Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons
LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School
1975 Administrative Policies and Procedures for Large Multi-Purpose Arenas on University Campuses. William H. Bankhead Jr Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses
Recommended Citation Bankhead, William H. Jr, "Administrative Policies and Procedures for Large Multi-Purpose Arenas on University Campuses." (1975). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 2776. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/2776
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document 1 photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame,
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in - equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again - beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.
Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 75-22,192
BANKHEAD, William H., J r ., 1935- AEMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR LARGE MULTI-PURPOSE ARENAS ON UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES.
The Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Ed.D., 1975 Education, administration
Xerox University Microfilms,Ann Arbor, Michigan 481 Co
© 1975
WILLIAM H. BANKHEAD, JR.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
FOR LARGE MULTI-PURPOSE ARENAS
ON UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in
The Department of Health, Physical, and Recreation Education
. by William H. Bankhead, Jr. B.S., Louisiana State University, 1959 M.S., Springfield College, 1960 May, 1975 DEDICATION:
To my wife, Mary Ann, my children, John and Dan. 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express his appreciation to
Dr. Francis A. Drury for his professional guidance in pursuit of this study. For the diligent assistance given by Miss Faye Novo during the preparation of this study, the author expresses his gratitude. The author would like to express a special thank you to those facility administrators who responded to the questionnaire and made available the da'ta used in this study.
ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... ii
LIST OF TABLES...... vi
ABSTRACT...... vi ii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION...... 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM...... 4
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY...... 4
DEFINITION OF TERMS ...... 5
DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ...... 5
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ...... 6
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...... 7
LITERATURE RELATED TO PREVIOUS SURVEYS ...... 7
LITERATURE RELATED TO NEED FOR MULTI PURPOSE ARENAS...... 10 i LITERATURE.RELATED TO PLANNING AND ADMINISTERING MULTI-PURPOSE FACILITIES ...... 13
SUMMARY OF RELATED LITERATURE ...... 19
3. PROCEDURE...... 21
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY...... ; . . . 21
SELECTION OF SUBJECTS ...... 23
DEVELOPMENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 23
COLLECTION OF DATA . ; ...... 24
i i i Page
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS...... 25
4. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSISOF DATA...... 26
GENERAL INFORMATION...... 26 ..
PERSONNEL...... 29
ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERN...... 36
SCHEDULING...... 39
FINANCE ...... 46
MAINTENANCE...... 56
5. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 59
SUMMARY ...... 59
FINDINGS...... 60
General Information...... 60
Personnel ...... 61
Organizational Pattern ...... 62
Scheduling ...... 63
F in a n c e ...... 64 I Maintenance . 66
DISCUSSIONS...... 66
CONCLUSIONS...... 69
General Information ...... 69
Personnel ...... 70
Organizational Pattern .... 70
Scheduling ...... 71
iv Page
Finance ...... 71
Maintenance . •...... 72
RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 72'
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... • 73
APPENDIXES...... 77
A Pilot Questionnaire ...... 78
B Letter of Request for Name, Title and Address of Manager or Administrative Director (sent to 86 Universities) ...... 86
C List of University Multi-Purpose Arenas ...... 87
D Cover Letter to Questionnaire ...... 93
E Questionnaire ...... 94
F Follow Up Letter to Questionnaire...... 108
G General Information, Table 1 ...... 109
H General Information, Table 2...... 113
I General Information, Table 3 ...... 117
VITA ...... 121 I
V LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 General Information, (Appendix G) ...... 109
2 General Information, (Appendix H) ...... 113
3 General Information, (Appendix I) ...... 117
4 Titles for Administrators of Large Multi-Purpose Arenas on University Campuses...... 30
5 Immediate Past Employment of Facility Administrators of Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas ...... 31
6 Educational Background of Facility Administrators for Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas ...... 32
7 University Academic Rank or Employment Status of Facility Administrators of Large Multi-Purpose Arenas ...... 33
8 Additional Duties of Facility Administrators of Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas...... 33
9 Employment Status of Staff Required to Operate a Large Multi-Purpose University Arena ...... 35 t 10 Institutional Placement of Large Multi-Purpose Arenas as Indicated by Respective University Flow C h a rts...... 36
11 University Official to Whom Administrator of Large Multi-Purpose Arenas Reports ...... 37
12 Committee or Official Responsible for Developing Policies for Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas ...... 38
13 Non-Spectator A ctivities Permitted to Take Place in the Main Arena of Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas ...... 41
vi Table Page
14 Type and. Average Number of Each Spectator Event Permitted to Take Place in the Main Arena of Large Multi-Purpose University A renas...... 42
15 Priority List for Events or Activities Booked in the Main Arena of Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas ...... 44
16 Average Number of Spectators per Event at Large Multi-Purpose UniversityAr e n a...... s 46
17 Primary Sources of Operating Income for Large Multi-Purpose UniversityAr e n a...... s 47
18 Charges Related to Use of the Main Arena of Large Multi-Purpose UniversityAr e n a...... s 48
19 Charges Related to Use of Main Arena for Paid Admission Events in Large Multi- Purpose University Arenas ...... 50
20 Charges for Use of Auxiliary Areas in Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas ...... 51
21 Events Scheduled in Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas for Which Deposits are Required ...... 53
22 Primary Operator of Concessions in Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas ...... 54
23 Percentage of Facility Self-Generated Income Derived from Concessions in Large Multi- Purpose University A r e n a...... s 55
24 Magnitude of Operating Cost (not including debt or depreciation) for Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas ...... 56
25 Self Sufficiency of In-House Staff Relative to Maintenance of Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas ...... 58
vi i ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to investigate the administrative policies and procedures for large multi-purpose university arenas. The primary purpose was to add to the body of knowledge involving the management of these facilities. A secondary purpose was to determine if standards for administrative policies and procedures did exist among these facilities.
All universities in the continental United States operating multi-purpose arenas were selected as subjects for this study.
Specifically, eighty-six institutions met that criteria and became subjects.
A descriptive survey questionnaire on administrative practices was used to solicit information from the subject institutions.
Specifically, the questionnaire was divided into six subheadings regarding general information, personnel, organizational procedures, scheduling, finance, and maintenance.
Sixty-five institutions replied to establish a return of 75 percent. Thirteen were eliminated for various reasons and data sub mitted by the remaining fifty-two.were utilized in the study.
All data were interpreted by use of descriptive analysis using percentages of total response and displayed according to the six general subheadings through use of listings and twenty-five descriptive tables.
vi i i The results of this study as categorized under the six general subheadings showed that:
General Information
1. Generally, twelve thousand seat or smaller multi-purpose arenas are found on campuses of under fifteen thousand students whereas
larger facilities are located on campuses with greater enrollments.
2. Main arenas of university multi-purpose facilities are generally designed for athletic spectator events with some consideration given to use for entertainment productions and l i t t l e planning for use
by physical education or intramural s.
3. Auxiliary areas of university multi-purpose facilities are designed primarily to provide space for athletic department offices,
physical education, intramurals, classes and support operations.
Personnel
1. Most chief administrators of large university multi-purpose arenas are well educated, hired from within their university community, and employed as staff administrators with no teaching responsibilities.
2. At university multi-purpose arenas, staff below the level of chief administrator are generally in-house full time personnel in the administrative and janitorial categories, institutionally assigned or contracted labor in the trades and technical positions, and part time
or student workers for event related responsibilities.
Organizational Pattern
1. The majority of large multi-purpose university arenas are operated by either the institution's athletic department or office of
business.
2. The policy development for large multi-purpose university arenas is generally the responsibility of a permanent university committee, although fa c ility administrators or department heads often assume these duties.
Scheduling
1. At most university large multi-purpose arenas, the chief administrator is solely responsible for the scheduling of events.
Booking and promoting is generally shared by this administrator, various university departments or organizations, and off campus organizations.
2. At most large multi-purpose university arenas, spectator events have top priority. Physical education and intramurals, although permitted in some main arenas, generally are limited to use of the auxiliary areas.
Finance ,
1. Most large multi-purpose university arenas are not capable of financial self-support and are most often dependent on the university general fund. Some also receive allocations from athletic budgets,
student fees, or various other sources.
2. Free university activities, restricted usage, low concession
income and poor spectator attendance in relation to arena capacities
prevent most university multi-purpose arenas from becoming financially i self-sufficient. Maintenance
1. Maintenance practices at large university multi-purpose
arenas are indigenous to the particular facility and are determined by
local conditions, fa c ility utilization, available equipment and
personnel capabilities.
2. Most facilities are self-sufficient with regard to routine maintenance and janitorial services but rely on others for technical
and additional manpower jobs.
xi Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
As university student bodies increase, so does a need for
larger campus facilities to accommodate this growing number of students
for such mass activities as classes, convocations, commencements,
registration, athletics and entertainment events.
Limited funds are generally available to most educational
institutions and means have been sought to provide all these
accommodations without duplication of cost and construction. Stanley^
suggested:
Every building that is designed for specific functions can also be useful for other activ ities. Planners should anticipate the flexible efficient use of all space to gain maximum use of their project to serve a broad range of activities.
Arenas used for athletic activities may have multi-purpose use if proper consideration is made in advance to provide a proper acoustic environment and sound system to accommodate other'spectator activities.
( This statement reflects the concept that has motivated many
universities to construct facilities commonly referred to as multi
purpose arenas.
The administration and operation of such arenas often becomes
extremely complex in that these buildings are shared by several
Dennis K. Stanley, "Planning Construction and Maintenance of Facilities," Administration of Athletics in Colleges and Universities. ed., Edward E. Steitz, (Washington, D.C.: NEA Publications, 1971) p. 93.
1 divisions of the university not only for events, classes and activities
but also for office and administrative space. Thus, schedules and the
establishment of priorities often.become a major issue. Should a
building be subjected to true multi-purpose use, it is not unusual for
its facilities to be used in one day by as many as three or four
different departments or divisions of the university. This usage on
any given day.could include classes, athletic team practice, leisure
play and a spectator event all in the same area. Also, in that most
buildings include auxiliary areds in addition to their main arena, a multitude of events might be taking place simultaneously throughout the
building at any given time. To compound these problems, most university
facilities are also used by non-university institutions, organizations and groups. These include high schools, charitable and religious organizations, state agencies, professional athletic teams and many others.
This multiple and frequent usage creates many problems related to policies and procedures, particularly in the areas of:
Personnel 1 Who administers the facility? Who hires the staff? Who establishes work hours and supervises? How many employees are utilized and what are their duties?
Organization. What is the pattern of organization? Who establishes and
implements policy for the facility? Under which division of the university is the facility administered?
Finance. How is the facility financed? Who pays to use the facility?
How is income generated? What becomes of the income that is generated? Scheduling. What activities or events have priority? Who establishes this priority? How many events per day, week or year can be scheduled
successfully in the facility? What areas can be utilized for any given k activity or function? Who is eligible to use the facility?
Maintenance. How much time and manpower is required to maintain the facility? How quickly can the facility be converted from one arrangement to another? What is the capability of the in-house maintenance staff? Is contract or outside labor utilized in order to maintain the facility?
In order to answer these and many related questions and to determine the proper administrative policies and procedures to be developed for such facilities, universities generally have studied available literature on the subject or have surveyed existing operations. ? Deering researched this area and indicated in 1970 that specific information in the management of auditoriums, arenas, convention halls and stadiums is especially d ifficu lt to find because there has been little written on the subject.
To date the situation has not improved greatly and the majority of information that could be found dealt only with municipal, civic or privately owned and operated facilities. Very little has been published dealing with the management of multi-purpose arenas operated by
2 Francis R. Deering, "Organization — The Key to Successful Management," Management Seminar for New Managers. (Chicago Heights, Illinois: International Association of Auditorium Managers, Inc., 1970), p. 2. universities which, by nature, must function within unique guidelines.
Through interviews with several university building managers, i t has been determined that numerous surveys concerning the policies and procedures of existing university facilities have been made by building managers or university study committees; however, a review of current literature indicates that none has been published. Thus, there are no literary records of such surveys from which to draw a consensus of standards for administrative policies and procedures for such facilities.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
This study was an attempt to investigate the administrative policies and procedures developed for large multi-purpose arenas on university campuses. Specifically, the basic problem involved five areas of consideration:
1. Personnel
2. Organization
3. (Finance
4. Scheduling
5. Maintenance
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The primary purpose of the study was to add to the body of knowledge involving the management of large multi-purpose arenas on university campuses. A secondary purpose was to determine if standards for administrative policies and procedures did exist among large multi-purpose arenas on university campuses. 5
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Administrative policy. "Generalized statements of administrative purpose that interpret the authority and responsibility vested by higher powers 3 into directives for use by individual departments or schools."
Administrative procedures. "Interpretations of policies in terms of time and place. Administrative procedures adapt policies to meet local conditions, the wise thing to do for the present, plans which lead to ward the fulfillment of policies."^
Large multi-purpose arena. A single facility comprised of a "large open 5 floor area" surrounded by seating capacity for eight thousand or more spectators and auxiliary areas all of which is designed to accommodate . a variety of activities and events under "the same roof"^ either simultaneously or separately.
DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
This study was delimited to eighty-six universities located I within the continental limits of the United States.
O Clifford L. Brownell and E. Patricia Hagmon, Physical Education -Foundation and Principles. (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1951), p. 272.
^Jesse F. Williams, Clifford L. Brownell, and Elmon L. Vernier, The Administration of Health Education and Physical Education. (6th ed.; Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1964), p. 25. 5 Francis R. Deering, Don Jewell, and Lindsley C. Lueddeke, ed.; Auditoriums and Arenas. (Chicago, Illin o is: Public Administration Service, 1961), p. 13.
6Ibid., p. 12. These universities were selected because the seating capacity of their indoor facility, as listed in the 1973-1974 edition of the
National Directory of College A thletics,^ the 1973-1974 edition of the 8 Blue Book of College Athletics and the International Association of g Auditorium Managers 1974 Membership Directory exceeded eight thousand.
The study was further delimited to the study of only those questions contained in the distributed survey.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
This study was limited due to a lack of direct communication with the subjects in that the investigation was conducted by means of a descriptive survey utilizing a postal questionnaire. This lack of close communication increased the possibility of misinterpretation of questions due to the respondents inability to seek clarification of ambiguous points.
This study was further limited by the difficulty of inducing respondents to complete and return the questionnaire when all transaction was enacted through the postal service.
^The 1973-1974 National Directory of College A thletics. (Amari11o, Texas: Ray Franks Publishing Ranch, 1973).
8The Blue Book of College Athletics for 1973-1974. (Cleveland, Ohio: The Rohrich Corporation, 1973). q The International Association of Auditorium Managers 1974 Membership Directory. (Chicago, Illin o is: I.A.A.M., Inc., April, 1974). Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The review of related literature presented in this study represents a comprehensive search of books, periodicals, journals, papers, theses and dissertations pertaining to or written on the subject of building management.
Specifically, the search concentrated on identifying literature relating to the development and implementation of administrative policies and procedures for large multi-purpose university arenas.
LITERATURE RELATED TO PREVIOUS SURVEYS
Since 1924, the International Association of Auditorium
Managers has periodically surveyed its membership on various management topics. One such study, A Survey of Various Rates and PoliciesJ was published(in 1953. Although not inclusive of university related data, i t was significant in that it served as a prototype for four subsequent
IAAM surveys in 1961, 1964, 1966 and 1974.
The firs t three of the four surveys were all conducted by the same committee consisting of Francis R. Deering, Don Jewell and
William Coker, A Survey of Various Rates and Policies. (Chicago, Illinois: International Association of Auditorium Managers, Inc., 1953).
7 8 2 Lindsley C. Leuddeke and were conducted to meet three primary needs:
1. Establishment of fundamentals of auditorium management.
2. A compilation of management data that reveals the
practices followed in major auditoriums in the
United States and Canada.
3. An outline of administrative and operational problems.
In the 1961 publication, Auditoriums and Arenas, it was 3 reported that:
Regrettably, the day is not yet here when the field of auditorium management can claim i t has reached truly professional status with established ethics, practice standards and administrative procedures to guide it.
Regardless, the study succeeded in providing the best
information to date.on administrative responsibility of managers, financing of operations and duties of personnel. However, of the eighty-two buildings surveyed, only two were located on a university campus and only one of those had a facility with a seating capacity of over eight thousand. 4 The 1964 publication was an update of the 1961 survey using a sample of'ninety subjects. Four of those surveyed were university buildings and only two of the four were large multi-purpose arenas.
p Francis R. Deering, Don Jewell, and Lindsley C. Leuddeke, ed., Planning and Management of Public Assembly F a cilities. (Chicago, Illinois: International Association of Auditorium Managers, Inc., 1966), Foreword.
.O , Auditoriums and Arenas. (Chicago, Illinois: Public Administration Service, 1961), pp. 12 & 13.
