Amidst a 33-3 record and just months after winning his first National Championship, University of Connecticut head coach Danny Hurley revealed a more personal side outside the realm of basketball. Hurley shared his experiences with panic attacks and substance use, reflecting, “Don’t get me wrong, [winning the title] was an incredible feeling in the moment. But it hasn’t fulfilled me in a way that maybe I thought it would. I was probably chasing that championship thinking there’s be some level of healing. It’s like realizing there’s no Santa Claus.”
[2]
. Months later, in the wake of Hurley winning back-to-back National Championships, Hurley appeared on the Pat McAfee Show and shared more about his mental health journey and how seeing a sport psychologist helped him find his “best self.” “We deal with a lot of stuff, emotionally, mentally and there’s a macho attitude that we can’t show vulnerability and open up,” Hurley said. “She got me to talk about a lot of stuff that was bothering me and helped me get to being my best self.” The college basketball community was taken aback by these revelations, which challenged the societal link between success and mental well-being. As a prominent figure in the college basketball world, Hurley bravely addressed the stigma surrounding coaches’ mental health, a topic that has not been widely discussed in sports.
Despite his success in the coaching realm, Hurley’s success does not make him immune to mental health concerns. The demands placed on college basketball coaches can sometime exceed what is reasonable. These demands entail recruiting talented athletes, overseeing team and individual performance, offering guidance and leadership to both athletes and coaching staff, managing administrative tasks, and making crucial decisions both on and off the court
[3]
. NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1 stipulates that “a head coach is presumed to have knowledge of what is occurring in his program and therefore, can be responsible for the actions of his staff and individuals associated with the program”
[4]
. As a result, head coaches are accountable for every action of their staff and program, which can be quite a heavy responsibility. Now, with the introduction of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) and Transfer Portal legislation changes, coaches may encounter new challenges that could affect their psychological well-being.
Nick Saban may be the first person to agree. Just 11 days after the University of Alabama lost to the University to Michigan in the prized Rose Bowl game, the sport world woke up to shocking news: the undisputed greatest college football coach of all time, Saban, was retiring. In that 2023-2024 season, Saban’s Alabama team won the Southeastern Conference (SEC) and went 12-2. From the outside looking in, it seemed the Crimson Tide were still on the mountain top, winners of an impressive three national championships in the last 10 years. The 72-year-old year coach noted that it wasn’t health concerns that led to his decision to retire, but rather the “grind.” He said, “Maybe 70 or 80 percent of the players you talk to, all they want to know is two things: What assurances do I have that I’m going to play because they’re thinking about transferring, and how much are you going to pay me?”
[5]
. In explaining the reasoning behind his decision to retire, Saban specifically highlights the changing landscape of the Transfer Portal and NIL.
Hurley’s remarks, coupled with Saban’s decision to retire due to the relentless demands of modern coaching, underscore the immense mental and emotional toll that comes with leading a top-tier collegiate athletic program. Their experiences underscore the need to address these challenges to ensure that success in sports does not compromise personal well-being, revealing that a team’s impressive record may mask deeper struggles faced by elite coaches. Despite this, there is limited understanding of how these changes affect the mental health of elite-level coaches. This manuscript reviews existing literature on the subjective mental health experiences of coaches in a dynamic environment and advocates for more research in this area.
2. Mental Health in Sport
For student-athletes, balancing the rigorous demands of both sports and academics—which some equate to two full-time jobs—can be highly stressful, often leaving limited time for essential self-care activities like sleep and recovery
[6]
. Those stressors can result in specific mental health disorders in athletes, such as depression, anxiety, suicide, sleep disorders, and eating disorders/disordered eating. Meta-analyses have shown large samples of elite athletes having 34% prevalence for anxiety and depression and 19% for alcohol use
[7]
. As such, promoting the mental health and well-being of student-athletes is a top priority for athletic departments.
To this point, legislation passed in 2022 states that NCAA member schools, regardless of division, are required to create an environment that supports not only the physical health in athletics but mental health as well by providing access to resources regarding health and well-being
[8]
. The NCAA emphasizes the importance of athletic departments implementing screening procedures for student-athlete mental health and ensuring prompt referral to licensed mental health professionals for those facing mental health issues
[9]
. Most athletic departments employ a full-time sports psychologist or clinician to address the needs of student-athletes, offering both individual and group therapy as well as team outreach. In other cases, departments refer athletes to university counseling centers and external resources. Coaches have expressed gratitude for the availability of mental health service providers for student-athletes, noting that it alleviates some of their responsibilities
[10]
.
