Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Create a Presentation of Law as it is Applied to Athletics In this weeks assignment, you will prepare a PowerPoint Presentati - School Writers

Create a Presentation of Law as it is Applied to Athletics In this weeks assignment, you will prepare a PowerPoint Presentati

 

Create a Presentation of Law as it is Applied to Athletics

In this week’s assignment, you will prepare a PowerPoint Presentation. For help in using this tool, review the PowerPoint Tutorial located under your weekly resources.

Assignment Instructions

In this week’s assignment, you will serve as a guest presenter to discuss Title IX with a class of undergraduate sports management students. Be sure your presentation addresses the Title IX information in the following order:

  1. Provide a definition of Title IX.
  2. Identify Title IX origin.
  3. Indicate the importance of Title IX.
  4. Determine the impact on high school and collegiate athletics.
  5. Reveal how it is used to guide gender equality in athletics.
  6. Indicate who evaluates Title IX compliance.
  7. Determine how Title IX is evaluated.

Incorporate appropriate animations, transitions, and graphics to enhance your PowerPoint presentation. Each slide must include speaker notes. The speaker notes may be comprised of brief paragraphs or bulleted lists. You may also record voice-overs throughout the presentation instead of writing speaker notes.

Length: 12-15 slides (with a separate title and reference slide)

Notes Length: 200 WORDS  for each speaker note

References: Minimum of five scholarly resources INCLUDING THE ATTACHED ARTICLES 

Deborah J. Anderson John J. Cheslock Ronald G. Ehrenberg

Deborah Anderson is Assistant Professor in the Educational Leadership Program at the University of Arizona. John Cheslock is Assistant Professor at the Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Arizona. Ronald Ehrenberg is the Irving M. Ives Professor of Industrial and Labor Relations and Economics at Cornell Univer- sity and Director of the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute.

We thank the following people for assistance: Amaury Nora, Ron Oaxaca, Michael Olivas, J. Douglas Toma, participants in 2002 IHELG Finance Roundtable, and three anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions; Yan Xie for excellent re- search assistance; Don Sabo and the Women’s Sports Foundation for providing 1995/96 EADA data; Pamela Maimer at the Department of Education for providing 2001/02 EADA data; Tammy Smith at the NCAA for providing division, football, and track and field/cross-country data.

The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 77, No. 2 (March/April 2006) Copyright © 2006 by The Ohio State University

Introduction

The year 2002 marked the 30th anniversary of the passage of Title IX, which prohibits discrimination by gender in any fed- erally funded educational activity. Although the scope of Title IX in- cludes all aspects of education, the application of Title IX to college ath- letics has been especially complicated because athletics programs, unlike most academic classes, usually are sex-segregated by sport. As explained in more detail below, Title IX essentially requires that all in- stitutes of higher education provide student access to sport participation on a gender-neutral basis. As a result, athletic opportunities for female undergraduates have expanded significantly since 1972. For example, the female share of college athletes rose to 42% in 2001/02 from only 15% in 1972 (U.S. Department of Education, 1997, 2003). Despite this

Gender Equity in Intercollegiate Athletics: Determinants of Title IX Compliance

progress, gender equity is far from complete. Estimates from our data show that at the average institution in 2001/02, women comprised 55% of all students but only 42% of the varsity athletes.

Our research describes the level of noncompliance with Title IX, as measured by the proportionality gap, between 1995/96 and 2001/02, and then investigates why some institutions perform better than others do on this measure of gender equity. One important contribution of this article is the introduction of a new data set developed by the authors that in- cludes information on athletic offerings and other institutional charac- teristics for the 1995/96 and 2001/02 academic years. Our data represent a substantial improvement over previous data because we include insti- tutions in Divisions I, II, and III and adjust for changes in how institu- tions report athletic participation over the period; previous research fo- cused solely on Division I institutions and did not adjust for reporting differences. We show that these data differences are important: Reliance on unadjusted data from Division I institutions results in large overesti- mates of the improvement in compliance at NCAA institutions during the late 1990s. Our data also include a rich set of explanatory variables that we use in regression analyses to explain the extent of institutional noncompliance. We examine the determinants of the proportionality gap by estimating OLS cross-section regressions (with and without confer- ence fixed effects) at two points in time (1995/96 and 2001/02) and first- difference regressions for changes over the period.

