-75 .013 .585* .74Length of matches 5.525***

.000

18-25 v 56-65 .000 .447*** .58 26-35 v 56-65 .000 .447*** .59Stalling implementation 9.163*** .000 18-25 v 56-65 .006 .495** .51 18-25 v 66-75 .003 .864** .90

Sport Affiliation and Rules & Regulations Satisfaction

Factor (N = 1023) F pMean

DifferenceCohen’s

d

Length of season .541*** .000

HS Coach v NCAA Coach .000 .498*** .63

Fan v NCAA Coach .006 .348** .92

Style of wrestling 3.794** .005

HS Coach v NCAA Wrestler .002 .364** .97

HS Coach v NCAA Coach .059 .341 .97

Categorical Responses to Open-Ended Questions on Rules & Regulations

Category of Response Frequency (N) Percentage (%)

Stalling (N = 296 [46.6%] ) Consistency of calls 113 17.8% Increase number of calls 110 17.3%

Implement push-out rule 65 10.2%

Match Rules (N = 159 [25.1%] ) Eliminate riding time 66 10.4% Adjust scoring – improve action 31 4.9%

Implement Freestyle/Greco rules 27 4.3%

Overtime – eliminate ride-out 25 3.9%

Highlighted Findings and Implications on College Wrestling

Area Finding Implications on College Wrestling

Mean values Low values illustrated for the implementation of stalling and consistency of referees

Dissatisfaction of “action” based rules can lead to boring matches and less satisfied customers

ANOVA’s Younger generations less satisfied with rules than older generations

Potential impact on future generations interest in college wrestling product

Open-Ended Suggest “push-out” rule Increase action by rewarding aggressiveness during matches

Suggest eliminating riding time Reduce confusion during matches and aid in attracting casual fans

Suggest an adjustment in scoring Reward offensive attempts and improve the entertainment value of matches

• Attempt to cease the elimination of college wrestling programs (Cooper, 2008)

• Importance of marketing effectively at all levels in the future (emphasis: grassroots level)

• Build your foundation first: You must have a strong core product to build fan base effectively in future years

Rules dictate action and level of entertainment experienced at wrestling events (Paul & Weinbach, 2007)

• Continue to adapt as industry changes

• Limitations of study: Sample limited to loyal wrestling fans (online) Broad analysis of rules and regulations

• Future research:1.More specific analysis of rules (casual and loyal fans)

2.Marketing based assessment

3.Changes to college wrestling schedule Academic progress Athletic competition enhancement Consumer interest