This website uses cookies to ensure site visitors get the best experience on our website. By continuing to use this site, you accept our use of cookies and Privacy Statement. To find out more, please visit Southern University's Privacy Statement.

I agree

Current issue

College of Business E-Journal 

Summer 2024 Volume XIX, Issue II

ISSN  number 2158-303X





 The study of profitability or financial success and/or implications of intercollegiate athletics has been questioned in recent years. The Western Athletic Conference (WAC) and Mountain West Conference (MWC) are colleges classified as NCAA Division 1. Referencing the original study conducted by Schaap (2013), WAC schools classified as NCAA Division 1 from 2005-2010 had, on average, only two departments that showed profitability: men’s basketball and football. The remaining athletic programs showed consistent deficits from 2005-2010. In this new study conducted in 2023, sports programs in the Mountain West Conference from 2013 to 2020 showed similar financial reports. Again, only two departments showed profitability: men’s basketball and football. Most schools fell below a deficit or broke even, not showing much chance of profitability across the conference but improvements since the last study showing more profitability than in 2013.

Keywords: Division 1, Financial, Mountain West, NCAA, Profitability, University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), WAC



James Ike Schaap, Ph.D.*

Adjunct Associate Professor

California State University, Monterey Bay

*Corresponding Author



Jonathan Breiter, MBA

Lecturer Level II

University of Nevada, Reno @ Lake Tahoe




Little research has been done in the area of purchase intent decision-making of subcultural consumer groups.  Therefore, academic theories about these minority groups are very scarce in the marketing and the consumer research discipline. However, past studies, broad and general in nature as they may be, will provide some framework for the development of the conceptual Ethnic Consumer Purchase Intent Model (ECPIM) in this paper.

            Therefore, a brief overview of past decision-making models will be presented followed by a broad comparison of the proposed Ethnic Consumer Purchase Intent Model (ECPIM).   An examination of the Nicosia (1966), Howard and Sheth (1969), Bettman (1979), Engel, Blackwell and Kollat (1986), Sheth Newman & Gross (1991) and finally, the Fishbein model will be discussed in this portion of the book.  Note that a very detailed comparison is not presented because of the nature and complexity of the models.  However, a comparison of crucial elements in the decision-making process as it relates to a better understanding of subcultural consumers will be discussed.  The seven above named models will be discussed based on the following three criteria: (1) the role and impact that cultural and subcultural influences play in the decision-making process, (2) the role that values have in the decision-making process and finally (3) the overall model's conceptualization of the consumer behavior process.  Other elements will be evaluated that fall under these three important criteria.  

            It is important to note that most of the past research and decision models described in this overview will be based on mainstream Euro-American culture. It is very important that the definition of the term decision first be explored in this paper.  Schiffman and Kanuk (1991) define decision as the selection of an action from two or more alternative choices.  More simply stated, in order for a person to make a decision, there must be a choice of alternatives.  This definition seems to be clear enough for us to begin examining various decision-making models and how they can help a marketer develop viable campaigns that identify with consumer thought schemes.

 In order to be able to analytically examine the various models, the book provides a brief overview for pedagogical reasons. The first model that will be discussed is the Nicosia Model.  (See the illustration below for a graphical representation of the model).  It focuses on the relationship between a marketer and a potential customer.  It is an elaborate computer flowchart of the consumer decision-making process.  Nicosia (1966) proposes that there are four major fields in the model.  They include: (1) the consumer's attitude based on message exposure, (2) the consumer's product search and evaluation, (3) the act of purchase and (4) feedback in the form of consumer experience to both the firm and consumer.  The first field consists of the consumer's attitude based on the firm's messages.  The first field is further divided into two subfields.  Subfield one includes aspects of the firm's marketing environment and communication efforts that affect consumer attitudes.  Subfield two includes various consumer characteristics that mediate reception of the firm's promotional messages.  In summary, field one consists of an attitude toward the product based on the consumer's interpretation message.  Field two consists of the relevant search information and evaluation of a firm's brand in comparison with alternative brands.  This field produces a motivation to purchase a firm's brand.  Field three, the previous motivation towards the brand, results in an actual purchase of the brand at a specific outlet.  The final stage (field four) consists of two important types of feedback as a result of the purchase experience: one to the firm in the form of sales data and the other to the consumer in the form of being satisfied or not experienced.




Dr. Jamie Pleasant; Ph.D.
Clark-Atlanta University


Dr. Donald Vest; PH.D.
Clark-Atlanta University


Dr. Paul Brown; Ph.D.
Clark-Atlanta University