, Auditoriums and Arenas: Supplement. (Chicago, Illinois: Public Administration Service, 1964). 5 The 1966 study was by far the most informative of those publications. The survey included one hundred fifty facilities, including six universities. Three of these reported operation of multi- purpose arenas with capacity of over eight thousand.
The results, although not. specifically related to the unique problems indigenous to university building management, did indicate that a pattern for standards of policies and procedures for building management could be established through use of a descriptive survey of facility administrators.
The International Association of Auditorium Managers Industrial
Profile Survey published in June, 1974, was the most comprehensive study of its type ever undertaken in the auditorium-arena management field. The survey questionnaire covering both administration and oper ations was completed and returned by three hundred eight association- affiliated facility administrators. One hundred eighty-two of those surveyed operated facilities classified as arenas by the questionnaire definition of:
Ai? enclosed all-weather structure having fixed elevated seating along one or more sides of an open flat floor area which may be used to present events or upon which portable seating may be placed. It is most commonly used by indoor athletics, ice shows and circuses.
Of the one hundred eighty-two facilities, eighteen were located on university campuses but only thirteen of these reported having
Francis R. Deering, Don Jewell, and Lindsley C. Leuddeke, ed., Planning and Management of Public Assembly F a c ilitie s. (Chicago, Illinois: International Association of Auditorium Managers, Inc., 1966)
C International Association of Auditorium Managers Industrial Profile Survey. (Chicago, Illinois: I.A.A.M., Inc., 1974). seating capacities of eight thousand or more which would place them in
the large arena category.
This lack of participation, by universities greatly reduced the effectiveness of the results of this survey as a tool in determining policies and procedures indigenous to all university operated facilities.
Also, the survey was tabulated exactly as provided by the respondents and no conclusions were drawn. In fact, most phases of the report were
so interrelated as to make it impossible to isolate clear policies or procedures without careful review of all characteristics and variables of data reported on each topic contained in the 197 pages of computerized listings.
For these basic reasons, even though this was a current compre
hensive study, it did not meet the need that existed for a study related to specific university problems.
LITERATURE RELATED TO NEED FOR MULTI-PURPOSE ARENAS
In 1971, the National Association of College Directors of
Athletics ahd the Division of Men's Athletics of the American Association of Health, Physical Education and Recreation promoted a joint project to establish a position on a re a listic approach to the administration of athletics. Subsequently, the edited text of this project was published and titled, Administration of Athletics in Colleges and Universities.^
This book made evident the fact that overcrowded conditions and needs of
7 Edward S. Steitz, ed., Administration of Athletics in Colleges and Universities. (Washington, D.C.: NEA Publications, 1971), 11 different departments could only be reconciled by construction of multi purpose fa c ilitie s .
Specifically, i t made mention of the overcrowded conditions which existed in many of the colleges and universities. It revealed that over 30 percent of the 18 to 21 age group, a higher percentage than ever recorded by any civilization, currently attended institutions of higher learning. This vast increase in enrollment created a need for more available physical education class space, athletic event areas and recreational fa c ilitie s . Compounding this problem was the fact that most institutions were placing major emphasis on more expanded programs. I These encompass not only men's intercollegiate athletics but also club sports, intramural games, women's athletics and unstructured play. It was indicated that these programs could not survive unless suitable facilities were made available, yet 78 percent of the major institutions at that time indicated a lack of fa c ilitie s in which to conduct adequate programs. To meet these needs, it was suggested that multi-purpose fa c ilitie s be planned and scheduled for use by all these groups.
Further support for the need of multi-purpose arenas was pro- O vided by Scott who indicated that, although some modern fieldhouses provide only for the program of intercollegiate athletics, they may also serve the instructional program of physical education and recreation, including intramurals and extramurals. In addition, they may also be used for such all-college purposes as commencement exercises and, in some institutions, they may also serve as an exhibition hall for various
g Harry A. Scott and Richard B. Westhamper, From Program to Facilities in Physical Education. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962) p. 2 l7 “ 12 spectator entertainment events. q Scott, in a later article, further emphasized this need of multi-purpose facilities by pointing out the large percentage of total space and financial outlay at most institutions that was utilized by physical education athletics and recreation. It was his feeling that, because of the competition for space among various university educational units, a great need existed for cooperative planning for more expanded offerings in these fa c ilitie s. He fe lt that physical education and athletic administrators must work with other divisions of the university for cooperative use of these facilities; otherwise, there could be no justification for their extraordinary cost and space consumption.
A study by the Educational F acilities Laboratories^ published in May, 1966, indicated the need still existed by reporting that, due to the financial struggle facing most institutions of higher learning, funds were hardly available for construction of dormitories, let alone elaborate fine arts and physical education facilities. Also, even when funds were available, many were short on land. Thus, the erection of multi-purppse buildings which could accommodate such functions as theater, concerts and exhibits and double as space for physical education classes and athletic events was the only solution to their problems.
9 Harry A. Scott, "Facilities for the Future," The Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation. (April, 1962) p. 33.
^"Divisible Auditoriums," Educational Facilities Laboratories. (New York: 1966) pp. 5 & 6. LITERATURE RELATED TO PLANNING AND ADMINISTERING MULTI-PURPOSE FACILITIES
In order to determine hoto this apparent need for multi-purpose university arenas had been resolved, the literary search concentrated on material dealing with the planning and subsequent administration of these unique fa c ilitie s .
Herman J. Penn's1^ book of 1963, was the only available publication discovered which was devoted entirely to planning of audi toriums, arenas and multi-purpose buildings. Found to be an excellent discourse on planning, it provided a listing and evaluation of all available equipment and supplies from seating to portable basketball floors. Unfortunately, he included nothing on the administration of facilities to inform facility directors how to place spectators in those seats or how to schedule multiple use of the portable floor. Nor. was any information provided which related specifically to university operated faci1i ti es. 12 Esslinger and Voltmer cautioned that one of the most fre- • quently abysed principles of physical education is that which applies to the planning of facilities to house multiple programs. They indicated one needed only to look at the large number of inadequate physical education facilities on our high school and university campuses
Herman J. Penn, Encyclopedic Guide to Planning and Establishing an Auditorium, Arena, Coliseum or Multi-Purpose Building. (Greenville, South Carolina: Penn Fleming Publishing, Inc., 1963).
12 Arthur A. Esslinger and Edward F. Voltmer, The Organization and Administration of Physical Education. (New York: Appleton-Centruy Crofts, Inc., 1958), p. 171. 14
in order to find evidence of this fact. They indicated that wise and efficient planning before construction could eliminate many of the administrative problems resulting from subsequent use of improperly planned fa c ilitie s.
It was found that a great deal of the concern with adminis tration related to the scheduling of the facilities. For instance, in
1956, the Athletic Institute published a revised edition of their findings on a study of nation-wide physical education and recreation 13 facilities, which gave specific attention to this particular problem.
In their report on stadiums and fieldhouses, the committee agreed that large seating structures could be more easily justified if they had multiple use. Ironically, however, they suggested that this usage should not include interscholastic basketball. It was their feeling this use would inhibit the true function of the facility and prevent adequate usage for other activities.
It was their suggestion that there should be separate facilities for athletic contests and physical education activities. The conclusion was also drawn that either fa c ility which might best f i t could be used I for events of a convention, assembly or convocation nature.
In the only article found which dealt solely with university operated facilities, Horace Strong^ reported the university position on
lO Planning Facilities for Health, Physical Education and Recreation by Participants in National Facilities Conference! (Revised edition; Chicago, Illinois: Athletic Institute, Inc., 1956), p. 114.
^Horace Strong, "University, College Centers," Planning and Management of Public Assembly F acilities, ed., Francis R. Deering, Don Jewell, and Lindsley C. Lueddeke, (Chicago, Illinois: International Association of Auditorium Managers, Inc., 1966), p. 40. scheduling of multi-purpose arenas. He concluded that this facility
should be available primarily for events connected with campus functions; however, if sufficient time was available during the year, outside events should be considered. Particularly, he gave reference to ice shows, circuses, and traveling road shows which could be attended by both on and off campus paying patrons in order to help offset operating costs through generated funds. 15 Don L. Johnson provided an insight into an awareness of some of the factors and techniques in effective scheduling and booking of facilities. He elaborated on the difference in "scheduling" and
"booking" and made suggestions for establishing policies and procedures for implementing these in regard to maximum use of a fa c ility .
Similar to those related to scheduling, problems associated with other phases of management such as personnel, finances, maintenance and organizational structure were evident in most literature related to the administration of multi-purpose arenas.
In a report to the 1971 International Association of Auditorium 1 fi Managers, New Managers Seminar, Paul Buck related the importance of 1 establishing policies in regard to rental rates and finance.
Principally, he cautioned against writing policies that set standards for rental rates to cover debt and operation. He indicated that in most cases this was an unrealistic goal and emphasized his point by saying
1 5 Don L. Johnson, "Scheduling and Booking," Management Seminar for New Managers. (Chicago Heights, Illinois: International Association of Auditorium Managers, Inc., 1968-69), p. 36.
^Paul Buck, "Arena Rental Rates," Management Seminar for New Managers. (Chicago Heights, Illinois: I.A.A.M., Inc., 1971), pp. 1 & 2. 16
that if multi-purpose arenas were a profitable business, private business
and not cities and universities would be operating them. The scope of
rental rates in regard to cost was .thus determined to be a point worthy
of further study.
Realizing that financial stab ility was primarily dependent on
operating cost, information was sought regarding efficient methods of
operation. In 1973, Roy G. Saunders^ published a paper on public
event fa c ilitie s that covered a wide range of maintenance procedures
including skeleton crews, in-house crews versus contract crews, pre
ventive measures and others. However, the basic point of his review was
the importance of effective plans, policies and procedures for an
effective maintenance program. 18 Harry Schreiber agreed and described a workable program for
successful building maintenance as one developed by top management
through realistic policy. He indicated that good maintenance doesn't
just happen, it has to be made to happen by top management support
through careful planning and scheduling.
This reference to top management was not unique in that most
literature researched stressed its importance in effective adminis
tration. However, one primary problem appeared to be the choice between
a single chief administrator or committee management.
17 Roy G. Saunders, "Public Event Facility Maintenance and Operation," Management Seminar for Mew Managers. (Chicago Heights, Illinois: International Association of Auditorium Managers, Inc., 1973), p. 1.
18 Harry Schreiber, "Building Maintenance," Management Seminar ‘for New Managers. (Chicago Heights, Illinois: I.A.A.M., Inc., 1968-69), p. 6. I g On this question, Alberts reported the American Management
Association interviewed executives and examined records in twenty organizations to determine the relative.efficiency of committee and individual approaches to various problems. Findings bn this survey
< indicated committees were superior in handling jurisdictional questions or problems that involved the interest and affairs of different departments. On the other hand, the functions of leadership, execution, decision making and organizing could best be handled by an individual. 20 Peter F. Drucker disagreed with this position when he related his concept on "The Fallacy of the One-Man Chief Executive." In reference to arguments for both committees and non-committees to operate businesses, he drew the conclusion that all chief executive jobs must be the responsibility of a team of several men acting together. He further explained that he preferred the term "team" as opposed to committee because it indicated that the group must work together.
In that most literature researched related primarily to municipally operated facilities, it was difficult to determine if a standard organizational pattern existed among university operated multi- 21 purpose arenas. Lindsley L. Leuddeke suggested that even among municipal fa c ilitie s there existed a need for organizational pattern.
^Henry H. Alberts, Organized Executive Action. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1961), p. 196.
20 Peter F. Drucker, The Practice of Management. (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1954), p. 2l7.
21 Lindsley L. Leuddeke, "Public Assembly Facilities-Changes and Trends," Management Seminar for New Managers. (Chicago Heights, Illinois International Association of Auditorium Managers, Inc., 1972), p. 3. 18
However, he revealed that there was a trend in that direction and cited
an example of the use of exotic or all-inclusive names such as Spectrum,
Forum or Public Assembly Center which he indicated sometimes become so
exotic or collective as to describe everything but at the same time
tell you nothing. In that universities also have adopted this trend
with names like Palestra and Special Events Center, it is logical that
other similar organizational patterns might also have developed.
Several books which dealt with the administration of physical
education were reviewed. Although none dealt directly with the adminis
tration of multi-purpose arenas, pertinent information was found in the
sixth edition of Williams, Brownell and Vernier's, The Administration of 22 Health Education and Physical Education. This book provided an
insight into the survey method of obtaining information relative to
existing conditions. It also served as a basis for developing many of
the questions utilized in the questionnaire regarding basic adminis
trative practices; and also, provided the key definition of
administrative procedures as used in this study.
Although no books were found to have been written which dealt I specifically with the administration and development of policies and
procedures for auditoriums and arenas, numerous books have been written
on the total subject of administration even including one titled,
Up The Organization by Robert Townsend, which for several weeks topped
the best-seller list in the non-fiction class.
22 Jesse F. Williams, Clifford L. Brownell, and Elmon L. Vernier, The Administration of Health Education and Physical Education. (6th ed.; •Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1964), Townsend, of course, most famous for his "we try harder" slogan
for Avis Rent-a-Car, showed very little regard for policies and pro- 23 cedures in administration. In fact, about policy manuals, he stated:
Don't bother. If they're general, they're useless. If they're specific, they're how-to-manuals—expensive to prepare and revise. If you have to have a-policy manual, publish the Ten Commandments.
This particular piece of literature added very little to the
research, but certainly was refreshing to review.
A search of physical education periodicals over the last decade
revealed no article applicable to this study.
No doctoral dissertations or master's theses were found related
to administrative policies and procedures for large multi-purpose
arenas on university campuses.
SUMMARY OF RELATED LITERATURE
Basically, it was determined that very little literature existed
that could be related to the study of administrative policies and
procedures for multi-purpose arenas on university campuses. What little
literature1 did relate had been published either by the International
Association of Auditorium Managers or by one of its members. The 1974
IAAM Industrial Profile Survey provided a wealth of information but, due
to a lack of major participation by university multi-purpose building managers, no consensus or trends could be established with reference to
their particular management policies and procedures.
23 Robert Townsend,. Up The Organization. (Greenwich, Connecticut: Fawcett Publications, Inc., 1971), p. 129. 20
It was also determined that what materials were, found related generally to planning or construction of buildings and almost no thought had been given to management policies and procedures.
It was found that some information did exist that could be helpful in the operation of a municipal or private building, but even here, there was a great need for more information.
In order to supplement this lack of information, it was decided to employ another method of research.
Thus, the investigator conducted a survey of several experts in the field by use of a questionnaire as well as interviews with a I selected number chosen because of position and geographic distribution. C hapter 3
PROCEDURE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The descriptive survey method of investigation was used to determine the administrative policies and procedures of large multi purpose arenas on university campuses.
The investigator first interviewed experts in the field to determine:
1. If a true need existed for such a study
2. Which areas of administration were considered most
appropriate for study
3. The probability of response to a descriptive survey
Through utilization of information provided by the interviews and a study of existing materials, a pilot questionnaire (Appendix A) was developed. This questionnaire was submitted to eight experts in the field who were also interviewed by the investigator for their reaction to the questionnaire and to secure suggestions for improvement.
These experts were:
Robert B. Horning, Jr. Carolina Coliseum University of South Carolina
William Dean Justice I.A.A.M. President S.I.U. Arena Southern Illinois University 22
John M. Klain Pauley Pavilion University of California at Los Angeles
Fred M. McCain North Texas Coliseum North Texas State University
D. Wayne Murphy Auburn Memorial Coliseum Auburn University
Thomas P. Parkinson Past I.A.A.M. President Assembly Hall University of Illinois
John F. Plouff Athletic and Convocation Center University of Notre Dame
J. Scott Williams Marriott Center Brigham Young University
All represented major universities and operated large multi
purpose arenas. Geographically, they represented the East and West
Coast, the North, the South, the West, the Mid-West and Texas.
Institutionally, they represented both private and public universities.
Professionally, each was considered outstanding in the operation of their
respective facilities.
The original questionnaire was then revised accordingly and mailed with a cover le tte r and instructions to subject universities.
Letters were addressed to the administrator of that institution's large multi-purpose arena.
Subsequent letters were mailed at pre-determined intervals to
non-respondents. A final appeal was made by telephone to non-respondents after the stated written deadline. 23
Sixty-five of the universities surveyed responded to the questionnaire, establishing the percentage of return at 75 percent.
Data collected were tabulated for treatment, conclusions were drawn and recommendations were made.
SELECTION OF SUBJECTS
The subjects for this study were all universities in the conti nental United States with large multi-purpose arenas situated on their campus.
Specifically, that list included eighty-six universities widely distributed throughout thirty-six of the forty-eight continental states.