Coaches Are Performers, Too
Although the focus on mental health resources for student-athletes is important, the manuscript advocates for increased attention to the psychological well-being of coaches as well. Coaches experience psychological distress at levels comparable to those previously reported among elite-level athletes. In one study, 41.2% of coaches surveyed met the criteria for probable psychopathology caseness, 13.9% reported high to very high psychological distress, 41.8% indicated potential risky alcohol consumption, and 17.7% experienced moderate to severe sleep disturbances
[1]
. These results were further supported by research on elite-level coaches from the Netherlands and Flanders, where 39% experienced depression or anxiety and 19% dealt with distress and adverse alcohol use
[11]
.
Although those populations were in the professional sport space, coaches in the collegiate athletics space share a similar experience. In a survey of over 6000 NCAA coaches, around one-third of coaches reported they “constantly” or “most every day” experienced mental exhaustion, feelings of being overwhelmed by all that they had to do, and sleep difficulties
[12]
. Similar to athletes, coaches have expressed a need for both mental performance and mental health services
[12]
to learn mental skills such as mindfulness, imagery and goal setting. But even though there is increasing support and resources available for student-athletes, support for coaches remains insufficient. Coaches have identified access to mental health resources as a key area for future improvement
[12]
.
Despite over 40% of elite-level Olympic coaches reporting mental health concerns, fewer than 6% have sought professional support
[1]
. Coaches’ mental health literacy is shaped by various factors, including gender, years of coaching experience, and, crucially, their access to mental health resources
[13]
. Instead of engaging in help-seeking behaviors, many coaches resort to maladaptive coping strategies (e.g., alcohol consumption, substance abuse). This raises an important question: what impact might it have on coaches’ psychological well-being if mental health resources were made more accessible not only for student-athletes but also for coaches? Greater availability of support could potentially foster a healthier coaching environment, reduce stigma, and encourage coaches to prioritize their mental health, ultimately benefiting both their personal lives and the teams they lead.
Thus, coaches exhibiting similar distress of elite athletes raises important implications for those involved. But, more importantly, it is crucial to understand the deeper-rooted stressors that coaches cope with to better understand how and where to allocate resources. In this manuscript we will outline three categories of stressors and then examine how coaches are uniquely affected by these specific stressors, with an intentional inclusion of how both NIL and the Transfer Portal intensify the challenges these stressors pose on the mental health of elite men’s college basketball coaches.
3. Three Categories of Stressors
Stressors are conditions that challenge an individual’s coping abilities, leading to stress responses that can impact psychological, emotional, and physical well-being
[14]
. Coaches often face a range of stressors that can affect both their mental health and performance. Different types of stressors experienced by coaches can be categorized into three groups of stressors: performance-related (i.e., directly tied to the demands of collegiate sports), organizational (i.e., related to the organizational aspects of collegiate sports), and personal (i.e., connected to the coach’s personal life), which we will refer to as self-related stressors
[15]
.
Performance expectations, uncontrollable organizational factors, and work-life balance issues were found to be prevalent in NCAA coaches at the Division I level
[16]
. In the Olympic context, coaches reported unsustainable work-life balance (organizational), the all-consuming pursuit of victory (performance), and negative effects on sleep and family time (self-related) in their experiences
[17]
. Another study of Olympic Game coaches identified similar factors such as excessive workload (organizational), post-competition losses (performance), and feelings of isolation (self-related stress) as having a negative impact on coaches’ well-being and mental health. This workplace stress and perceived stress has been positively associated with burnout and perceived stress alone has been shown to be positively correlated with mental health issues such as depression and anxiety for coaches
[18]
. Thus, poor mental health for coaches can be caused by stressors, particularly performance, organizational, and self-related stressors.
3.1. Performance-Related Stress
In most states (43 out of 50), the highest-paid public employee is the local university’s head basketball or football coach
[19]
. Prior to Saban retiring, he was the state of Alabama’s highest paid employee at $8.9 million a year. In 2016, University of Arizona head coach Sean Miller was the highest paid public employee in Arizona and eighth-highest paid public employee in America. With high salaries come lofty expectations to produce, so coaches, much like athletes, experience substantial pressure to perform at a high level. In the world of coaching, losing records can lead to public scrutiny, increased pressure from administration to win, and feelings of inadequacy. Whereas most student-athletes utilize their athletic talents to play at their university for four years, coaches aren’t guaranteed to coach long for a specific school. The expectation early on from fans is for a head coach to lead their team to a Final Four, a feat that takes an average head coach 10.5 years to accomplish
[20]
, despite few contracts spanning that length of time.