Using Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) data for approxi- mately 700 institutions in Divisions I, II, and III, we find that noncom- pliance (in terms of women being underrepresented among athletes) de- creases from about 90 –93% of the sample in 1995/96 to about 82–89% of the sample in 2001/02, allowing for leeway of 3 –5 percentage points in measuring proportionality. However, by the end of the period, the vast majority of institutions, especially in Divisions II and III, remain out of compliance with an average gap of 13% for all institutions. Interest- ingly, the greatest compliance and the most improvement in compliance are seen among institutions in Division I, especially I-A schools who participate in the Bowl Coalition Series (BCS). Our regression results show that several institutional characteristics are associated with a large proportionality gap, all else equal: location in the Midwest and South (relative to West); larger share of undergraduates who are female; and having a football team. On the other hand, more selective institutions (as measured by Barron’s selectivity ranking), larger institutions, and insti- tutions with greater funds—especially high tuition and fees—are found to have smaller proportionality gaps, all else equal.

226 The Journal of Higher Education

Literature Review

A Brief History of Title IX

In 1972, the U.S. Congress passed Title IX of the Educational Amend- ments to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It states in part:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assis- tance. (Office for Civil Rights, 1979).

The initial interpretation of Title IX’s application to intercollegiate ath- letics was issued by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), now referred to as Health and Human Services (HHS), in 1975 with a deadline for institutional compliance delayed until 1978. How- ever, because these regulations were felt by many universities to be “vague and inadequate” (Johnson, 1994), the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) developed a more complete policy interpretation in 1979. Several more recent policy clarifications, discussed below, were released by OCR to address continuing uncertainty.

Although Title IX was passed in 1972, the seriousness with which in- stitutions considered this law while planning their athletics programs has varied over time with different court rulings and additional legisla- tion. Institutions of higher education were at first unsure whether Title IX even pertained to intercollegiate athletics. This uncertainty was tem- porarily resolved in 1984 when the Supreme Court ruled in Grove City College v. Bell that Title IX only applied to those specific programs that received federal aid, exempting athletics from the reach of the law. However, Congress clarified its intent in 1988 with the Civil Rights Restoration Act, which mandated that all programs at a federally funded institution be subject to Title IX.

Efforts to ensure compliance with Title IX grew during the 1990s. First, in 1992, the Supreme Court held in Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools that monetary damages may be awarded to a plaintiff if the violation of Title IX was intentional. Next, Congress passed the Eq- uity in Athletics Disclosure Act in 1994, mandating that institutions re- lease data on the operation of men’s and women’s sports programs. We use data collected under this legislation as the basis for our analyses below. Further, the Clinton administration enforced Title IX more ag- gressively than did previous administrations. Perhaps the most impor- tant factor was the pivotal case of Cohen v. Brown University. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in 1997, upholding the First Circuit

Gender Equity in Intercollegiate Athletics 227

Court of Appeals’s decision to “require [Brown] university to adhere to strict criteria for demonstrating gender equity in intercollegiate athlet- ics” (Thelin, 2000, p. 391). Because Brown University offered more women’s sports teams than any other school in the country besides Har- vard, this ruling made institutions less confident in their ability to de- fend themselves against a Title IX lawsuit (Shulman & Bowen, 2001).

Current Legal Interpretations of Title IX

With respect to intercollegiate athletics, Title IX applies to three broad areas: financial assistance to athletes; “other program areas” such as “treatment, benefits, and opportunities” for intercollegiate athletes; and “equal opportunity (equally effective accommodation of the inter- ests and abilities of male and female athletes)” (Johnson, 1994, p. 558). Focusing on the third area of “equal opportunity,” the 1979 OCR policy interpretation describes several factors to consider when determining compliance. One of these factors deals with the provision of competitive opportunities in order to accommodate the interests and abilities of male and female athletes. It is in reference to this factor that the OCR devel- oped the following three-prong test that is most commonly associated with Title IX’s application to intercollegiate athletics (Johnson, 1994):

Part One: Substantial Proportionality. This part of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are “substantially propor- tionate” to their respective undergraduate enrollments.

Part Two: History and Continuing Practice. This part of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expan- sion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the under- represented sex (typically female).