These subjects were selected from the 1973-1974 National Directory of
College Athletics, the 1973-1974 Blue Book of College Athletics and the
International Association of Auditorium Managers 1974 Membership
Directory. All universities listing indoor arena facilities seating eight thousand or over for spectator events were sent a letter requesting the name and address of the administrator of their particular facility (Appendix B). These individuals subsequently became the primary source of information.
DEVELOPMENT OF.QUESTIONNAIRE
A pilot (Appendix A) for this questionnaire was submitted to eight university multi-purpose arena managers. Each return was eval uated by use of the eighty-item validity check suggested by Good and
ScatesJ
Carter V. Good and Douglas E. Scates, Methods of Research- Educational, Psychological, Socological. (New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, Inc., 1954)., p. 623. 24
Each of the eight was then interviewed by the investigator relative to the pilot and his own ideas for a questionnaire.
The questionnaire (Appendix E), fifteen pages consisting of thirty-six items related to administrative policies and procedures, was developed. Questions were categorized under six sub-headings:
1. General Information
2. Personnel
3. Organizational Pattern
4. Scheduling
5. Finance
6. Maintenance
This questionnaire became the primary source of securing information from all subjects.
COLLECTION OF DATA
The questionnaire (Appendix E) was submitted to eighty-six administrators of selected university multi-purpose arenas (Appendix C).
h cover le tte r (Appendix D) accompanied each questionnaire with instructions regarding:
1. Completion of the questionnaire
2. Return of information in enclosed, self-addressed
stamped envelope
3. A two week deadline for return
A follow up le tte r (Appendix F) was submitted immediately after the two week deadline to non-respondents. This stated a new deadline of one week from the date of that correspondence. 25
A telephone call was made to all non-respondents after the dead
line date of the second letter, requesting their cooperation by
responding immediately.
As returns were received, they were cataloged with reference to
the master list (Appendix C) in order to identify respondents and non
respondents.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Returns were cataloged and individual responses transferred to
data cards. All data were interpreted by use of descriptive analysis
using percentages of total response. Data were divided under six sub
headings:
1. General Information
2. Personnel
3. Organizational Pattern
4. Scheduling
5. Finance
6. Maintenance
Information from the f ir s t subheading was recorded on comparative tables indicating the general charactisties relative to each responding university. These were placed in the appendix for referral.
Information from the remaining subheadings was tabulated and utilized in developing twenty-five descriptive tables which were
integrated into the text through analyzation and comparison of the data included.
Conclusions were drawn and subsequent recommendations were made. C hapter 4
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Of the sixty-five universities responding to the questionnaire, thirteen of the returns were disregarded in the tabulation of the data.
Although all responding facilities indicated housing university activities, five of the thirteen were municipally owned and operated.
They were, therefore, eliminated because they were not termed true university facilities. Seven were dropped because their true seating capacity determined from the questionnaire was not over eight thousand as had been reported in the national publications from which they had been selected. One was not used for lack of adequate information.
These thirteen facilities whose responses were not utilized in the tabulation of data were so identified in Appendix C. The names of the fifty-two universities which provided usable data were listed in general information tables appearing in the appendix. (
GENERAL INFORMATION
The data collected were tabulated and grouped for analysis under the six subheadings of the questionnaire. The f irs t of these dealt with general information relative to all universities surveyed.
General Information Table 1 (Appendix G) revealed several tendencies related to size and general characteristics. It was noted that although the subject universities ranged in student population from
26 27
3,500 to 40,000, when analyzed they fell almost evenly into two categories encompassing their enrollment. Twenty-seven had an enroll ment of above 15,000, while twenty-five reported less than that number.
The facilities operated by these universities, ranged in seating capacity from 8,000 to 23,000 and could be categorically divided into two groups of the same size as reported above. Twenty-seven operated facilities with seating capacity above 12,000 while twenty-five reported those with fewer seats.
Although there was some parallel between these groupings, there were thirteen exceptions where small universities possessed large facilities and vice-versa. The dates on construction of the surveyed fa c ilitie s ranged from 1926 to 1974. Fifteen were constructed before
1960, twenty-three during the sixties and fourteen in the seventies.
Regarding the configuration of the main arena floor, i t was found that twenty-eight were rectangular, seven were round, nine were elongated circles, five were square and three were other unusual shapes.
A correlation of this information with dates of construction revealed that thirteen of the fifteen facilities built before 1960 had rectan gular-shaped main arenas. During the 1960s, although not dominant, the rectangular configuration for the main arena was still popular as indicated by ten of the twenty-three built during that time. The round building began to share this popularity during the sixties, as was indicated by nine facilities reported to have been built during that period. Seven of the fourteen constructed since 1970 were elongated circles which seemed to indicate a current trend toward that particular shape.
The types of fixed floors used in the facilities surveyed ranged 28 from dirt to the new all-purpose synthetic floors. Specifically, there were reported two dirt, seven concrete, fourteen tartan, twenty-three wood, one wood and tartan and five other various substances. Ironically, both the oldest building built in 1926 and the newest completed in 1974 had a fixed wooden floor. It was also noted that wood was found in almost twice as many fa c ilitie s as its nearest rival product.
In General Information Table 2 (Appendix H), it was noted that all nine universities reporting dirt or concrete fixed floors indicated the use of portable basketball floors. This increased their validity as multi-purpose facilities.
With over half of the fifty-two subject universities located in the northern or mid-western part of the continental United States where ice skating is a popular sport, only six reported the inclusion of ice rinks (four permanent and two portable). Also, only twenty of the fifty-two respondents reported the inclusion of a running track in their facility even though many of them are known to have indoor track programs. This indicated the possibility that ice rinks and running tracks might be more often situated in fa c ilitie s other than multi purpose arenas, especially since all but one of the responding univer sities had reported one or more other major activity buildings on their campus.
Although none reported permanent stages, forty-seven of those responding reported possession of portable ones. This, coupled with the fact that thirty-two had balanced sound systems, indicated definite planning of entertainment activities and multiple use. As was indicated in General Information Table 3 (Appendix I), few facilities reported areas for game activities such as tennis, volleyball or badminton in 29 their main arena; however, subsequent data indicated 98 percent were used for basketball.
In that only ten respondents indicated gridirons in the main arena or small theaters elsewhere in the building, it was evident that few fa c ilitie s were equipped for proscenium theatrical productions.
Over 50 percent of those surveyed reported auxiliary fa c ilitie s which could be used for classroom teaching, meetings and conferences; however, few indicated adequate facilities for conventions or banquets.
Over 80 percent listed adequate dressing rooms, concession stands and box office facilities for both athletic and entertainment spectator events.
It was clearly noted that a majority of facilities housed athletic offices but few provided space for physical education or intra murals. This indicated the possibility that, on most campuses, these two departments were more often housed in facilities other than multi purpose arenas.
PERSONNEL
i Data collected under the second subheading of the questionnaire I were utilized to determine if a pattern existed among large multi purpose university arenas with regard to policies and procedures related to personnel employment and management. Basically, i t was discovered in particular areas that the variety of answers to the questions were almost as numerous as the institutions surveyed. This lack of continuity as revealed by the data indicated a clear lack of standard ization of administrative policy. Notable differences were found through analyzation of data collected from the firs t question which 30
sought titles used to designate the chief administrators of various facilities. The question specifically requested the descriptive title of that individual who most often '.'administers the fa c ility policies."
As might have been expected, many title s were similar in meaning but different in terminology. Some were descriptive of the duties performed such as Director of Special Events and some related to status within their particular profession such as Dean or Vice-President.
Table 4 actually represents seventeen different titles although ten of the singularly reported ones were grouped under "others."
Table 4
Titles for Administrators of Large Multi-Purpose Arenas on University Campuses
Title N %
Facility Director 12 23
Director of Athletics 10 18
Facility Manager 8 15
Associate Director of Athletics 3 6
Director of Health & Physical Education 3 6
Assistant Director of Athletics 2 4
Business Manager for Athletics 2 4
Other Individual Titles 10 20
No Manager 2 4
Total Responses. . . . 52 100
Although the results proved that no title was used by a majority of the facilities, it did establish that the title, "Facility Director," used by 23 percent of those surveyed, was the most common.
Two institutions reported having no chief administrator directly responsible for their facility.
Due to his/her importance in policy development and procedural implementation, a total of five questions were used to collect data relative to either the background or current status of the chief facility administrator. Table 5 was derived from data collected to determine the immediate past employment of these administrators.
Table 5
Immediate Past Employment of Facility Administrators of Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas
Past Position N %
University Administrator 15 30
Non-University Business or Industry- Administrator 12 24 1 Coach 8 16
Physical Education Teacher and Coach 6 ' 12
Physical Education Teacher 3 6
Teacher (other than P.E. or Athletics) 3 6
Military Service 2 4
University Maintenance Supervisor 1 2
Total Responses. . . . 50 100
Although there proved to be no one field which served as a 32
training ground or stepping stone, tendencies for patterns did exist
in two broad areas. The majority, or 54 percent, came from adminis
trative backgrounds, both on and off campus. The second combined area,
composed of teachers and coaches, included 40 percent of the total.
Other data regarding background information collected through
the questionnaire and displayed in Table 6 revealed that chief adminis
trators of large multi-purpose university arenas were moderately-to-well
educated.
Table 6
Educational Background of Facility Administrators for Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas
Highest Degree Earned N %
Doctorate 6 12
M.A. or M.S. 24 48
B.A. or B.S. 16 32
High School 4 8
Total Responses. . . . 50 100
Although 8 percent of those reported had only high school degrees, this was overshadowed by the fact that 32 percent held
Bachelor degrees and an impressive number of 30 out of 50, representing
60 percent, had earned post-graduate degrees. These above average educational credentials were related to the involvement of some facility administrators with the academic aspect of their respective 33 institutions. The extent of this involvement was reflected by a review of the academic rank or employment status as revealed by data recorded in Table 7 and subsequently in Table 8 where additional duties were listed.
Table 7
University Academic Rank or Employment Status of Facility Administrators of Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas
Rank or Status N %
Staff Administrator 34 68 Professor 4 8 Associate Professor 5 10 Assistant Professor 2 4 Dean 1 2 Civil Service Classified 4 8
Total Responses. . . . 50 100
Table 8 I Additional Duties of Facility Administrators of Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas
Additional Duties N %
No additional duties 17 34 Teaches or Coaches 11 22 Other Campus Administrative duties 13 26 Administration in another Facility 9 18
Total Responses. . . . 50 100 Table 8 revealed that 22 percent of the facility administrators either taught classes or coached athletic teams, indicating a parallel between these additional duties and academic rank as reported in
Table 7, noting 24 percent of the administrators had an academic rank of Professor or above.
It was, however, evident by the data provided in Table 7 that most chief facility officials were "Staff Administrators" and were, as such, not considered true members of the academic faculty. Table 8 supported this fact by indicating that 34 percent of those listed had no additional duties other than administering these facilities and that an additional 44 percent had other administrative duties not related to teaching.
Information from Table 9 indicated that most university facilities used primarily full time help except in the three categories of ticket sellers, ticket takers and stagehands. Surprisingly, very few used student laborers except in the two categories of ticket sellers and takers.
There was an indication of a trend to use laborers paid by other university departments especially in the trades, security and blue collar workers. Only the trades seemed to be strong on labor union affiliations, although a slight number indicated unionized stagehands.
A noticable non-use of contract labor, particularly in the area of janitorial services, indicated a trend toward self-sufficient building maintenance crews. It should be noted that no attempt was made here to show the number of staff required as that would vary with the size of the facility. The information in this table simply indicated the various range of employees utilized and the status of their employment. 35
Table 9
Employment Status of Staff Required to Operate a Large Multi-Purpose University Arena
Status of Staff Members
Staff Arenas A B C D E F N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
Assistant Director 22-42 18-35 3- 6 1- 2 Administrative Asst. 12-23 9-17 1- 2 2- 4 Business Manager 17-33 11-21 2- 4 4- 8 Accountant 14-27 9-17 3- 6 2- 4 Promotions Manager 8-15 4- 8 3- 6 1- 2 Theater Manager 6-12 3- 6 2- 4 1- 2 1- 2 Publicist 8-15 5-10 1- 2 2- 4 Events Manager 18-35 10-19 5-10 3- 6 1- 2 Secretary 34-66 25-48 4- 8 1- 2 4- 8 1- 2 Receptionist 11-21 8-15 1- 2 2- 4 1- 2 Clerk Typist 13-25 7-13 3- 6 1- 2 2- 4 1- 2 Operations Engineer 27-52 13-25 6-12 8-15 3- 6 Electrician 40-77 15-29 10-19 1- 2 1-2 13-25 5-10 Plumber 32-62 9-17 8-15 1- 2 1-2 13-25 6-12 Carpenter 28-56 9-17 6-12 1-2 13-25 5-10 Janitorial Supervisor 36-69 19-37 6-12 11-21 6-12 Janitors and Maids 43-83 26-50 5-10 1- 2 11-21 2- 4 Grounds Supervisor 28-54 13-25 6-12 1- 2 8-15 1- 2 Security Officers 34-65 11-21 10-19 2-4 11-21 2- 4 Ticket Seller 51-98 7-13 27-52 6-12 1-2 10-19 2- 4 Ticket Takers 51-98 3- 6 26-50 14-27 1-2 7-13 1- 2 Box Office Manager 23-44 12-23 6-12 5-10 Stage Manager 14-27 9-17 3- 6 2- 4 1- 2 Stage Hands 27-52 8-15 8-15 3 1-2 7-13 4- 8
Total Responses 52
A - Full Time B - Part Time C - Student Employee D - Contract Labor E - Paid by Other University Departments F - Labor Union Affiliations 36
ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERN
Another area of concern of this study was to determine if standard pplicies and procedures for organizational patterns relative to administration existed among Targe multi-purpose university arenas. The first question relative to this section of the study sought information on placement of the facility within the university organizational structure. The data from this item were recorded in Table 10.
Table 10
Institutional Placement of Large Multi-Purpose Arenas as Indicated by Respective University Flow Charts
Institutional Division N %
Athletic Department 16 31
Office of Administration (Business) 11 21
Office of President or Chancellor 7 13
University Physical Plant 5 10
Physicdl Education Department 3 6
Other Divisions 10 19
Total Responses. . . . 52 100
As shown by this table, no distinct pattern could be ascertained from the collected data. Especially since the replies indicated thirteen different possibilities, some of which were absorbed into the inclusive category of "other divisions." If any trend was suggested it would have been slightly toward placing the facility under the Athletic 37
Department. However, with only a difference of 10 percent having been exhibited between the Athletic Department and Office of Administration, and only 25 percent between the first and last choices, no pattern for standard policy was truly indicated.
Table 11 was developed from data which identified the university officials to whom the chief administrator of subject large multi-purpose university facilities were found to have reported.
Table 11
University Official to Whom Administrator of Large Multi-Purpose Arenas Reports
University Official N %
Director of Athletic Department 16 32
Administrator for Business 12 24
University President or Chancellor 6 12
Vice-President of Various Divisions 8 16
Director of Physical Education 3 6
Director of Physical Plant 3 6
Others 2 4
Total Responses. . . . 50 100
Here, the same as in the previous table, no concensus of opinion was reached. Eight different officials were listed, two of which were singularly identified but listed under "others." However, 56 percent of those responding listed either the Athletic Director or the 38
Administrator for Business, which indicated the strongest trend in that direction.
Within the organizational pattern of the administration of a facility, someone or some group must be responsible for the development of policy. Data were therefore collected and reported in Table 12 which indicated these responsible bodies at the fifty-two subject institutions..
Table 12
Committee or Official Responsible for Developing Policies for Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas
Responsible Body N %
Permanent University Committee 24 46
Head of Department to whom Facility Director Reports 13 25
Facility Director 6 12
Ad Hoc Committee 4 8
University Board of Supervisors/Regents 3 6
Facility Board of Directors 2 4
Total Responses. . . . 52 100
Although not a majority of the institutions agreed, the data revealed that a substantial number of twenty-four institutions depended on a permanent "University Committee" to develop policies for their multi-purpose arenas. Five other bodies were indicated with the next most frequently mentioned having been the Head of the Department to whom the Facility Director reported. 39
SCHEDULING
* Some of the more complex problems associated with the adminis tration of multi-purpose university arenas were found in the area of scheduling of the facility . Data collected through the questionnaire indicated that generally the scheduling of space was the duty of the chief facility administrator and that he/she more often than any other individual or committee decided which spectator events could take place in the facility. It was found also that the actual booking of many events often was done by other departments or individuals in addition to the chief facility administrator. Quite naturally, 51 of the 52 institutions surveyed or 98 percent indicated that the Athletic
Department booked all athletic events into their facility. Regarding entertainment spectator events, 48 percent allowed university student organizations and 44 percent allowed student union personnel to book these type events in their university multi-purpose arenas. In addition, approximately one-third of those surveyed also permitted other university departments as well as off campus non-profit groups to book spectator events into the main arena.