This constant demand and pressure to deliver results can exacerbate mental health issues. The intense pressure to meet performance expectations can lead to chronic stress and anxiety, especially within the highly competitive environment of college athletics, where success is critically emphasized
[21]
. Maladaptive forms of perfectionism have been found to create stress for coaches which then can potentially lead to burn out
[22]
. The relentless pursuit of excellence in such a setting amplifies these stressors, placing coaches in high-pressure situations where every decision and outcome is scrutinized.
Beyond performance expectations, the uncertainty surrounding job security adds another layer of stress. Coaches often face concerns about the stability of their positions due to the precarious nature of coaching contracts. The risk of sudden job loss or contract non-renewal contributes to heightened anxiety. Worries about job stability and the pressures of performance evaluations are significant contributors to elevated stress levels among coaches
[23]
. The constant fear of not meeting expectations, coupled with the instability of coaching roles, creates a challenging environment that can exacerbate mental health issues, impacting both their professional effectiveness and personal well-being. These stressors can impact coach effectiveness, too, as athletes view coaches as less effective when stressed
[24]
. Therefore, this pressure, combined with job insecurity, can lead to chronic stress and anxiety, negatively affecting coaches’ mental health and professional effectiveness.
3.2. Organizational Stress
The system and environment in which coaches operate in can also generate stress. These stressors, termed organizational stressors, refer to the ongoing interaction between an individual and the demands imposed by their organization
[25]
. In elite sports, such organizational stressors are common. Organizational stressors can manifest in various ways. A prominent theoretical framework for understanding organizational stress in sports divides these Organizational stressors into four primary categories: environmental issues, personal issues, leadership issues, and team issues. The framework identifies several key environmental stressors that could play a part in the psychological well-being of coaches. Leadership issues primarily focus on the influence of coaches and their coaching styles. Team issues revolve around the team atmosphere, support networks, roles, and communication dynamics.
Leadership challenges can be pervasive in an organization, particularly within coaching dynamics. Coaching styles that athletes may perceive as inconsistent or incompatible with the team, as well as coach-athlete tensions and motivating the group can all create stress for both coaches and athletes
[26]
. Likewise, stressors within a team can affect the entire organization and impact coaches. Poorly managed interpersonal relationships among coaching staff or between coaches and athletes can lead to a tense and unproductive environment. Ineffective communication and collaboration often result in misunderstandings, conflicts, and weakened team cohesion, which can ultimately affect performance. Coaches have reported that maintaining player discipline and managing reactions to poor performances are additional stressors within the team environment
[27]
.
Additionally, administrative burdens can generate stress, as evidenced by coaches expressing distress regarding their athletics departments budget (NCAA, 2023). Managing budgets, organizing materials for administration, and dealing with disruptions to competition schedules and match preparations are all administrative tasks that have been identified as stressors for coaches
[27]
. From a mental health perspective, organizational stressors have been linked to increased symptoms of depression and anxiety
[13]
. In terms of performance, poor management of interpersonal relationships and ineffective selection procedures within an organization can lead to inadequate preparation for competitions
[26]
.
All in all, organizational stressors impact coaches due to these interactions between individuals and their work environment, including environmental, personal, leadership, and team-related issues
[25]
[26]
. These stressors, such as poor leadership, ineffective communication, and administrative burdens, can negatively impact coaches’ mental health and performance outcomes
[13]
[27]
.
3.3. Self-Related Stress
High performance outcomes do not happen overnight, and success often requires immense personal sacrifice. Therefore, it’s not unusual to hear about coaches who spend nights in their office to prepare for games and work exceptionally long hours. With tasks like skill development with student-athletes, preparing for opponents, scouting, and recruiting, the hours naturally pile up. In contrast, while coaches in the professional space have an off-season, coaches in the collegiate space spend their offseason recurring new talent. These extensive and continual hours can have ripple effects on the coach’s personal life.