Part Three: Effectively Accommodating Interests and Abilities. This part of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports. (U.S. Department of Education, 1997)

From a practical standpoint, the rulings in Cohen v. Brown University, Roberts v. Colorado State University, and Favia v. Indiana University of Pennsylvania make clear that “the three-part test for competitive oppor- tunities seems to have become the key to judicial evaluation of compli- ance with Title IX’s athletic regulations” (Johnson, 1994, p. 580). There- fore, this article (following the related empirical literature) will focus on the three-prong test as a measure of gender equity in intercollegiate ath- letics. Furthermore, although noncompliance requires failure of all three prongs, in practice it will be very difficult for any university to rely on passing the second or third prong (see, for example, Farrell, 1995; Johnson,

228 The Journal of Higher Education

1994; Sigelman & Wahlbeck, 1999; Stafford, 2004). As demonstrated in Cohen v. Brown, institutions have not been successful in relying upon the third prong requiring the effective accommodation of students’ inter- ests and abilities. Meanwhile, reliance upon the second prong requires a “continuing (i.e. present) practice of program expansion” (Office for Civil Rights, 1996, p. 6), so it only can be a temporary solution. As a re- sult, it seems that “ ‘substantial proportionality’ has become the irrebut- table test for determining whether a school discriminates in its athletic program” (Mahoney, 1995, p. 976 –977). Even more convincing are the 1996 OCR policy clarification and the words of the court in Cohen v. Brown University, both of which referred to substantial proportionality as a “safe harbor.” Although the favored status of the first prong was re- cently diminished in a July 2003 OCR policy clarification, the Depart- ment of Education did not provide additional guidance regarding how institutions can comply with the second or third prong; as a result, the most recent clarification did not diminish the importance of substantial proportionality.

Because the first prong is so prominent, it is important to understand exactly how it is used to measure compliance. The OCR has declined to define what gap (between the percentage of athletes who are female and the percentage of undergraduates who are female), if any, would be con- sidered “substantially proportionate” under Title IX. In recent cases, no court has specified what range of gaps would be admissible under the “substantial proportionality” standard, although it is clear that 10.5% is too big while a gap as large as 1.7% is acceptable (Roberts v. Colorado State University). However, several lawsuit settlements suggest that a gap of 3% or 5% would be acceptable to a court of law (Farrell, 1995).

Summary and Critique of Related Empirical Literature

Despite the prominence of Title IX in intercollegiate athletics in re- cent policy debates, little quantitative work has investigated which insti- tutional characteristics are associated with compliance as measured by the first prong of “substantial proportionality.” Several works focus on other aspects of gender equity in athletics. For example, Zimbalist (1997) describes overall trends in the number of sports teams, scholar- ship aid to athletes, and coaching salaries by gender. Thelin (2000) takes a historical approach and shows that compliance with gender equity has not caused undue financial strain on Division I athletic programs (as was claimed by some institutions). His results also suggest that Division I athletic departments would not, absent legislative mandate, voluntarily provide data necessary to evaluate gender equity. Carroll and Humphreys (2000) use multinomial logistic regression to estimate

Gender Equity in Intercollegiate Athletics 229

which Division I institutions increased, decreased, or left unchanged the number of men’s team offerings between 1990 and 1995. They find that size of institution and expenditure on men’s athletics are positively cor- related while membership in Division I-A is negatively correlated with the probability of decreasing men’s teams. Rishe (1999) focuses on gen- der equity in athletic expenditures, but also examines factors correlated with compliance in athletic participation. He calculates the average pro- portionality gap, defined as the percentage of athletes who are female minus the percentage of undergraduates who are female, across regions and type of institution. His results show that institutions with football teams, institutions in the South, and historically Black colleges and uni- versities have larger proportionality gaps.

Only three studies (Agthe & Billings, 2000; Sigelman & Wahlbeck, 1999; Stafford, 2004) have examined the determinants of compliance in a regression framework. Using data from 1995/96 for Division I institu- tions, Sigelman and Wahlbeck (1999) calculate the change in athletic team slots (new opportunities for women, reduced opportunities for men, or an exchange of opportunities of men for women) that would be required to achieve compliance, given current participation rates. Re- sults of OLS regressions show that compliance would require less ad- justment “for schools with a smaller proportion of female students, with more financial resources for female athletics, with a smaller athletic pro- gram, and without a football team” (p. 518).