Of these groups, the Athletic Department definitely exercised the privilege more often by averaging a booking of twenty-eight events per year. Student unions average eleven, student organizations, ten, other university departments, ten, and off campus non-profit organizations, 8 events per year. These include both admission and non-admission events.
Fourteen of the institutions also reportedly allowed non university profit oriented promoters to book their fa c ilitie s for an 40 average of eight spectator events per year. These were obviously all admission type events.
Basically, the same individuals and organizations who were allowed to book events were also allowed to promote entertainment events in the facilities. As was explained in the questionnaire, the term "to promote" as used, referred to buying, publicizing and producing the event, thereby placing the individual or organization acting as the promoter in a position of generating or losing income, dependent on expenditures and revenues.
Approximately 30 percent of the universities permitted four of the five previously named groups to promote in their multi-purpose arenas. The fifth group, university unions, was permitted this priv
ilege by 48 percent of those responding. Of the reporting institutions,
27 percent also allowed the facility administrator to act as a promoter for the university in the facility he operated.
To determine which events or activities were indigenous to
large multi-purpose university arenas, the subject institutions were asked to answer questions which would indicate the events that were permitted to take place in their facilities.
The data from these questions were categorized according to
information which referred to spectator events or non-spectator events and that which gave reference to whether these events took place in the main arena or in auxiliary areas of the facility. The data displayed in
Table 13 were collected through questions which sought information
regarding non-spectator events which were permitted to take place in the main arena of the subject large multi-purpose facilities. 41
Table 13
Non-Spectator Activities Permitted to Take Place in the Main Arena of Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas
Activities N* %
Physical Education Classes 27 52
Intramural Activities 29 56
University Athletic Team Practice 47 90
Professional Athletic Team Practice 9 17
Amateur Non-University Team Practice 14 27
University Registration 25 48
Total Responses. . . . 52
*N exceeds the total responses since subjects indicated multiple answers.
The data indicated that 90 percent of those responding permitted athletic team practice in their main arena; however, approximately only
50 percent allowed physical education classes or intramural activities to take place in that area. It was also noted that only 48 percent held registration in their main arena and other activities, such as professional and amateur team practice, were allowed only in a few facilities.
Table 14 was developed from data regarding usage of main arenas for spectator type events. In addition to indicating which events were allowed, i t also lis ts the average number of each type of event per year reported to have been held at each of the responding institutions. 42
Table 14
Type and Average Number of Each Spectator Event Permitted to take Place in the Main Arena of Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas
Average Number of Event N* % Events Per Year
University Athletics 51 98 28 Professional Athletics 21 40 2 Amateur Non-University Athletics 31 60 6 University Commencement 47 90 3 University Student Convocation 27 52 3 University sponsored: Touring Pop Shows 42 81 5 Touring Rock Shows 36 69 4 Touring Stage Shows 18 35 3 Touring Circuses 13 25 2 Trade Shows 9 17 3 Conventions 10 19 3 Non-University sponsored: Touring Pop Shows 11 21 3 ' Touring Rock Shows 5 10 4 Touring Stage Shows 6 12 2 Touri'ng Circuses 8 15 1 Trade Shows 8 15 3 Conventions 12. 23 3
Total Responses. . . . 52
*N exceeds the total number of responses since subjects indicated multiple answers. It was indicated that of all the events, university athletics,
which were permitted to take place in 98 percent of the subject
fa c ilitie s , were not only the most.generally accepted but also took
place more often than any others.
Commencement, although close to athletics with permission to
take place in 90 percent of the facilities, was by nature way down the
lis t in the number of events per year. University sponsored pop and
rock shows were the next most frequently permitted events at approxi mately 90 percent each, but were, very low in the number of events per year with only an average of 5 permitted at each institution. It was
found that of the other events listed such as circuses, trade shows,
conventions and professional athletics, few were permitted to take
place in most of the facilities. Where they were permitted, the average number per year was extremely low at an approximate average
number of 3 per year.
According to Table 14, the average number of all spectator events which reportedly took place in the main arena of the multi purpose fa c ilitie s at the subject institutions was 81 per year.
To determine which of these sanctioned events, if any, had priority over others, subject institutions were requested to submit a list of events rated categorically as the top five according to priorities established by their multi-purpose facility policies. These top five were awarded points on a rating scale of five for first place decreasing accordingly to one point for fifth place. Forty of the fifty-two responding institutions indicated they did have an existing priority policy and submitted their top five priority events.
Table 15 displays the top fifteen events as indicated by their 44 accompanying score based on the previously mentioned point rating scale. .
Table 15
Priority List for Events or Activities Booked in the Main Arena of Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas
Event or Activity Points Priority on Rating Scale*
Basketball 179 Commencement 123 Registration 73 Rock Shows 52 Pop Shows 43 Physical Education Classes 37 Athletics Other Than Basketball 26 Intramural Activities 19 Conventions 12 Athletic Team Practice Sessions 11 Lectures 9 Trade Shows 6 Circuses 5 Rodeos 4 Pageants 1
12 of 52 respondents indicated no policy establishing priorities
*Scale: Based on 5 to 1 points for f ir s t through fifth priority as indicated by response.
It was evident from the data collected and displayed in
Table 15 that the spectator events with top priority were also those which had been listed as permitted most often in most arenas. It was also noted that although some non-spectator events, such as athletics 45 team practice, had enjoyed high percentage of inclusion for use of the main floor in many facilities, these did not necessarily rank high on the priority lis t. Also, those .events that did rank highest were either all university academic oriented activities or substantial
income generating events.
Other than knowing the average number and type of spectator events per year permitted to take place in a multi-purpose arena, two other pertinent facts were needed to facilitate the determination of policy and procedures regarding scheduling. It was deemed important to know how many days the responding institutions required between spectator events and how many spectators they drew for the events they permitted. In answer to the first question, it was found that approxi mately 40 percent of those responding had no policy for a requirement of any period of time between like spectator events. The remaining
60 percent suggested an average time of one day between athletic events and six days between entertainment events.
Data indicating the average number of spectators to attend both admission and non-admission events were reported by 51 of the 52 subject universities regarding their multi-purpose arenas. It was noted under the subheading related to general information that the fa c ilitie s included in the study could be divided almost evenly into two groups with 50 percent both above and below seating capacity of
12,000. Yet, i t was discovered in Table 16 that only two fac ilitie s or 4 percent of those responding had average attendance records of over 12,000 spectators per event and in fact, only 26 percent had an average event attendance above the seating capacity of eight thousand
(the figure used in this study to differientiate between large and 46 small multi-purpose arenas.)
Table 16
Average Number of Spectators Per Event at Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas
Average Number of Spectators/Event N* %
1,000 -• 4,000 11 22
4,000 -■ 8,000 27 52
8,000 -• 12,000 11 22
12,000 -■ 16,000 2 4
Total Responses. . . . 51 100
*0f the 52 subjects, one failed to respond to this item.
FINANCE
Policies and procedures related to finance were considered to be extremely important to the operation of large multi-purpose university arenas and thus worthy of study. The questions which were asked relative to this subheading dealt primarily with the source of income and, in particular, that which was self-generated.
Data indicating the primary source of operating income for large multi-purpose university arenas as reported by the subject institutions were recorded in Table 17. 47
Table 17
Primary Sources of Operating Income for Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas
Primary Source N %
General University Budget 19 37
Self-generated Funds 17 33
Athletic Department Funds 11 22
Student Fees 2 4
Others 2 4
Total Pvesponses. . . . 51 100
This information was not available from one of the institutions
reporting, however, of the fifty-one who did respond, the general
pattern established was that the majority of buildings received their
income from one of three sources. These were either the general university budget, self-generated funds or athletic department funds. I The student fees listed actually represented two sources in that one facility received "Student Services Fees" and another received
"Student Activity Fees."
Other than self-generated funds, all other financial sources were found to have been derived from allocations. It was determined that those sources would have been forthcoming regardless of the facilities' policies and procedures since their distribution was deter mined by policies of the allocating body. Therefore, the study concentrated on those policies and procedures of the facilities which 48 affected their self-generation of income.
One such source of income was found to be from charges for use of the main arena for non-admission events. Table 18 was derived from the information collected reporting that particular area of finance.
Table 18
Charges Related to Use of the Main Arena of Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas for Non-Admission Activities
Rent Out of Rent & No Only Pocket Out of Charge N.A.* Pocket
N % N % N % N ' % N %
Physical Education Classes - - 7 13 - - 20 38 25 49
Intramural/Leisure Play ■ - - 7 15 - - 22 41 23 44
University Athletic Team Practice 2 4 11 21 - - 34 65 5 10
Professional Athletic Team Practice 3 6 3 6 1 2 2 4 43 82
Amateur Non-University Team. Practice 4 8 8 15 1 2 1 2 38 73
University(Registration 1 2 11 21 - - 13 25 27 52
University Commencement 1 2 15 31 2 4 28 53 5 10
Uni vers i ty Student Convocati on 2 4 12 22 2 4 11 21 25 49
Total Responses. . . . 52
*N.A. - Not applicable >
As was indicated in the table, charges were reported under three categories: rent only, out of pocket expenses only, or rent plus out of pocket expenses. It was reported that many respondents made no charges for various activities and many listed several activities as 49 not applicable to this particular facility.
It was noted that university athletic team practices and cbmmencement exercises, the two events (non-spectator and spectator) which had been indicated earlier as being permitted use of the main arenas by the greatest number of institutions, were also allowed to use those fa c ilities free of charge at the greatest number of institutions.
As revealed earlier, physical education classes and intramural activities were not permitted in the main arena at the majority of the reported facilities. It was found, however, that when they were allowed, they were charged less often than any other type event.
The second major source of self-generated income, and possibly the largest, was determined to be that derived from charges for use of the main arena for paid admission events. Table 19 was developed from data indicating for which of these events rent, out of pocket expenses or both were charged.
These data indicated that university athletic events, which according t,o previously reported statistics, were permitted to take place in 98 percent of the fa c ilitie s, were charged less often by institutions to use their main arena than were any other paid admission events.
Professional athletic events, although permitted to take place in less than half of the operating fa c ilitie s , were charged rent by the greatest number of institutions. However, university sponsored touring rock and pop shows appeared in more fa c ilitie s than any events other than university athletics and paid more to use the facilities than any admission type event. These rock shows appeared in 90 percent 50
of the fa c ilitie s and pop shows in 84 percent. Rock shows were charged
rent at 33 percent of the reporting institutions and pop shows paid rent
in 31 percent of the fa c ilitie s. .In addition, university sponsored rock
and pop shows were charged out of pocket expenses or rent and out of
pocket expenses in approximately 40 percent of the fa c ilitie s in which
they were permitted to perform.
Table 19
Charges Related to Use of Main Arena for Paid Admission Events in Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas
Rent Out of Rent Plus No Only Pocket Out of . Charge Event Pocket N.A. N % N % N % N % N % University Athletics 7 13 18 35 2 4 24 46 1 2 Professional Athletics 17 33 2 4 1 2 1 2 31 59 Amateur Non-University Athletics 12 23 . 8 15 1 17 2 4 21 40
University Student Pro ductions 12 23 12 23 8 16 12 23 8 15
University sponsored:
TouringiPop Show 17 33 10 19 12 23 3 6 10 19 Touring Rock Show 16 31 TO 19 9 17 2 16 31 Touring Stage Show 12 23 4 8 1 2 1 2 34 65 Touring Circuses 9 17 2 4 1 2 1 2 39 75 Trade Show 4 8 3 6 1 2 1 2 43 82 Convention 4 8 4 8 1 2 1 2 42 80 Non-University sponsored: Touring Pop Show 4 8 1 2 5 10 1 2 41 78 Touring Rock Show 2 4 0 0 2 4 1 2 47 90 Touring Stage Show 2 4 0 0 3 6 1 2 46 88 Touring Circuses 4 8 0 0 3 6 1 2 44 84 Trade Show 2 4 0 0 4 8 2 4 44 84 Convention 4 8 0 0 6 12 2 4 40 76
Total Responses. • • • 52 51
Although non-university sponsored touring pop and rock shows were permitted to take place in very few of the reported facilities, when they were permitted, they were charged slightly more often for both rent plus out of pocket expenses than were those sponsored by the university.
A third source of self-generated income was found to be derived from charges for use of auxiliary areas. The extent of these charges was tabulated from data collected through the questionnaire and listed in Table 20.
Table 20
Charges for Use of Auxiliary Areas in Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas
Out of Rent and No ... ( Rent Pocket Out of Charge N.A.* Actlvlty Pocket n % ■ H % N % N % N %
Regular Use of Office Space 3 6 -- 1 2 36 69 12 23
Physical Education Classes - - 6 12 -- 31 59 15 29 University Basketball Team Practice , 2 4 3 6 1 2 11. 21 35 67 Other University Athletic Team Practice ' 1 2 6 12 1 2 29 55 15 29 Professional Basketball Team Practice 4 8 3 6 8 15 37 71 Other Non-University Athletic Team Practice 3 6 3 6 18 34 28 54
Intramural Sports Activities 2 4 7 13 - - 29 55 14 28 University Classes other than P.E. 2 4 7 13 30 56 13 25
Total Responses. . . . 52
*N.A. -- not applicable 52
It was discovered that very little income was generated from
charges for use of auxiliary space at the subject fa c ilitie s. Although
77 percent of the facilities provided office space for regular use,
only 6 percent charged rent and 2 percent charged rent plus out of
pocket expenses to the users. Professional basketball teams, although
only permitted to practice in fifteen of the fa c ilitie s , were charged
rent by four and out of pocket expenses by three, which made them the
most often charged in accordance.with percentages of use. University
athletic teams other than basketball, intramural sports activities, and
non-physical education classes were all found to have used the auxiliary
areas in approximately 37 of the 52 facilities reporting. In each case,
charges were made for those activities by less than seven of the thirty-
seven facilities which meant these activities took place in the greatest
number of facilities and were nearly the least often charged. Physical
education classes which took place in the same number of facilities as
the above mentioned three, were charged no rent and out of pocket
expenses by only six of the thirty-seven facilities.
Although not considered a major source of income, one factor of arena management that was found to affect finance was the adaptation of
policies regarding deposits. It was determined that since required deposits generally become a part of the event income or the only source of income if an event is canceled and the deposit held, they had to be considered as part of the overall income.
Data collected which reveals the events for which various subject
institutions required deposits were utilized in Table 21. According to this data, deposits were required by a very limited number of institutions especially for university athletic events for which only 2 percent of
those responding required deposits. 53
Table 21
Events Scheduled in Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas for Which Deposits are Required
Required Required Event Deposit No Deposit N % N %
University Athletic 2 4 50 96
Non-University Athletic 11 21 41 79
University Promoted Entertainment 11 21 40 77
Non-University Promoted Entertainment 17 33 35 67
Total Responses. . . . 52
In fact, the large percentage of institutions not requiring deposits for all listed events indicated a definite trend toward a negative policy in this area. The questionnaire also sought to deter mine at which point a deposit was required. It was found that Only
2 percent of the institutions indicating a positive policy required the deposit when the date was booked. The remaining percentage of subjects all required their deposits when the contract was signed.
The final source of self-generated income to be considered in the questionnaire was that derived from concessions. In this case, the term concession was used to include food and drink, programs and parking. Table 22 lists the primary operators of concessions in large multi-purpose university arenas as indicated by responses to the questionnaire. 54
Table 22
Primary Operator of Concessions in Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas
Food/Drink Programs Parking Primary Operator N % N % N %
Facility Personnel 10 19 21 40 15 29
Other.University Departments 17 33 21 40 11 21
Lessee of Facility 2 4 4 8 2 4
Outside Concessionnaire 18 34 3 6 2 4
Not Applicable to Facility 5 10 3 6 22 42
Total Responses. . . . 52 100 52 100 52 100
This table indicated no definite trend in policy in that not over 50 percent of the reporting institutions agreed on any one operator for the respective concessions associated with their facility.
Although there was a slight trend, as shown by the 40 percent response, to allow fa c ility personnel and other university departments to operate
I- the program concessions.
A subsequent question sought to determine what percentage of each arenas self-generated income was derived from the various con cessions and the data collected were used in Table 23.
Basically, it was found that very little of the total income was derived from these sources. Forty-seven facilities, which represented 50 percent of those reporting, indicated they derived only
19.4 percent of their self-generated income from selling food and drinks. 55
Table 23
Percentage of Facility Self-Generated Income Derived from Concessions in Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas
Percentage of Arenas Generated N.A.* Concessions N % Income N %
Food and Drink 47 90 19.4 5 10
Programs 49 94 7.6 3 6
Parking 30 58 9.0 22 42
Total Responses. • • • 52
*N.A. - Not applicable
Parking concessions, operated by 58 percent of the respondents, provided only 9 percent of their self-generated budget. However, the smallest percentage of generated income to be derived from any of these came from program sales. Although operated by the largest percentage of'responding fa c ilitie s , that concession accounted for only 7.6 percent of,their self-produced income.
