2. I.Introduction II.Review of Related Literature III.Methodology IV.Purpose of Research V.Results VI.Discussion VII.Conclusion/Questions

3. 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

4. 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: 1.Enhancement of loyalty levels (Trail, Anderson, & Fink, 2005; Oliver, 1977; Oliver, Rust, & Varki, 1997) 2.Increased revenues through repeat purchases (Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994; Anderson & Mittal, 2000; Laverie & Arnett, 2000) 3.Increase in positive word-of-mouth advertising (Kotlar, 1994)

5. 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 apparel 4.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)

6. Purpose: To survey stakeholders of college wrestling to identify their level of satisfaction with the core wrestling product being offered in intercollegiate athletics Implications 1.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

7. 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)

8. 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%)

9. Satisfaction with Entertainment Value: One-Sample T-Test and Effect Size Entertainment Factors (N = 1040)tpCohen’s d Aggressiveness of athletes -12.94.000.80 Character of athletes 2.26.014.15 Skill of athletes 24.74.0001.53 Teaching style of coaches -3.70.000.23 Character of coaches -5.60.000.35 Skill of coaches 6.94.000.43 Overall atmosphere -17.15.0001.06 Entertainment -28.33.0001.76 Location of conference tournaments -18.74.0001.16 Location of NCAA tournaments -8.99.000.56 Announcers -16.64.0001.03

10. Wrestling Stakeholder Satisfaction with Current Rules and Regulations Factor ResponsesMeanStandard Deviation Rules & Regulations (N = 1023)3.48.092 Stalling implementation within matches2.681.053 Individual/team ranking systems3.68.795 Tournament seeding methods3.67.761 NCAA Qualification System3.301.007 Consistency of referees2.871.035 Length of matches4.01.772 Weigh-in procedures3.66.917 Length of season3.56.935 Post-season schedule3.471.044 Style of wrestling3.771.058 Overall rules and regulations3.62.816

11. Age and Rules & Regulation Satisfaction Factor (N = 1023)FP Mean Difference Cohen’s D Overall 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*.74 Length of matches 5.525***.000 18-25 v 56-65.000.447***.58 26-35 v 56-65.000.447***.59 Stalling implementation 9.163***.000 18-25 v 56-65.006.495**.51 18-25 v 66-75.003.864**.90

12. Sport Affiliation and Rules & Regulations Satisfaction Factor (N = 1023)Fp Mean Difference Cohen’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

13. Categorical Responses to Open-Ended Questions on Rules & Regulations Category of ResponseFrequency (N)Percentage (%) Stalling (N = 296 [46.6%] ) Consistency of calls11317.8% Increase number of calls11017.3% Implement push-out rule 6510.2% Match Rules (N = 159 [25.1%] ) Eliminate riding time 6610.4% Adjust scoring – improve action 31 4.9% Implement Freestyle/Greco rules 27 4.3% Overtime – eliminate ride-out 25 3.9%

14. Highlighted Findings and Implications on College Wrestling AreaFindingImplications 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-EndedSuggest “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 scoringReward offensive attempts and improve the entertainment value of matches

15. 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

16. 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