Agthe and Billings (2000) test the hypothesis that the financial status of an institution’s football team affects the ability of the institution to meet gender equity requirements. Controlling for endowment, total un- dergraduate enrollment, public/private status, profits (losses) from other men’s sports, and conference membership, they find no significant im- pact of the gap between football’s revenues and expenses on the partici- pation gap for Division I-A institutions in 1996/97. One concern in in- terpreting their results is the potential endogeneity of their football profit/deficit measure. That is, decisions about participation opportuni- ties for women and for men are made jointly. Because these opportuni- ties cost money, expenditures on men’s sports, which are included in the football and other sports profits measures, are determined jointly with participation opportunities. As a result, the coefficients of football and other sports profits/deficits in an OLS regression of the participation gap may be biased.

Using a sample of Division I institutions, Stafford (2004) begins with a probit regression of compliance in 2000/01, where compliance is mea- sured as having a female share of athletes within 5% of the female share of undergraduates. Controlling for formal and informal enforcement

230 The Journal of Higher Education

mechanisms as well as institutional characteristics, she finds that under- graduate enrollment is positively correlated with compliance; in con- trast, Southern institutions and schools with a large share of female un- dergraduates are less likely to be in compliance. Stafford is the only other author to examine changes in the proportionality gap over time. Using OLS regression to explain changes in the proportionality gap for Division I institutions, improvements toward compliance (i.e., shrinkage of the proportionality gap) are associated with greater institutional size, a smaller share of female undergraduates, location in a region other than the South, and the number of NCAA sanctions since 1992.

In summary, existing empirical research has found several institu- tional characteristics to be negatively correlated with compliance with Title IX’s requirements regarding athletic participation: high percentage of undergraduates who are female, small undergraduate enrollment, large total number of athletes, presence of a football program, location in the South, and being a historically Black college or university. Our ar- ticle adds to this literature in two important ways. First, our data im- prove upon previous work by including institutions in Divisions I, II, and III and by adjusting for changes in how institutions report athletes over the period; all of the previous research used unadjusted data and only included Division I institutions. As will be shown below, these dif- ferences are important and result in a very different portrait of how com- pliance with Title IX changed over the period. Second, we investigate other characteristics beyond those listed above—most notably, variables that represent the financial situation of the institution—that explain col- leges’ and universities’ degree of compliance with Title IX in 1995/96 and 2001/02.

Description of Title IX Compliance in 1995/96 and 2001/02

In order to paint a picture of how compliance varies across divisions and across time, we begin by calculating a measure of “substantial pro- portionality” as outlined by the first prong of the OCR guidelines:

Proportionality gap = (1) [(% of undergraduates who are female) —(% of athletes who are female)] * 100

That is, if the proportionality gap is positive and large, then women comprise a smaller share of athletes than of undergraduates; conse- quently, the institution will not comply with Title IX through the sub- stantial proportionality prong. We adopt a common interpretation of the “substantial proportionality” standard (Farrell, 1995; Sigelman &

Gender Equity in Intercollegiate Athletics 231

Wahlbeck, 1999; Zimbalist, 1997) that a differential of no more than 3 –5% signifies compliance. Because most institutions that are out of compliance are found to have a smaller female share of athletes than fe- male share of undergraduates, in this paper we also focus on the follow- ing measure1:

Out of compliance (by favoring males) = 1 if proportionality gap > X (2) 0 if proportionality gap ≥ X

where X is alternatively equal to 3% or 5%.

We calculate the proportionality gap and the share of our sample out of compliance with the substantial proportionality prong using informa- tion contained in reports filed by institutions of higher education as re- quired by the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA). We obtained the full EADA reports for 1995/96 from the Women’s Sports Foundation (Sabo, 1997) and for 2001/02 from the Department of Education. In ad- dition, we collected supplementary EADA information from the Chron- icle of Higher Education’s website entitled “Gender Equity in College Sports” (2004).

The EADA questionnaire asks institutions to report the number of male and female athletes participating in each individual sport as well as the total number of male and female athletes. There have been substan- tial changes in the questionnaire over time, however, that affect the com- parability of directly reported data. As discussed in more detail in the Data Appendix, the instructions accompanying the EADA questionnaire and the structure of the data template in the different years result in many institutions reporting unduplicated figures in 1995/96 (that is, an athlete who plays multiple sports is counted only once) and duplicated figures in 2001/02 (that is, an athlete who plays multiple sports is counted once for each sport). The current practice of the Department of Education is to use duplicated figures to calculate substantial propor- tionality. Because we utilize the full EADA data, including the number of athletes in each specific sport, we calculate duplicated participation figures for both years based on a consistent methodology as discussed in the Data Appendix. This correction required additional data from the NCAA, which graciously provided information on team offerings in 1995/96 and 2001/02. In contrast, previous research relied on unad- justed data, resulting in inconsistent participation figures across time.