Having revealed the primary sources of funds for large multi purpose university arenas and having indicated that the only source which could be affected by facility policy was self-generated income, further information was sought to discover how many facilities, if any, had been able to generate sufficient income to equal operating costs.
Data collected, as revealed by Table 24, indicated only 33 percent of the facilities reported self-generated income equal to or in excess of their operating costs, whereas over twice as many, at 67 percent, had not been able to generate sufficient income to cover their operating costs. This substantiated the need for the previously listed additional sources of revenue in order to successfully operate the majority of the reporting facilities.
Table 24
Magnitude of Operating Cost (not including debt or depreciation) for Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas
Operating Cost N. %
Less than self-generated income 10 19
Equal to self-generated income 7 14
More than self-generated income 34 67
Total Responses. . . . 51 100
MAINTENANCE
Administrative practices associated with the maintenance of a large multi-purpose university facility were found to be primarily indigenous'to each particular university. Each policy seemed to be related to the unique features of the particular facility to which it pertained. It was, therefore, not possible to assimilate a great deal of materials related to this particular subheading which would indicate patterns in policies and procedures. Although some questions were asked relating to "time required" or "man hours worked", most answers were so varied that valid relationships could not be established.
For instance, the answers regarding time to build a portable 20 foot by
40 foot stage ranged from three man hours to seventy-two man hours, with fifteen different times having been listed among the fifty-two 57 respondents. It became apparent that the time spent depended on many factors not indicated by the responses.
Two questions regarding "time required" did provide usable information. One requested the time required to place one hundred portable chairs, to which 77 percent of those responding agreed on an average of three man hours. The other related to time required to build a portable basketball floor. Information gained from eight of the nine facilities with portable floors, indicated a required average time of forty-eight man hours to build their particular floor.
One area in which 48 percent of those surveyed agreed, was that each dollar spent on maintenance was divided approximately between 85 percent for "labor" and 15 percent for "materials."
The most pertinent information in the area of maintenance consisted of data collected with reference to the self sufficiency or dependency of in-house staff and was recorded in Table 25.
This information indicates a definite pattern for dependency on other university departments to furnish staff .in every area but daily janitorial(service. One strong area of dependency was special clean ups after events where 63 percent of those responding used non-staff labor. The strongest dependency was associated with the building of portable facilities and assistance during multiple events as was indicated by 59 and 64 percent respectively of those reporting.
Although little other usable information was identified under this subheading, the data revealed in Table 25 were determined to be informative and useful in developing a pattern for administrative policies and procedures regarding maintenance practices in large multi purpose university arenas. 58
Table 25
Self Sufficiency of In-House Staff Relative to Maintenance of Large Multi-Purpose University Arenas
Dependent Dependent On on another Non-University Self University Organization Maintenance Sufficient Department N.A.* Requirements N % N % N % N %
Routine Maintenance Repair Work 20 38 32 62
Daily Janitorial Services 27 52 25 48 - -- -
Special Clean Up after Events 19 37 26 50 7 13 - -
Construction of Portable Facilities 16 31 28 53 3 6 5 10
Setting Portable Chairs 20 39 26 50 2 4 4 7
Assistance During Multiple Events 11 21 29 56 4 8 8 15
Total Responses. . • • 52
*N.A. - Not Applicable Chapter 5
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
This study was conducted to investigate the administrative policies and procedures for large multi-purpose arenas on university campuses. The primary purpose was to add to the body of knowledge involving the management of these facilities. A secondary purpose was to determine if standards for administrative policies and procedures did exist among large multi-purpose university facilities.
All universities in the continental United States with large multi-purpose arenas situated on their campuses were selected as subjects for this study. Specifically, eighty-six institutions met that criteria and became subjects.
A descriptive survey method of investigation was used to solicit information from the subject institutions. The survey consists of a thirty-six item questionnaire related to administrative practices in large multi-purpose university arenas. Specifically, the questionnaire was divided into six subheadings regarding, general information, personnel, organizational procedures, scheduling, finance, and maintenance.
Of the eighty-six subjects surveyed, sixty-five replied to
59 60 establish a return of 75 percent. After a review of all returns, thirteen were eliminated for various reasons and the remaining fifty-two became the subject institutions used in tabulation of the data.
All data were tabulated and interpreted by use of descriptive analysis using percentages of total response. These data were displayed according to the six general subheadings through use of listings and twenty-five descriptive tables.
FINDINGS
The findings of this study were as follows:
General Information
1. With some few exceptions, the seating capacity of the large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed was relative in size to that of their student body.
2. Trends in configurations of main arena floor areas for large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed moved from the construction of rectangular-shaped arenas in the fifties, through round
in the lat'e sixties, to elongated circles in the seventies.
3. The most popular permanent fixed synthetic type floor in
the large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed was tartan.
4. The most popular type permanent fixed floor found in the
large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed was wood.
5. Very few of the large multi-purpose university arenas sur
veyed housed running tracks or ice rinks. There was indication that
these were located more often in physical education or intramural sports
complexes which did exist on many campuses surveyed. 61
6. The majority of large university multi-purpose arenas sur veyed were designed for presentation of entertainment events in their main arena; however, few were designed for the presentation of proscenium theatrical events.
7. The majority of large university multi-purpose arenas.were not designed for physical education classes and intramural activities to take place in their main arena.
8. Approximately half of the large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed contained auxiliary class, activity, and conference space.
9. .The majority of the large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed housed athletic offices but few provided office space for physical education or intramurals.
Personnel '
1. The most often used title for the chief administrator of large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed was "Facility Director."
Titles were generally descriptive of duties or relative to academic I rank.
2. The majority of facility administrators at large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed had backgrounds in administration both on and off campus. The second largest group came from the teaching or coaching ranks.
3. The facility administrator of large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed was moderately-to-well educated with over half having earned post-graduate degrees.
4. The majority of facility administrators at large university 62 multi-purpose arenas surveyed did not hold faculty status. Most were
listed as "Staff Administrators."
5. Very few facility administrators at large university multi
purpose arenas surveyed had additional duties unless they were of an
administrative nature.
6. Large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed utilized full time help in most staff positions except in three primary areas - ticket
sellers, ticket takers, and stagehands.
7. Few large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed use
student labor except in the. two categories of ticket sellers and ticket takers.
8. A pattern existed for large university multi-purpose arenas
surveyed to use laborers paid by other university departments in the trades and security field.
9. A pattern existed for large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed to use less contract labor, particularly in the area of janitorial services and to develop more self sufficient building maintenance crews.
(
Organizational Pattern
1. No distinct pattern could be ascertained among large univer sity multi-purpose arenas surveyed with regard to which institutional division the facility should belong. The most frequently indicated was the athletic department.
2. No distinct pattern could be ascertained among large univer
sity multi-purpose arenas surveyed with regard to which university official the facility administrator should report. The most frequently 63
indicated was the Director of Athletics, followed closely by the
Administrator for Business.
3. Permanent university committees were most often the body
responsible for developing policies for the large university multi
purpose arenas surveyed.
Scheduling
1. The scheduling of space in the large university multi
purpose arenas surveyed was most often done by the Facility Adminis
trator.
2. Booking was done by the facility administrator, the univer
sity union, student organizations and the athletic department in most of the large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed.
3. The facility administrator and the above listed groups as well as outside promoters were allowed to promote in large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed. University unions were permitted this
privilege in more facilities than any of the others.
4. Ninety percent of the large university multi-purpose arenas
surveyed Allowed university athletic team practice to take place in
their main arena.
5. Only half of the large university multi-purpose arenas sur
veyed allowed physical education classes, registration and intramural activities to take place in their main arena.
6. Athletic events and commencement were the two most accepted events in the main arenas of the large university multi-purpose arenas
surveyed.
7. Eighty-one percent of the large university multi-purpose 64 arenas surveyed allowed touring pop shows and 69 percent allowed touring rock shows to take place in their facility. These averaged four and five events respectively per year in each facility.
8. Basketball, commencement exercises, registration, rock shows, and pop shows were the first five priority events for use of the main arena in the large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed.
9. Forty percent of all large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed reported no policy for a requirement of time between similar spectator events. The remaining 60 percent suggested an average time of one day between athletic events and six days between entertainment events.
10. Of all the large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed, only 26 percent averaged above eight thousand spectators per event and only 4 percent averaged over twelve thousand per event.
Finance
1. Most large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed reported one of three primary sources of operating income: general university budget, s^lf-generated funds, or athletic department funds.
2. Athletic team practices and commencement exercises were * allowed to use the main arena free of charge at the greatest number of the large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed.
3. Although physical education classes and intramurals were not permitted to take place in the majority of large university multi purpose arenas surveyed, when allowed, they were charged less often than any other type event.
4. University sponsored rock and pop events appeared in more 65 large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed than any other non-
athletic events and paid more to use the average facility than any other
admission event.
5. Very little income was generated at large university multi
purpose arenas surveyed from charges for use of auxiliary space.
6. Although over three-fourths of the large university multi
purpose arenas surveyed provided some type of office space for regular
use, only 8 percent charged the tenants.
7. Physical education classes took place more often than any
other event in the auxiliary space of large university multi-purpose
arenas surveyed, yet paid less for this usage. Intramurals enjoyed a l most the same advantages at most facilities.
8. Deposits were required by a very limited number of large
university multi-purpose arenas surveyed, especially for university
athletic events.
9. No definite trend was evident in regard to the primary » operator of various concessions in large university multi-purpose arenas
surveyed. I 10. It was determined that very l i t t l e self-generated income was derived from the sale of concessions at the large university multi purpose arenas surveyed. The largest percentage came from food and drink which generated only 19.4 percent of the average facilities'
generated income.
11. Parking concessions were operated by slightly over half of
the large university multi-purpose arenas surveyed, yet were responsible
for only 9 percent of the average self-generated income.
12. It was revealed that twice as many large university multi- 66
purpose arenas surveyed indicated operating costs greater than their
self-generated income.
Maintenance
1. Maintenance practices at large university multi-purpose
arenas surveyed were found to be indigenous to each particular facility ,
thus few patterns for standard policy could be established.
2. It was determined that among the large multi-purpose arenas
surveyed, each dollar spent on maintenance could generally be divided
between 85 percent for "labor" and 15 percent for "materials."
3. A definite pattern was indicated among the large university
multi-purpose arenas surveyed for dependency on other university depart
ments to provide staff in every area except daily janitorial service.
4. A pattern was indicated among the large university multi-
• purpose arenas surveyed for the fa c ilitie s to become more self
sufficient regarding non-university organizations, especially in routine
maintenance work and daily janitorial services.
, DISCUSSION
The stated purpose of this study was to add to the body of
knowledge involving the management of large multi-purpose arenas on
university campuses by determining if standards for administrative
policies and procedures did exist.
The search of literature as reported e a rlier in this study
revealed very little has been written on the subject of auditorium
management, particularly related to standard policies and procedures.
This study, however, went beyond a search of what had been committed 67 to writing and sought information from selected institutions regarding administrative practices peculiar to their facilities. These data were collectively analyzed to reveal if tendencies, trends or patterns of standard practices, although not recorded, did exist.
The findings of the study revealed that many standard practices did exist thereby indicating that the field of auditorium management had come a long way since 1962, when i t was indicated that it had not reached truly professional status due to a lack of standards in adminis trative practices. Specifically, the study indicated that some patterns or trends of standardization were indicated in all six of the subheadings of auditorium management as they related to large university multi purpose arenas.
A brief summary of the present study shows that the data collected on general information concluded certain trends existed in configurations related to date of construction, floor materials, number of seats relative to institutional enrollment, capability for spectator events, auxiliary space and occupants.
Information gathered in the area of personnel management I revealed a similar pattern relative to background, status, and duties of facility administrators. However, standard practices were not indicated in the employment of staff other than the chief administrator. Titles used to describe chief administrators were generally descriptive of duties performed or employment rank and as such, did not tend to create standard patterns.
Data observed in that section also indicated that the facility administrator of most arenas was generally well educated, from a mean ingful background, and employed under workable conditions without 68
unnecessary additional duties.
Data collected from questions related to administrative
organizational patterns revealed that trends could be found in only one
of those observed areas. In particular, the one trend was toward
having permanent university committees responsible for the development
of facility policies. No definite trends were found regarding
institutional division placement of the facility or determination of
immediate superiors for the chief administrator.
Numerous standard practices were determined by evaluation of
data related to scheduling of large university multi-purpose arenas.
Generally, these included policies denoting those individuals or groups
responsible for scheduling, booking and promoting and also the estab
lishment of priorities for events eligible to use both the main arena
and auxiliary areas of the facility.
It was indicated that the majority of large university multi
purpose arenas averaged less than eight thousand spectators per event, a trend which was considered extremely important to the planning of new arenas.^ Definite trends pertaining to financing of large university multi-purpose arenas were also indicated. These generally related to determination of the most efficient use for the greatest amount of
income. Specifically, trends were revealed in development of policy relative to generation of income through proper usage of fa c ilitie s .
Other standards were found relative to the percentage of se lf generated income derived from concessions; however, no trends could be found which would have indicated the responsibility for operation of these concessions. 69
Most important to the area of finance was the fact that, a majority of the large multi-purpose arenas reported, they could not generate sufficient income to offset their operating costs.
Few standard policies or procedures could be detected in the area of fa c ility maintenance in that practices required were common only to each individual facility due to difference in equipment, labor and building size.
Some trends were found which related to fa c ility dependency on other departments of the university for adequate staff in all but the janitorial work areas. Probably the most significant trend was toward self sufficiency of facilities in the area of daily janitorial service.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of the study the following conclusions were made:
General Information
1. Large multi-purpose arenas on university campuses can be categorized by seating capacity almost equally into two groups that relate closely to similar groups categorized according to student enrollment. Specifically, eight to twelve thousand seat arenas are found on campuses of under fifteen thousand students and larger facilities are located on campuses with enrollments over fifteen thousand.
2. Main arenas of university multi-purpose facilities are most often designed primarily for athletic spectator events with some consideration given to use for entertainment.productions and with very 70
little planning for physical education or intramural activities.
3. Auxiliary areas of university multi-purpose facilities are designed primarily to provide space for athletic department offices, physical education and intramural activities, university classes and
building support operations.
Personnel
1. Most chief facility administrators of large university multi purpose arenas are well educated and were hired from within their own university community. Those who held prior faculty status generally maintained it; however, the majority are currently employed as staff administrators with no teaching responsibilities.
2. At university operated multi-purpose arenas, staff positions below the level of chief administrator are most often filled by in- house full time personnel in the administrative and janitorial cate gories, institutionally assigned or contracted labor in the trades and technical positions and part time or student workers for event related responsibilities.
. 1 Organizational Pattern
1. No standard organizational pattern for the management of large multi-purpose arenas exist among universities, although the majority delegate the responsibility for operation of these facilities to either the athletic department or the office of business with the greater number favoring the former.
2. On most university campuses the development of policies for the large multi-purpose arenas is the responsibility of a permanent university committee, although fa c ility administrators or department 71
heads often share or assume these duties. I
Scheduling
1. At most university operated large multi-purpose arenas the chief facility administrator is solely responsible for the scheduling of events. The booking and promoting, however, is generally a shared responsibility among this administrator, various university departments or organizations, and in some instances, off campus organizations.
2. At most large multi-purpose university arenas spectator events have top priority, and at many, are the only events allowed to take place in the main arenas with one general exception of basketball practice. Physical education classes and intramural activities, although permitted in some main arenas, most often are limited to use of the auxiliary areas in the building.
Finance
1. University operated large multi-purpose arenas in general are not capable of self support and as such, are most often dependent on the uriiversity general fund for financial support. Some also receive allocations from the athletic department budget, student fees, or various other sources.
2. The factors which prevent most university operated multi purpose arenas from becoming self sufficient are: daily use of the auxiliary areas and frequent use of the main arena for various univer sity activities free of charge; self imposed restrictions on the number of revenue producing events which take place in the main arena; the inability to generate larger percentages of income from concession 72 sales; and, most of a ll, poor attendance in relation to the capacity of the arenas at revenue producing spectator events.
Maintenance
1. Maintenance practices at large university multi-purpose arenas are indigenous to the particular facility for which they are developed and are determined by local conditions, fa cility utilization, available equipment and personnel capabilities.
2. Most facilities are self sufficient with regard to routine maintenance and daily janitorial services but rely on other university departments and outside contract labor for technical and additional manpower jobs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. A study should be conducted to compare the general information data collected in this study for university fa c ilitie s with corresponding data collected by the 1974 International Association of
Auditorium Managers Industrial Profile Survey for municipal and privately1owned facilities of the same size and use.
2. A study should be conducted to determine if the standards, for administrative practices that were identified in this study would correspond to standards for administrative practices which could be identified as existing among municipal and privately owned fa c ilitie s of the same size and use. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS
Alberts, Henry H. Organized Executive Action. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1961.
Brownell, Clifford L., and E. Patricia Hagmon. Physical Education - Foundation and Principles. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1951.
Coker, William. Survey of Various Rates and Policies. Chicago, Illinois: International Association of Auditorium Managers, Inc., 1953.
Deering, Francis R., Don Jewell, and Lindsley C. Lueddeke, ed. Auditoriums and Arenas. Chicago, Illinois: Public Administration Service, 1961.
______. Auditoriums and Arenas: Supplement. Chicago, Illinois: Public Administration Service, 1964.
______. Planning and Management of Public Assembly F a cilities. Chicago, Illinois: International Association of Auditorium Managers, Inc., 1966.
Drucker, Peter F. The Practice of Management. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1954. t Esslinger, Arthur A., and Edward F. Voltmer. The Organization and Administrations of Physical Education. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, Inc., 1958.
Good, Carter V., and Douglas E. Scates. Methods of Research - Educational, Psychological, Socological. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, Inc., 1954.
International Association of Auditorium Managers Industry Profile Survey. Chicago Heights, Illinois: I.A.A.M., 1974.
Penn, Herman J. Encyclopedic Guide to Planning and Establishing an Auditorium, Arena, Coliseum or Multi-Purpose Building. Greenville, South Carolina: Penn Fleming Publishing, Inc., 1963.
Planning Facilities for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation by Participants in National F acilities Conference. Revised Edition, Chicago, Illinois: Athletic Institute, Inc., 1956. 74 75
Scott, Harry A., and Richard B. Westhamper. From Program to F acilities In Physical Education. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1962.
Steitz, Edward S., ed., Administration of Athletics in Colleges and U niversities. Washington, D.C.: NEA Publications, 1971.
Townsend, Robert. Up the Organization. Greenwich, Connecticut: Fawcett Publications, Inc., 1971.
Williams, Jesse F., Clifford L. Brownell, and Elmon L. Vernie. The Administration of Health Education and Physical Education. Sixth Edition, Philadelphis: W. B. Saunders Company, 1964.
B. PERIODICALS AND PUBLICATIONS
Buck, Paul. "Arena Rental Rates," Management Seminar for New Managers. Chicago Heights, Illinois: International Association for Auditorium Managers, Inc., 1971, pp. 1-2.
Deering, Francis R. "Organization— The Key to Successful Management," Management Seminar for New Managers. Chicago Heights, Illinois: I.A.A.M., Inc., 1970, p. 2.
"Divisible Auditoriums," Educational Facilities Laboratories. New York: 1966, pp. 5-6.
Johnson, Don L. "Scheduling and Booking," Management Seminar for New Managers. Chicago Heights, Illinois: I.A.A.M., 1968-69, p. 36.
Lueddeke, Lindsley L. "Public Assembly Facilities - Changes and Trends," Management Seminar for New Managers. Chicago Heights, Illinois: I.A.A.M., Inc., 1973, p. 1.
Saunders, Roy G. "Public Event Facility, Maintenance and Operation," Management Seminar for New Managers. Chicago Heights, Illinois: I.A.A.M., Inc., 1973, p. 1.
Schreiber, Harry. "Building Maintenance," Management Seminar for New Managers. Chicago Heights, Illinois: I.A.A.M., Inc., “1968-69, p. 6.
Scott, Harry A. "Facilities for the Future," The Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation. April, 1962, p. 33.
The Blue Book of College Athletics for 1973-1974. Cleveland, Ohio: The Rohrich Corporation. 76
The International Association of Auditorium Managers 1974 Membership Directory. Chicago Heights, Illinois: I.A.A.M., Inc., April, 1974.
The 1973-1974 National Directory of College A thletics. Amarillo, Texas: Ray Franks Publishing Ranch, 1973. APPENDIXES
I
77 78
APPENDIX A
PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE
EXPLANATION AND INSTRUCTIONS
This project is serving a dual purpose. First of a ll, it has
been approved for me to use the results in writing my dissertation.
Secondly, having just recently gone through all the trauma of
establishing policies and procedures for a new facility, I trust that
whatever might come of this study, will help to make that task easier
for those about to venture into this unique world of University Building
Management.
What I need at this point, more than your answers to the survey,
is constructive criticism of the survey itself.
Is it a good idea?
Does i t cover enough?
Do$s it cover too much?
Are the questions too laborious to answer?
Are there better ways to ask the questions?
Any criticism and suggestions will be appreciated. Please
answer the questions, jot down any comments or suggestions which you
feel pertinent and return to me at your earliest convenience.
Thank you.
William H. Bankhead Director, L.S.U. Assembly Center Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 79
Appendix A (continued)
INTRODUCTION
As university student bodies increase, so'does a need for campus fa c ilitie s to accommodate large numbers of these students in mass.
Because of the limited funds generally available to most educational institutions, these needs are best satisfied by the construction of arenas. Due to the multiple use of such arenas for numerous activities by several different institutional segments and organizations, the administration and operation as well as the location within the system often becomes extremely complex and at times, quite nebulous.
In order to determine the proper administrative and procedural practices to be initiated upon advent of such facilities, universities study available literature on the subject or survey existing operations.
To date most literature dealing with administrative practices and operational procedures for arenas had dealt with municipal, civic or privately owned and operated facilities. Very little has been published dealing with the facets of multi-purpose arenas operated by universities. I Surveys of existing university facilities indicate such a variety of practices as to conclude that to date there has been no consensus of ideas as to a standard of administrative practices and operational procedures.
I am therefore submitting this survey to managers of all university arenas seating over eight thousand. It is my hope to assimilate and publish statistics indicating those practices most common among these experts in the field regarding the included questions. 80
APPENDIX A (continued)
QUESTIONNAIRE
» I. General Information 1. Student enrollment ______
2: Number of seats in main arena Permanent . Portable
3. Location of facility: On campus______Off campus
4. Scope of main arena (check appropriate space. Leave blank if none) Basketball Floor ) Portable ) Permanent ce Rink ) Portable ) Permanent Running Track ) Portable ) Permanent Stage ) Portable ) Permanent I Sound System ) P.A. Only ) Balanced for Entertainment
5. Box Office location: (write P if primary box office or A if auxiliary box office) ) In facility ) In other athletic facility ) In university union fa c ility ) In other university facility ) Off campus 81
APPENDIX A (continued)
6. Concessions: ( ) Controlled by outside *agent ( ) Building operated
7. Smoking: ( ) Prohibited in main arena ( ) Allowed in main arena
8. Alcoholic beverages: ( ) Sold at concessionstands ( ) Allowed in mainarena but not sold ( ) Not allowed or sold
II. Administrative Personnel 1. Title of facility administrator______
2. Education background of fa c ility administrator: (please check highest only) ( ) Doctorate ( ) M.A. or M.S. ( ) B.A. or B.S. ( ) High School
■ 3. University academic rank and department of facility administrator: Rank ( ) None ( ) Instructor ( ) Assistant Professor ( ) Professor Department ______
4. Number of staff members employed full time by facility : . (Indicate number of each) ( ) Administrative Assistant(s) ( ) Business Manager ( ) Secretary(s) ( ) Box Office Manager ( ) Theater Manager ( ) Ticket Seller(s) 82
APPENDIX A (continued)
( ) Electrician(s) ( ) Carpenter(s) ( ) Plumber(s) ( ) Janitorial Supervisor(s) ( ) Janitor and Maid (s) ( ) Security Officer(s)
5. Other university divisions or outside organizations which provide employees for work in facility: (check) ( ) University Physical Plant ( ) University Security Police ( ) Off campus janitorial service ( ) Others (please list) ______;______( ).None
6. Contract crews other than full time staff used for clean up after events: ( ) Student part time laborers ( ) University Physical Plant ( ) Off campus Janitorial Service ( ) Others (please list) ______( ) None
III.Administrative Practices 1. Facility administered through: (check) ( ) Chancellor or President's office ( ) Division of Student Life ( ) Physical Education Department ( ) Athletic Department ( ) Intramural Department ( ) City Government ( ) State Government * ( ) Others (please list) '______83
APPENDIX A (continued)
2. Main arena of facility primarily used for: (please list information in blank) a. University convocations number per year b. University commencements number per year c. University registrations number per year d. Physical Education classes % of each day e. Intramural activities % of each day f. Basketball practice % of each day g. Other athletic team practices % of each day h. Basketball games number per year i . Other university sporting events number per year j. Non-university amateur sporting events number per year k. Professional sporting events number per year 1. Traveling entertainment shows number per year m. Conventions and trade shows number per year n. Other (please list) number per year
3. Priority for use: (Please indicate the priority of each of the above listed users by placing its respective letter from question 2 next to the number of its priority. Highest priority should be listed next to 1st.) 1st ______8 t h ______2nd ______9 t h ______3rd ______1 0 th _ 4 t h ______1 1th _ 5 t h ______1 2 th _ 6th ______1 3th _ 7th 14th APPENDIX A (continued)
Administrator or committee responsible for scheduling of various events in facility: (check.more than one if responsibility is shared)
Athletic Events Concerts and University Professional Shows Building Manager . ____ University Chancellor or President ______Athletic Director ______Physical Education Department Head . University Committee ______University Union Staff Members ______University Union Committee ______Student Committee other than Union ______Dean of Student Life ______City or State Committee ______Other (please name) ______
Types of events which may appear in main arena: ( ') University basketball ( ) Amateur non-university basketball ( ) Professional basketball ( ) University wrestling ( ) Amateur non-university wrestling ( ) University gymnastics ( ) Amateur non-university gymnastics ( ) University Ice Hockey ( ) Amateur non-university Ice Hockey ( ) Professional Ice Hockey ( ) Touring family entertainment ( ) Touring circuses ( ) Touring rock shows 85
APPENDIX A (continued)
IV.Finance 1. Source of operating funds: “(Indicate % from each source) % General university budget % Self generated budget % Athletic Department budget ■ _____ % State general budget . _____% City general budget % Student activity fees
2. Charges to users of main arena: (Please place the appropriate letter next to each listed user to indicate when rent and/or out of pocket expenses are charged. Use R to indicate rent is charged; use 0 to indicate out of pocket is charged)
Admission Admission Charged Not Charged University basketball game ______University hockey game ■ ______Other university aithletic events ______Professional basketball game ______Professional hockey game ______Other professional athletic events ______Amateur non-university basketball ______Amateur non-university hockey ______Other amateur non-university athletic events ______University basketball team practices ______Other university athletic team practices ______Amateur non-university basketball team practices ______University organization sponsored entertainment ______Non-university organization sponsored entertainment ______Physical Education classes ______Other university classes ______Intramural Sports program______86
APPENDIX B
D ear______:
I am interested in communicating with the manager or adminis trative director of your indoor arena regarding his policies and operational procedures. As he is not listed in either The 1973-1974
National Directory of College A thletics, The Blue Book of College
Athletics for 1973-1974, or The International Association of Auditorium
Managers 1974 Membership Directory, would you please furnish me his name, title and address.
Your cooperation with this request will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
I
William H. Bankhead Director L.S.U. Assembly Center
WHB/ftn APPENDIX C
UNIVERSITY MULTI-PURPOSE ARENAS
University of Alabama Bradley University* University, Alabama 35486 Peoria, Illinois 61606 Memorial Coliseum (15,014) A.J. Robertson Memorial (8,300) Director: Lee Barksdale Athletic Director: Charles K. Osborn Appalachian State University Boone, North Carolina 28607 Brigham Young University Varsity Gymnasium (8,000) 2132 Marriott Center Athletic Director: Roy Clogston Provo, Utah 84602 Activity Center (23,000) Arizona State University Asst. Manager: J. Scott Williams Tempe, Arizona 85281 University Center Field House Butler University (15,000) ~ Indianapolis, Indiana 46208 Athletic Director: Fred Miller Hinkle (15,000) Athletic Director: Tom Warner Auburn University Auburn, Alabama 36830 University of California Memorial Coliseum (13,000) 405 Hilgard Avenue Director: Wayne Murphy Los Angeles, California 90024 Pauley Pavilion, Royce Hall Austin Peay State University (12,800) Clarksville, Tennessee 37040 Director: James M. Klain Field House (being built 8,500) Athletic Director: George Fisher Canisius College** I 2001 Main Street Augustana College** Buffalo, New York 14208 1201 West Avenue Memorial Field House (17,800) Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57104 Athletic Director: James Bedell Sioux Falls Arena (10,000) Director: Robert Kunkel
Baylor University* University of Cincinnati Waco, Texas 76710 Cincinnati, Ohio 45221 Heart O' Texas Coliseum (10,000) U. C. Armory (8,000) Director: Leon Dollens, Jr. Director: Mrs. Marian Haisley
Universities responding to questionnaire but were not included in tabulation of results because fac ility had less than 8,000 seats.
**Universities responding to questionnaire but were not included in tabulation of results because facility was not operated by the university. 88
APPENDIX C (continued)
Clemson University University of Georgia Clemson, South Carolina 29631 Athens, Georgia 30602 Littlejohn Coliseum (10,300) Georgia Coliseum (10,400) Director: Robert W. Smith Athletic Business Manager: Kermit Perry Colorado State University Ford Collins, Colorado 80521 University of Houston CSU Auditorium Gym (10,000) Houston, Texas 77004 ABO, James J. Martel 1 Hofheinz Pavilion (11,000) Director: Jim Ausley Cornell University* Ithaca, New York 14850 Illinois State University Barton Hall (8,200) Normal, Illin o is 61761 Business Manager: Patrick Filley Hortan Field House (8,500) Chairman: Dr. Phebe Scott, University of Dayton Department of Physical Education Dayton, Ohio 45469 U. D. Arena (13,458) University of Illinois Business Manager: Thomas Dowling Champaign, Illinois 61820 Assembly Hall (17,000) University of Detroit Director: Tom Parkinson Detroit, Michigan 48221 Memorial Building (9,353) Athletic Director: Robert Calihan Indiana State University Terre Haute, Indiana 47809 Drake University** University Field House (10,000) Des Moines, Iowa 50311 Athletic Director: Veterans Fieldhouse (13,500) Gordon H. Chalmers Athletic Director: Bob Karnes Indiana University* Duke University Bloomington, Indiana 47401 Durham, North Carolina 27706 Assembly Hall (17,500) Edmund M. Cameron Indoor Stadium Director: Lawrence L. Davis (9,000) Business Manager: Paul Detomo
Eastern Illinois University Iowa State University Charleston, Illinois 61920 Ames, Iowa 50010 Lantz Gymnasium (9,500) Hilton Field House (14,300) Athletic Director: Athletic Director: Bob Marcum Dr. Tom Katsimpolis
U niversities responding to questionnaire but were not included in tabulation of results because facility had less than 8,000 seats.
**Universities responding to questionnaire but were not included in tabulation of results because facility was not operated by the university. 89
APPENDIX C (continued)
University of Iowa University of Minnesota Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Iowa Field House (13,700) Williams Arena (17,000) Asst. Director: Francis Graham Director: Holger Christiansen Intercollegiate Athletics
Kansas State University ' University of Mississippi Manhattan, Kansas 66506 University, Mississippi 38677 Ahearn Field House (12,000) C. M. "Tad11 Smith Coliseum Director: David O'Brien (8,500) Athletic Director: Johnny Vaught University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas 66044 University of Missouri Allen (17,000) Columbia, Missouri 65201 Athletic Director: Wade Stinson Hearnes Multi-Purpose Complex (13,000) University of Kentucky Director: A. C. Statler Lexington, Kentucky 40506 Memorial Coliseum (12,000) Montana State University Athletic Director: Harry Lancaster Bozeman, Montana 59715 MSU Fieldhouse (10,000) Louisiana State University Director: R. P. Purdy Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 L.S.U. Assembly Center (14,300) Director: William H. Bankhead University of Montana Missoula, Montana 59801 Harry Adams Field House (9,300) University of Maryland Athletic Director: Jack Swarthout College Park, Maryland 20740 William P. Cole Field House (12,005) Murray State University Director: Robert E. Wall Murray, Kentucky 42071 Sports Arena (8,000) Miami University Vice-President, Student Affairs Oxford, Ohio 45056 Frank Julian Millet Hall (10,000) Director: Lyman C. Brenneman University of Nebraska Lincoln, Nebraska 68501 Michigan State University Schulte (8,500) East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Business Manager: Bill Fisher Jenison (12,500) Asst. Athletic Director: Don Lund University of New Mexico University of Michigan Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 University Arena (15,000) Crisler Arena (13,608) Coordinator: Bill Bowen Athletic Associate: Don Lund
Middle Tennessee State University University of North Carolina Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37130 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Coliseum Carmichael Auditorium (8,800) Director: William Smotherman Director: Dr. Carl Blyth 90
APPENDIX C (continued)
North Dakota State University* University of Oregon Fargo, North Dakota 58102 Eugene, Oregon 97403 Field House (11,000) McArthur Court (10,000) Athletic Director: Ronald Erhardt Director: Richard Reynolds
University of North Dakota University of Pennsylvania Grand Forks, North Dakota 58201 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19174 North Dakota Field House (7,500) Field House Palestra (9,320) Manager: Jerry Kvidt Director: Charles Scott
Northwestern University Princeton University Evanston, Illinois 60201 Princeton, New Jersey 08540 McGaw Memorial Hall (10,000) Jadwin G,ym (7,650) Business Manager: Waldo Fisher Director: Samuel Howell
University of Notre Dame Purdue University*** Notre Dame, Indiana 46556 West Lafayette, Indiana 47907 Athletic & Convocation Center (12,000) Lambert Field House (14,125) Manager: John F. Plouff Athletic Director: George King, Jr.