Table 1 allows us to examine the importance of these corrections for portraying an accurate picture of Title IX compliance during this period. The table presents compliance measures for the sample of 264 Division

232 The Journal of Higher Education

I institutions that reported data to all three potential sources2: the Chron- icle of Higher Education in 1995/96 and 2001/02, the source of unad- justed data used in previous research, and the Women’s Sports Founda- tion in 1995/96 and the Department of Education in 2001/02, the sources of our new adjusted data.

First, note the substantial degree of noncompliance with the substan- tial proportionality prong among Division I institutions, regardless of the data source. According to the adjusted data, 89 –94% of institutions in 1995/96 and 71–83% of institutions in 2001/02 do not meet the crite- rion of substantial proportionality because their female shares of under- graduates are more than 3 –5% larger than their female shares of ath- letes. Even including the few compliant institutions in the calculation, the average proportionality gap is 14% in 1995/96 and 10% in 2001/02. Although these results indicate widespread noncompliance with sub- stantial proportionality during this period, they do reveal improvement over time. These points will be examined in more detail in Table 2.

Table 1 also demonstrates that there are substantial differences be- tween the measures of compliance generated from unadjusted data ver- sus those generated from adjusted data. If one relies on unadjusted data, 1995/96 compliance is underestimated and the average proportionality gap in 1995/96 is overestimated; consequently, improvements in gender equity between 1995/96 and 2001/02 will be overestimated. The magni- tude of this inaccuracy is not trivial. Our estimates demonstrate that close to 30% of the reduction in the proportionality gap in unadjusted data (1.6 out of 5.6 percentage points) is eliminated after corrections are made. Therefore, one must exercise caution when examining trends over time using past estimates of compliance that are based on unadjusted data.

Gender Equity in Intercollegiate Athletics 233

TABLE 1

Compliance with Substantial Proportionality For Division I Institutions, Adjusted and Unadjusted Data

Unadjusted Data Adjusted Data

Year 95/96 01/02 Change 95/96 01/02 Change

Mean Proportionality Gap 15.3 9.7 -5.6 13.9 9.9 -4.0 Share with Gap > 3 96.2% 82.2% -14.0 94.3% 83.0% -11.4 Share with Gap > 5 92.4% 70.1% -22.3 89.0% 70.8% -18.2

NOTES: “Proportionality gap” is equal to (% of undergraduates who are female – % of athletes who are fe- male)*100. The sample consists of the 264 Division I institutions who reported data in 1995/96 to the Chronicle of Higher Education and to the Women’s Sports Foundation, and in 2001/02 to the Chronicle of Higher Education and to the Department of Education. The Data Appendix describes the differences between the adjusted and un- adjusted data.

Table 2 presents similar figures for all of the 741 NCAA institutions that reported EADA data to the Women’s Sports Foundation in 1995/96 and to the Department of Education in 2001/02.3 Unlike all of the past literature reviewed in the previous section, we calculate compliance fig- ures for Division II and III institutions as well as for Division I institu- tions. Because Division I athletic programs are significantly larger than those from the other divisions in terms of notoriety, facilities, revenue generation, cost, and the degree to which they use athletics as a tool to increase general enrollment, there is no reason to expect compliance with the substantial proportionality prong to be similar across divisions.4

In fact, the figures in Table 2 show that compliance differs tremendously by division.

Looking first at the overall figures (not broken down by subdivision) in 1995/96, we see that Division II institutions perform worst in terms of the average proportionality gap: 18% compared to 14% in Divisions I and III. In addition, the noncompliance rate is somewhat higher in Divi- sion II when allowing for a 5% leeway (93% versus 89 –90% in Divi- sions I and III). By 2001/02, however, the relative equality of Divisions I and III changes because of substantially greater improvement in Divi- sion I than in any other division. By 2001/02, the average proportional- ity gap falls to 10% for Division I institutions compared with 14% and 17% for Divisions II and III, respectively. In addition, the percentage of institutions out of compliance is 10 –16% lower at Division I institutions than at Division II and III schools.