North Texas State University University of Richmond Denton, Texas 76203 Richmond, Virginia 23173 North Texas Coliseum (10,000) Athletic Center (10,000) Director: Fred McCain Athletic Director: Frank Jones
Northeast Louisiana University St. Louis University** Monroe, Louisiana 71201 St. Louis, Missouri 63103 Ewing Coliseum (8,000) Kiel Auditorium (10,000) Athletic Director: Bill Beall Director: Mario C. Marnati
Ohio University University of San Francisco* Athens, Ohio 45701 San Francisco, California 94117 Memorial Auditorium (13,000) War Memorial Gym (8,000) Director of Public Occasions: Director for Student Development: Richard I. Stevens Cliff Hughes, Administrator
Oral Roberts University Sioux Falls College** Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57101 7777 South Lewis Street Field House (9,700) Mabee Center (10,500) Director: Robert Kunkel Director: Collins Steele
U niversities responding to questionnaire but were not included in tabulation of results because facility had less than 8,000 seats.
**Universities responding to questionnaire but were not included in tabulation of results because facility was not operated by the university.
***University responding to questionnaire but not included in the tabulation of results because of insufficient information. APPENDIX C (continued)
University of South Carolina Utah State University Columbia, South Carolina 29208 Logan, Utah 84322 Carolina Coliseum (12,401) The Spectrum Director: Robert Horning, Jr. Director: Burke Rich
Southern Illinois University University of Utah Carbondale, Illinois 62901 Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 SIU Arena (10,014) Sports & Special Events Center Director: William D. Justice (15,000) Athletic Director: James R. Jack University of Southern Mississippi Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39401 Vanderbilt University Reed Green Coliseum (9,500) Nashville, Tennessee 37240 Athletic Director: Reed Green Memorial Gym (15,581) Director: George Baines University of Southwestern Lafayette, Louisiana 70501 Virginia Polytechnic Institute Blackham Coliseum (9,000) Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 Athletic Director: Toby Atwel1 Coliseum (10,000) Athletic Director: Frank Moseley Stanford University Stanford, California 94305 University of Virginia* Maples Pavilion.(8,000) Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Associate Athletic Director: University Hall (8,600) Robert Young Director: Evan Male
Syracuse University Wake Forest University Syracuse, New York 13210 Winston-Salem, North Carolina Manle.y Fieldhouse (8,200) 27109 Athletic Director: Open Indoor Arena Director: Jim Dalrymple Universityi of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee 37016 University of Washington Stoke!y Athletic Center (13,000) Seattle, Washington 98195 Administrative Assistant: Edmundson Pavilion (9,500) John C. Parker Director of Event Services: Stan Hiserman Texas A&M University University of West Virginia College Station, Texas 77840 Morgantown, W. Virginia 26505 6. Rollie White (8,500) WVU Coliseum (14,000) Athletic Director: Emory Bellard Manager: George Nedeff Texas Technological University Western Kentucky University Lubbock, Texas 79409 Bowling Green, Kentucky 42101 Municipal Coliseum (10,000) E.A. Diddle Arena (12,500) Athletic Director: J. T. King Athletic Director: John 01dham
Universities responding to questionnaire but were not included in tabulation of results because facility had less than 8,000 seats. 92
APPENDIX C (continued)
Western Illinois University William & Mary College Macomb, Illinois 61455 Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 Western Hall (9,600) William & Mary Mall (10,700) Athletic Director: Gil Peterson Director: Lester Hooker, Jr.
Western Michigan University University of Wisconsin Kalamazoo, Michigan 49001 Madison, Wisconsin 53706 Herbert W. Reed Field House (10,000) Wisconsin Field House (12,868) Director of Promotion & Special Athletic Director: Events: Robert L. Culp Elroy L. Hirsch
University of Wyoming Laramie, Wyoming 82071 War Memorial (11,000) Director of Facilities: LeRoy J. Gabriel
I 93
APPENDIX D
Dear ______:
As the director of a relatively new university multi-purpose arena, I am aware that in order to determine the proper administrative practices to be initiated upon advent of such facilities, universities generally study available literature on the subject or survey existing operations.
To date most literature dealing with administrative policies and procedures for arenas had dealt with municipal, civic or privately owned and operated facilities. Very little has been published dealing with the management of university multi-purpose arenas which by nature must operate under unique guidelines.
The few previous surveys that did include university facilities have not taken into consideration these unique differences; thus, to date there has been no consensus of a standard for administrative policy and procedure indigenous to university operations.
I am, therefore, submitting this questionnaire to facility administrators of all university multi-purpose arenas seating over 8,000. It is my hope to assimilate and publish statistics indicating those practices most common among these experts in the field regarding the included questions.
If'you, as one of these experts, will be kind enough to answer this survey, I feel the result, of which you will receive a copy, will be of interest to those of us already in the field and extremely valuable to those universities who build in the future. Your cooper ation will be greatly appreciated and you will receive full personal recognition for your contribution in subsequent publications.
Thank you.
William H. Bankhead Director L.S.U. Assembly Center
WHB/ftn 94
APPENDIX E
k
QUESTIONNAIRE
INSTRUCTIONS
1. You will find attached two copies of the questionnaire:
a. ONE COPY is for you to keep for your files
b. The SECOND COPY is to be completed and returned in the enclosed, self-addressed, stamped envelope.
2. Please answer all questions as they pertain to your current operations.
3. Please return the completed copy by DECEMBER 1ST. (You may keep the cover page and the instructions . if you wish.)
4. You will receive a complete copy of the results of the survey as soon as it can be tabulated and summarized.
Thank you for your interest and cooperation. 95
APPENDIX E (continued)
General Information
1. Name of University Enrollment
2. Name of Arena Facility _Location:
( ) on campus
( ) off campus
3. Date of Construction Seating capacity of
main arena
4. Square footage of main arena_
5. Configuration of your main arena floor area:
Round
Square
Rectangle
Elongated circle
Other (list) ______
6. Type fixed floor in main arena:
Dirt
Concrete
Wood
Composition (lis t trade name)
7. Check facilities located in main arena:
Basketball Floor
( ) Portable
( ) Permanent APPENDIX E (continued)
Ice Rink. ( ) Portable ( ) Permanent
Running Track ( ) Portable ( ) Permanent
( ) Tennis Courts ( ) Volleyball Courts ( ) Badminton
Stage ( ) Portable ( ) Permanent
( ) Gridiron for Proscenium
( ) Curtains for masking out parts of main arena to reduce the capacity . .
Sound System ( ) P.A. Only ( ) Balanced for entertainment
Indicate the number of each of the listed accommodations facility provides in addition to main arena: class rooms Exercise/weight room Gymnastics room Wrestling room Fencing room Training room Swimming Pool Conference room V.I.P. room or Green room Cafeteria Banquet hall or room APPENDIX E (continued)
( ) Exhibit hall ( ) Concession stands ( ) Entertainers dressing rooms
Team dressing rooms: ( ) Used daily by university teams when in session ( ) Used only on game days by university teams ( ) Used primarily by visiting team
Office space (other than for building management personnel) ( ) Athletic Department ( ) Physical Education Department ( ) Intramural Department ( ) Other (list) ______
( ) Auxiliary Gymnasium ( ) Theater or Auditorium ( ) Bos Office
In addition to the facility you operate indicate if a facility similar to any of those listed below is located on your campus: ( ) Indoor Physical Education Complex (for Physical Education classes and activities) ( ) Indoor Intramural activities facility (for recreation and competitive games) ( ) Athletic Fieldhouse (for athletic team competition and practice) 98
APPENDIX E (continued)
Personnel
1. Title of Facility Administrator______(refers to individual who administers facility policies; most often referred to as Director or Manager) •
2. Immediate past employment of Facility Administrator: ( ) University Administrator ( ) Physical Education Teacher ( ) Coach ( ) Teacher (other than P.E. or Athletics) ( ) Non-University Business or Industry Administrator ( ) Non-University Public Facility Administrator ( ) Non-University Maintenance Supervisor ( ) University Maintenance Supervisor ( ) Other (list) ______
3. Educational background of Facility Administrator: (check highest degree) ( ) High School ( ) BA or BS ( ) MA or MS ( ) Doctorate
4. University academic rank and/or employment status of Facility Administrator: (May check more than one) ( ) Instructor ( ) Assistant Professor ( ) Associate Professor ( ) Professor ( ) Civil Service Classified ( ) Staff Administrator ( ) Other (list) ______99
APPENDIX E'(continued)
5. Additional duties of Facility Administrator: (May check more than one) ( ) Teaches Physical Education Classes ( ) Teaches other university classes ( ) Coaches an athletic team ( ) Has other university administration duties ( ) Promotes in another campus fa cility ( ) Promotes in off campus fa cility ( ) Other (list)
6. Staff required to operate facility: (Indicate number employed under each heading-under last heading, check if employee is a member of a union) FULL PART STUDENT CONTRACT *PD BY OTHER LABOR UNION TITLE TIME TIME EMPLOYEE LABOR UNIV. DEPT. AFFILIATION
Assistant Director ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Administrative Asst. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (. ) ( ) Business Manager ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Accountant ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Promotions Manager ( ) ( ! S 1 S I ! \ S Theater Manager ( i ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Stage Manager ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Bex Office Manager ( ) ( )C)() ( ) ( ) Publicist ( ) ( ).()() ( ) ( ) Events Manager . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Secretary ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Receptionist ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Clerk Typist ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Operations Engineer ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Electrician ( ) ( ) ( ) ) ( ) Plumber ( ) ( ) ( ) I ) ( ) ( ) Carpenter ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Janitorial Supervisor( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Janitor and Maid ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Security Officer ( ) ( )()■() ( ) ) Ticket Sellers ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ) Ticket Takers ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Stage Hands ( ) ( )()(.) ( ) ( ) Grounds Supervisor ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
*Refers to an employee performing duties for and working in a facility but hired and paid by another department of the university. 100
APPENDIX E (continued)
Organizational Pattern
1. University flow chart indicates facility directly under:
( ) Office of the President or Chancellor ( ) Division of Student Life ( ) Office of Administration (business) ( ) Physical Education Department ( ) Athletic Department ( ) University Physical Plant Office ( ) Cultural and Recreation Department ( ) University Union or Student Activities Department ( ) Department of Special Events ( ) Other (list) ______
2. Facility Administrator reports directly to:
( ) The President or Chancellor ( ) Vice President or Dean of Student Life ( ) Vice President or Administrator for Business ( ) Director of Physical Education Department ( ) Director of Athletic Department ■ ( ) Director of the University Physical Plant ( ) Director of the University Union ( ) A'University committee ( ) Other (lis t) '______
3. Policies for facility are developed by:
( ) Ad Hoc Committee ( ) Permanent Committee ( ) Facility Director ( ) Head of Department to which facility director reports ( ) Board of Supervisors/Regents ( ) Other (lis t) ______101
APPENDIX E (continued)
Finance
1. Source of operating income (indicate% from each source): % General University Budget % Self Generated Budget % Athletic Department Budget % State General Budget % City General Budget % Student Activity Fees % Student Service Fees % Other (list) ______
2. Not including debt or depreciation, is facility operating cost: Less than self generated income Equal to self generated income More than self generated income
3. Who is allowed to promote* entertainment (other than University Ath etic) events in facility: (May check more than one) The Facility Manager University Union (Student or Cultural Life Group) University Student organization (fraternities, SGA, etc.) University Departments (other than Athletics) Non-university charitable organizations (non-profit) Athletic Department Non-university promoters (profit oriented) Other
*Promote as used here means more than merely booking an event or renting a facility. Promotion refers to the buying, publicizing and production of an event. 102
APPENDIX E (continued)
4. Charges for use of main arena. Indicate when rent and/or out of pocket expenses are charged to .users of main arena when admission is charged or when admission is not charged.
Use the Code: R - to indicate rent is charged 0 - to indicate out of pocket is charged R-0 - to indicate both are charged NA - to indicate not applicable to your facility
When admission When admission EVENTS is charged is not charged
Physical Education Classes Intramural Activities (Games & Leisure Play) University Athletic Events ( Professional Athletic Events Amateur Non-University Athletic Events ( ) University Athletic Team Practice Professional Athletic Team Practice Amateur Non-University Team Practice University Registration University Commencement Exercise University Student Convocation University Student Production ( ) University Organization Sponsored: Touring Pop Entertainment ( ) Touring Rock Show ( ) Touring Stage Show ( ) Touring Circus ( ) Trade Show ( ) Convention ( ) Non-University Sponsored: Touring Pop Entertainment ( ) Touring Rock Show ( ) Touring Stage Show ( ) Touring Circus ( ) Trade Show ( ) Convention ( ) 103
APPENDIX E (continued)
5. Facility concessions operated by:
Food/Drink Programs Parking Cafeteria Facility Personnel ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Other University Department ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Lessee of Facility ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Outside Concessionnaire ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Other (list) ( ) ( ) . ( ) ( )
6. Percentage of Facility self generated income derived from: Concessions (food and drink) ___% Programs % Parking % Cafeteria %
7. Indicate charges are made to users of Auxiliary areas in facility by stating when rent and/or out of pocket expenses are charged. Use the same code as in item #4. (R), (0), (R-0), or (NA)
Charge for use of ACTIVITY Auxiliary Areas Regular Use of Office Space ( ) Physical Education Classes ( ) University Basketball Team Practice ( ) Other (Iniversity Athletic Team Practice ( ) Professional Basketball Team Practice ( ) Other Non-University Athletic Team Practice ( ) Intramural Sport Activities ( ) University Classes other than P.E. ( ) Other (list) ______() APPENDIX E (continued)
Scheduling
1. Indicate which activities are permitted to take place in facility and which area they utilize. If no check appears in either column, it will be assumed that the activity does not take place in facility. For spectator activities in main arena, list number of events per year.
EVENT Main Arena Auxi iar.y Area Physical Education Classes Intramural Activities University Athletic Events Year Professional Athletic Events Year Amateur Non-University Athletic Events Year University Athletic Team Practice Professional Athletic Team Practice Amateur Non-University Team Practice University Registration University Commencement Exercise University Student Convocation University Organization sponsored: Touring Pop Entertainment Year Touring Rock Show Year Touring Circus Year Touring 'Stage Show Year Trade Show Year Convention Year Non-University sponsored: Touring Pop Entertainment Year Touring Rock Show Year Touring Circus Year Touring Stage Show Year Trade Show Year Convention Year 105
APPENDIX E (continued)
Name, in order, the top five events on priority list for booking in main arena of facility (ex: basketball, commencement, etc.): 1 s t ______2nd ______3rd ______4 t h ______5 t h ______
Who decides which spectator events will perform in facility: (May check more than one) ( ) The Chancellor or President ( ) The Director of Physical Education ( ) The Athletic Director ( ) The Facility Administrator ( ) A University Committee (students, faculty and staff) ( ) A Student Committee (all students) ( ) A Faculty Committee (all faculty and staff) ( ) The Chief Administrator of the Divisionof Student Life ( ) Other (list)
How much time is required between similar spectator events:
University Athletics days Non-University Athletics days Entertainment days
Is a deposit required from a user of the main arena for:
Deposit is required when date is
Penciled Inked Contract In In Is Signed University Athletic Events ( ) ( ) ( ) Non-University Athletic Events ( ) ( ) ( ) Entertainment Events promoted by: University Organizations ( ) ( ) ( ) Non-University Organizations ( ) ( ) ( ) 106
APPENDIX E (continued)
.6. Average numbers of spectator events booked in main arena per year by:
Admissions Non-Admissions University Union ( ) ( ) (student or cultural life center)
University Student Organizations ( ) ( ) (fraternities, SGA, etc.)
University Departments ( .) ( ) (other than Athletics)
Non-University Charitable Organizations ( ) ( ) (non-profit)
Athletic Department ( ) ( )
Non-University Promoters ( ) ( ) (profit oriented)
Other (list) ______. ( ) ( )
t 107
APPENDIX E (continued)
Maintenance
1. Indicated if facility is self sufficient or is dependent on another University Department or a Non-University agency for: (Please check in appropriate column or columns)
Self- Another Non-Univ. Sufficient Univ. Dept. Agency Routine Maintenance Repair Work ( ) ( ) ( ) Daily Janitorial Services ( ) ( ) ( ) Special Clean-Up after Events ( ) ( ) ( ) Construction of Portable Facilities ( ) ( ) ( ) Setting Portable Chairs ( ) ( ) ( ) Assistance during Multiple Events ( ) ( ) ( )
2. What is the average daily tra ffic count in your facility for: Non-spectator Events: Spectator Events: Week Day_____per day per day Week End _____per day
3. Estimated man hours required for each job: (Use NA if not applicable)
Build portable basketball floor man hours ' Freeze ice and place dasher boards man hours Build portable stage (approximately 201X40*) man hours Set 100* portable chairs man hours Clean seating area in arena after sellout event man hours
4. Percentage of every dollar spent on cleaning facility :
% labor % materials
5. Average number of maintenance man hours worked PER WEEK to maintain equipment, provide daily janitorial service and accomplish work prior to and after events, (not including stage hands working events)
man hours/week 108
APPENDIX F
Dear______
Just a short note to remind you of the questionnaire on adminis trative policies and procedures I sent to you a few weeks back.
Your response is extremely vital to the survey. Also, in that I am working under a deadline to complete the study, the urgency of your return is important.
In case you have misplaced the questionnaire (or it is buried too deep on your desk to find,) I am enclosing another copy.
Thank you again for your cooperation. I can assure you that the finished study will be of interest in our profession and one in which you will be proud to have participated.
Sincerely,
William H. Bankhead Director L.S.U. Assembly Center
WHB/ftn APPENDIX G
TABLE 1 GENERAL INFORMATION
~
DATE OF SEATING ARENA TYPE OF UNIVERSITY ENROLLMENT NAME OF FACILITY CONSTRUCTION CAPACITY FLOOR FIXED (1974) Main Arena CONFIGURATION FLOOR
Alabama 15,000 Memorial Coliseum March, 1968 16,500 Rectangle Tartan
Arizona State 30,000 University Acti April, 1974 14,227 Elongated Circle Wood vity Center
Auburn 16,000 Memorial Coliseum January, 1969 13,239 Elongated Circle Tartan
Austin Peay 3,600 Winfield Dunn 1974 9,000 Square Wood
Brigham Young 25,000 Marriott Center September, 1971 23,000 Rectangle Wood
Butler 4,500 Hinkle Fieldhouse 1928 15,000 Rectangle Composition
UCLA 32,000 Pauley Pavilion 1964-65 13,000 Rectangle Wood
Cincinatti 37,000 Armory Fieldhouse 1954 8,000 Rectangle Concrete
Clemson 10,500 Littlejohn 1968 10,500 Square Wood
Colorado State 16,700 Auditorium - 1967 9,550 Rectangle Wood Gymnasium
Illinois 35,000 Assembly Hall 1963 17,000 Round Concrete
Illinois State 18,000 Horton Fieldhouse 1961-63 8,370 Rectangle Composition
Indiana State 10,500 Hulman Civic Uni December, 1973 10,020 Elongated Circle Tartan versity Center APPENDIX G
TABLE 1 (continued)
DATE OF SEATING ARENA TYPE OF UNIVERSITY ENROLLMENT NAME OF FACILITY CONSTRUCTION CAPACITY FLOOR FIXED (1974) Main Arena CONFIGURATION FLOOR
Iowa State 19,400 Hilton Coliseum 1971 14,300 Elongated Circle Concrete
Kansas 19,000 Allen Fieldhouse 1955 16,300 Rectangle Monsanto
Kansas State 14,000 Ahearn Complex 1951 12,000 Oval Tartan
Kentucky 21,000 Manorial Coliseum 1951 11,600 Rectangle Wood
Louisiana State 24,000 Assembly Center 1971 14,300 Elongated Circle Tartan
Miami 14,000 Millett Assembly 1968 11,635 Rectangle Concrete Hall
Michigan 41,187 Crisler Arena 1967 13,609 Square Wood
Michigan State 44,000 Jenison Fieldhouse 1939 12,500 Square Tartan
Middle Tennessee 10,127 Murphy Athletic December, 1972 11,460 Elongated Circle Wood Center
Minnesota 42,000 Williams Arena 1928 17,435 Rectangle Wood
Mississippi 8,000 C.M. "Tad" Smith 1965 8,135 Round Wood ■ Coliseum
Missouri 23,000 Hearns Multi-Pur 1972 13,801 Rectangle Tartan pose Building APPENDIX G
TABLE 1 (continued)
DATE OF SEATING ARENA TYPE OF UNIVERSITY ENROLLMENT NAME OF FACILITY CONSTRUCTION CAPACITY FLOOR FIXED (1974) Main Arena CONFIGURATION FLOOR
Montana State 8,500 Fieldhouse 1957 13,000 Rectangle Dirt
New Mexico 20,000 University Arena 1966 14,850 Rectangle Vood
North Dakota 8,000 Fieldhouse 1951 8,100 Rectangle Concrete wit Pro-Turf
N E Louisiana 9,200 Ewing Coliseum 1971 8,000 Round Tartdn
Northwestern 6,600 McGaw Hall 1953 8,120 Rectangle Dirt
North Texas State 15,875 North Texas March, 1973 9,894 Elongated Circle Concrete Coliseum
Notre Dame 7,000 Athletic & Convo 1969 12,300 Eliptical Wood cation Center
Ohio 14,000 * Convocation 1969 13,003 Elongated Circle Wood Center
Oral Roberts 3,500 Mabee Center October, 1972 11,500 Elongated Circle Wood
Pennsylvania 6,935 Palestra 1926 8,900 Rectangle Wood
Princeton 5,000 Jadwin Gym 1960 8,000 Hemisphere Wood/tartan
South Carolina 20,000 Carolina Coliseum January, 1969 12,851 Rectangle Tartan
Southern Illinois 19,000 SIU Arena 1964 10,014 Rectangle Wood APPENDIX G
TABLE 1 (continued)
DATE OF SEATING ARENA . TYPE 01 UNIVERSITY ENROLLMENT NAME OF FACILITY CONSTRUCTION CAPACITY FLOOR FIXED (1974) Main Arena CONFIGURATION FLOOR
Southern Mississippi 9,027 B. Reed Green 1965 9,200 Round Wood
Stanford 11,500 Maples Pavilion 1967-68 8,000 Rectangle Wood
Syracuse 27,000 Manley Fieldhouse 1962 8,300 Round Tartan
Utah 22,500 Special Events November, 1969 15,000 Round Wood Center
Utah State 8,800 Spectrum July, 1971 10,270 Rectangle Wood
Virginia Tech 17,100 Virginia Tech 1962 9,872 Rectangle Concrete Coliseum
Washington 35,000 Edmundson Pavilion 1928 9,332 Rectangle Tartan
Western Illinois 14,500 Western Hall 1962 8,500 Rectangle Tartan
Western Kentucky 12,500 Diddle Arena 1962 13,508 Round Wood
Western Michigan 22,000 Read Fieldhouse 1956-57 11,000 Rectangle Tartan
West Virginia 17,500 WVU Coliseum 1970 14,000 Square Wood
William & Mary 5,000 William & Mary December, 1970 10,702 Rectangle Tartan Hall
Wisconsin 33,500 Fieldhouse 1931 12,800 Rectangle Wood Wyoming 8,300 Fieldhouse 1951 8,700 Rectangle Tanbark APPENDIX H TABLE 2 GENERAL INFORMATION
OTHER FACILITIES ON CAMPUS
BASKETBALL RUNNING SOUND P.E. INTRAMURAL ATHLETIC UNIVERSITY FLOOR STAGE ICE RINK TRACK SYSTEM COMPLEX COMPLEX FIELDHOUSE
Alabama Permanent Portable ' — — Balanced X XX
Arizona State Permanent — — . — Balanced X X X
Auburn . Permanent Portable — Permanent Balanced X XX
Austin Peay Permanent Portable — — Balanced X XX
Brigham Young Permanent Portable — — Balanced X X X
Butler Permanent Portable — — P.A. Only — —
UCLA Permanent Portable -- — P.A. Only X -- --
Cincinatti Portable Portable — Permanent P.A. Only X — X
Clems on Portable Portable — — Balanced — — X
Colorado State Permanent Portable — — P.A. Only XX X
Illinois Portable Portable Portable — Balanced X X X
Illinois State Permanent Portable — Permanent Balanced X X —
Indiana State Permanent Portable _ _ Balanced X X APPENDIX H
TABLE 2 (continued)
OTHER FACILITIES ON CAMPUS
BASKETBALL RUNNING SOUND P.E. INTRAMURAL ATHLETIC UNIVERSITY FLOOR STAGE ICE RINK TRACK SYSTEM COMPLEX COMPLEX FIELDHOUSE
Iowa State Portable Portable Portable -- Balanced X X —
Kansas Permanent -- -- Permanent P.A. Only X — '
Kansas State Permanent Portable — Permanent Balanced —— X
Kentucky Permanent Portable — — Balanced X X— L. S. U. Permanent Portable — — Balanced X x\ X
Miami Portable Portable — Permanent Balanced X X—
Michigan Permanent Portable Permanent Permanent P.A. Only X X X
Michigan State Permanent Portable — Permanent P.A. Only X X —
Middle Tennessee Permanent Portable — Permanent Balanced — X—
Minnesota Permanent — Permanent — P.A. Only X X X
Mississippi Permanent Portable — — P.A. Only X X —
Missouri Permanent Portable — Permanent Balanced X X —
Montana State Portable Portable —— P.A. Only X X X APPENDIX H TABLE 2 (continued)
OTHER FACILITIES ON CAMPUS
BASKETBALL RUNNING SOUND P.E. INTRAMURAL ATHLETIC UNIVERSITY FLOOR STAGE ICE RINK TRACK SYSTEM COMPLEX COMPLEX FIELDHOUSE
New Mexico Permanent Portable — — Balanced X — —
North Dakota Permanent Portable — Permanent • P.A. Only — X X
NE Louisiana Permanent Portable — — P.A. Only X X —
Northwestern Portable —— Permanent P.A. Only X X —
North Texas State Portable Portable — — Balanced X X —
Notre Dame Permanent Portable Permanent Permanent Balanced X — —
Ohio Permanent Portable — -- Balanced X XX
Oral Roberts Permanent Portable — — Balanced X X —
P ennsylvania Permanent — — -- P.A. Only XX —
Princeton Permanent Portable — Permanent Balanced X X — South Carolina Permanent Portable -- — Balanced' X X X
Southern Illinois Permanent Portable —— Balanced
Southern Mississippi Permanent Portable P.A. Only X APPENDIX H
TABLE 2 (continued)
OTHER FACILITIES ON CAMPUS
BASKETBALL RUNNING SOUND • P.E. INTRAMURAL ATHLETIC UNIVERSITY FLOORSTAGE ICE RINK TRACK SYSTEM COMPLEX COMPLEX FIELDHOUSE
Stanford Permanent Portable — — P.A. Only XX —
Syracuse Permanent Portable — Permanent P.A. Only X XX
Utah Permanent Portable — — Balanced XX X
Utah State Permanent Portable — — Balanced X — ,x
Virginia Tech Permanent Portable — -- Balanced — X —
Washington Portable Portable — Permanent Balanced -- X --
Western Illinois Permanent Portable — Permanent Balanced X X —
Western Kentucky Permanent Portable — — Balanced X X X
Western Michigan Permanent Portable Permanent Permanent Balanced XXX
West Virginia Permanent Portable — — Balanced X XX
William & Mary Permanent Portable -- Permanent P.A. Only XX —
Wisconsin Permanent Portable — Permanent P.A. Only X -- X
Wyoming Portable Portable — Portable P.A. Only XX X Alabama -- - XX 3 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 2 - - - 4 6 10 X - _ X X _ 4 Arizona State 6 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 1 - -- 4 2 4 12 -_ _ g Auburn - X - X X 7 2 - 1 - 1 1 3 ---- 4 4 13 X X X _ X - X Austin Peay - - XX 14 1 - 1 -■ 1 - 3 - - -- 6 - X XX ___ X Brigham Young -- -- X X X --- X XX --- X XX _-__ X Butler 3 1 ---- 1 - -- X X 8 - 10 5 3 1 - 2 2 UCLA XX X - X ---- 1 1 - 1 1 - -- 2 - 8 _ X _ _ 1 Cincinnati X - - -- 1 1 --- 1 - 1 -- -. 4 • 5 7 2 _ _ 1 Clemson 4 2 4 Colorado State - - --- X X - X - X ------X XXXX X _ _ 111inois - - - X X 3 1 -- 1 6 14 X X ______Illinois State XX XX X 5 2 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 -- 1 3 5 6 12 15 1 _ 2 _ 3 Indiana State -- - X X 1 - 7 1 - 5 1 4 3 2 i 2 APPENDIX I Table 3. General Information, (continued)
Main Arena Auxiliary Areas
Iowa State XX --- XXX X Kansas - X X - X ----- X ------X X X •X - Kansas State XX X - XXX XXXXX X --- XX - X XXX - X - X Kentucky ---- X - I - I - 1 1 I X --- XXX X - - -- X X Louisiana State - - - XX --- I - I - 1 1 - - -• 7 5 4 13 -- 3 1 - 1 Miami ---- X XX XX --- X X XX - -- X X Michigan X -- --- ]x - X - X - XX --- X - X ------X Michigan State XX --- X X XXXXX XX X XX - - X - X Middle Tennessee XX X -- 7 I - 1 - 1 - 1 I •- - - 7 -- 27 24 - - 2 - 2 Minnesota ------I-- 1 - - - 10 - 8 ------5 Mississippi ------X - X - - --- X Missouri X - - - X - X - X - X - X --- X X XX X --- X - X Montana State XXXX X 118 APPENDIX I Table 3. General Information (continued)
Main Arena Auxiliary Areas
New Mexico North Dakota N E Louisiana Northwestern North Texas State Notre Dame x Ohio X
Oral Roberts X Pennsylvania X Princeton X South Carolina 70 7 Southern Illinois x X Southern Mississippi 4
v o APPENDIX I
Table 3. General Information (continued)
Main Arena Auxiliary Areas
Stanford XX --- 1 ---- X - 1 - - - - X XX Syracuse X X X --- X - - X - X X - - - XX XX Utah X X X - X XXX X Utah State X XX X Virginia Tech X X - X - X - XX - - X X XX -- - 2 X Washington 4 - 1 1 - 1 1 5 1 8 - 6 - - - 1 Western Illin o is X X XX - 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 - XXXX - - 2 Western Kentucky X X X -- 22 1 --- 1 1 1 1 - - 6 5 7 7 -- XX Western Michigan ---- X XX --- X -- X - XXXXX West Virginia - 8 8 - - 16 1 1 1 - 1 - 4 1 - 1 4 6 10 XX XX X William & Mary XXX - - 5 1 1 1 - 1 - 1 - - - 3 - 9 XX - - 1 - 1 Wisconsin ------Wyoming X -- - X 6 2 1 - - 1 - 2 1 -- 8 4 XXX VITA
The author was born in Bay City, Texas on January 14, 1935. He attended Catholic High School in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and graduated in 1953. He served in the United States Marine Corps from 1953 through
1955, the majority of which time was spent with.the First Marine Division in Korea.
He earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in 1959 with a major in
Physical Education and a minor in Science from Louisiana State University.
In May, 1960, the Master of Science Degree was earned from
Springfield College, Springfield, Massachusetts.
The author joined the faculty of Louisiana State University in
September, 1960 as an Instructor of Physical Education and Director of
Aquatics. During the past fifteen years, the author has pursued his graduate degree part time while employed full time in various capacities at Louisiana State University, Batpn Rouge. In addition to his duties as an Instructor of Physical Education, he has served as Coach of both the swimming and gymnastic teams, as Director of the Athletic Department
Minor Sports Program, as Assistant Director of Intramural Sports and
Director of Club Sports, as Director of Intramural Sports, and currently, as the Director of the L.S.U. Assembly Center.
121 EXAMINATION AND THESIS REPORT
Candidate: William H. Bankhead, Jr.
Major Field: Health, Physical & Recreation Education
Title of Thesis: Administrative Policies and Procedures for Large Multi-Purpose Arenas on University Campuses Approved:
Major Professor and Chairman
Dean of the Graduate School
EXAMINING COMMITTEE:
o J
/d * t£ u
1-
Date of Examination:
April 21, 1975