These findings illustrate a second manner in which improvements in compliance with Title IX would be overestimated in past research that focuses solely on Division I: Division I institutions are not representa- tive of NCAA institutions as a whole. For example, looking at the change in the proportionality gap over time, we estimate a reduction of 27% (–3.8%) in Division I versus only 5 –8% (–0.7% to –1.4%) in Divi- sions II and III. Similarly, noncompliance rates fall by 4 times as much in Division I relative to Division II (–17.8% versus – 4.3%) and over 9 times as much relative to Division III (–1.9%).

Table 2 also presents the mean proportionality gap and noncompli- ance rates for institutions that offer football versus those who do not offer football; in Division I, only I-AAA does not offer football. As noted by previous authors (Agthe & Billings, 2000; Rishe, 1999; Sigel- man & Wahlbeck, 1999), the presence of a football team is likely to be extremely important in determining an institution’s compliance level due to the large number of male athletes that currently exist on most teams as well as the high cost per athlete in football relative to other sports. For the sample of institutions used in Table 2, the average roster

234 The Journal of Higher Education

T A

B L

E 2

C o

m p

li an

ce w

it h

S u

b st

an ti

al P

ro p

o rt

io n

al it

y f

o r

D iv

is io

n I

-I II

I n

st it

u ti

o n

s, A

d ju

st ed

D at

a

O b

s. M

ea n

P ro

p o

rt io

n al

it y

G ap

S h

ar e

w it

h G

ap >

3 S

h ar

e w

it h

G ap

> 5

Y ea

r 9

5 /9

6 0

1 /0

2 C

h an

g e

9 5

/9 6

0 1

/0 2

C h

an g

e 9

5 /9

6 0

1 /0

2 C

h an

g e

A ll

7 4

1 1

5 .2

1 3

.1 –

2 .1

9 3

.4 %

8 8

.9 %

– 4

.5 9

0 .3

% 8

1 .9

% –

8 .4

D iv

is io

n I

2 7

0 1

4 .0

1 0

.2 –

3 .8

9 4

.4 %

8 3

.3 %

– 1

1 .1

8 9

.3 %

7 1

.5 %

– 1

7 .8

I- A

: B

C S

6 0

1 1

.2 6

.5 –

4 .8

9 1

.7 %

7 3

.3 %

– 1

8 .3

8 1

.7 %

5 8

.3 %

2 3

.3 I-

A :

O th

er 4

1 1

6 .2

1 0

.4 –

5 .8

9 0

.2 %

7 8

.0 %

– 1

2 .2

9 0

.2 %

7 5

.6 %

– 1

4 .6

I- A

A 9

4 1

6 .7

1 3

.2 –

3 .5

9 5

.7 %

9 0

.4 %

– 5

.3 9

2 .6

% 7

8 .7

% –

1 3

.8 I-

A A

A 6

2 1

1 .4

9 .2

– 2

.2 9

8 .4

% 8

5 .5

% –

1 2

.9 9

1 .9

% 7

1 .0

% –

2 1

.0

D iv

is io

n I

I 1

8 8

1 8

.1 1

6 .7

– 1

.4 9

4 .1

% 9

3 .1

% –

1 .1

9 2

.6 %

8 8

.3 %

– 4

.3 II

w it

h f

o o

tb al

l 1

0 6

2 0

.3 1

9 .8

– 0

.5 9

5 .3

% 9

4 .3

% –

0 .9

9 4

.3 %

9 3

.4 %

– 0

.9 II

w it

h o

u t

fo o

tb al

l 7

7 1

5 .3

1 2

.8 –

2 .5

9 3

.5 %

9 2

.2 %

– 1

.3 9

0 .9

% 8

3 .1

% –

7 .8

D iv

is io

n I

II 2

6 4

1 4

.3 1

3 .6

– 0

.7 9

1 .7

% 9

2 .0

% 0

.4 9

0 .2

% 8

8 .3

% –

1 .9

II I

w it

h f

o o

tb al

l 1

6 2

1 5

.4 1

4 .9

– 0

.6 9

5 .1

% 9

4 .4

% –

0 .6

9 3

.8 %

8 9

.5 %

– 4

.3 II

I w

it h

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.

Do you need an answer to this or any other questions?