Research has indicated that collegiate athletics coaches often prioritize work over family, particularly when under high pressure
[28]
. Interestingly, job tenure can also influence work-family conflict
[29]
as those with longer tenures or greater seniority generally enjoy more flexibility and are less likely to be required to work nights or weekends, mitigating work-family conflict. Given that consistent job tenure can be hard to find in the coaching space, coaches are constantly moving and sacrificing for their families. A coach in the professional sport space once shared that he moved his family nine times in the past 22 years, stating, “That’s what happens: The job, the pressure, it all just creeps up on you. We justify it by the money we make, by the life we provide for our families. But we get so wrapped up in what we’re doing, we forget what our families face”
[30]
. The stress that coaches experience when having to relocate their families, move, and rebuild their social support in a new city can’t be too enjoyable. It’s no surprise that research has shown that the intense time commitments required by coaching roles—even in the youth sport space—significantly contribute to stress, which can adversely affect mental health
[31]
. Thus, high performance in coaching demands immense sacrifice and long hours, often leading to stress and work-family conflict, especially in collegiate athletics, where coaches frequently prioritize their jobs over personal lives, thus giving these self-related stressors a multiplicative impact on their personal and professional lives.
4. Show Me the Money: The NIL-Era
As we have laid out thus far in the manuscript, these categories of stressors are omnipresent in the lives of coaches. But with the new era of the Transfer Portal and NIL, these stressors become compounded. As it relates to NIL, for the first time in 100 years of the college sports, the NCAA now allows schools to directly pay athletes up to roughly $20 million annually
[32]
. In May of 2024, the NCAA implemented rules allowing institutions to help student-athletes pursue NIL opportunities, such as identifying NIL prospects and facilitating deals. Since the enactment of the legislation changes in July 2021, the financial gains of collegiate athletics have garnered widespread attention from media outlets. After surveying 100-plus coaches in men’s college basketball, 40.4% stated that the NIL asking price for a projected starting player at the elite level is somewhere between $200,000 - $300,000
[33]
. Utah State student-athlete, Great Osobor, transferred from Utah State to the University of Washington, reportedly signing for a package of at least $2 million in NIL deal in the Spring of 2024
[34]
. To put it in perspective, following a final four run in the NCAA tournament, Florida Atlantic University head coach Dusty May signed a contract extension worth up to $1.25 million annually, close to half of what Osobor is now making at the University of Washington. And while Osobor is known to be in the upper echelon of paid players in the college basketball, some athletes themselves are now making more than some coaches—both head and assistant—a change of course for the sport. Prior to these dramatic changes in collegiate athletics, student-athletes were ruled as amateurs and unable to benefit off their name, image and likeness, whereas coaches were making millions of dollars. Now, the dynamics have shifted dramatically.
Some NIL deals have focused on individual athletes, while others have been directed toward entire teams. Funds from team-driven deals are often managed by “Collectives”, typically established by prominent alumni and donors. These Collectives pool resources to support student-athletes in earning NIL compensation through various activities, often charitable in nature. Notably, 92% of all Power Five schools (those in the SEC, ACC, Big-12, Big Ten, and Pac-12 conferences) have established a Collective
[35]
. The founder of The Grove Collective for the University of Mississippi stated that Collectives account for 80% of NIL compensation
[36]
. For example, all 85 scholarship football players at the University of Utah were recently given a Ram truck, funded by The Crimson Collective, an NIL group supporting Utah athletics. At the University of Tennessee, fans now pay an additional 10% “talent fee” on their tickets to help finance their student-athletes
[37]
.
Much of the existing literature on NIL focuses on the earning potential of student-athletes or speculates about the possible ramifications of the legislative changes
[38]
[39]
. In general, NIL rule changes are supported by college athletes and seen as a positive opportunity. A poll conducted this year found that 79% of college athletes supported the idea of earning money based on their NIL
[40]
. One area of interest for stakeholders comes within the psychological ramifications of the NIL era. Some literature has found that NIL has been an additional task for student-athletes on top of already demanding athletic and academic obligations imposed on them, complicating their ability to benefit from NIL
[41]
. Others have examined how psychological interventions can support intercollegiate student-athletes in navigating NIL-related transitions
[42]
.
More Money, More Stress?
Yet, due to the relatively recent introduction of NIL legislation, there has been limited attention and empirical research focused on coaches’ experiences since these changes were implemented. As mentioned earlier, coaches already had a demanding set of stressors before the complexities of NIL were introduced. A common theme in coaches’ perceptions of NIL is a sense of inequity and near exclusion from the benefits, which could lead to issues with team culture, feelings of exclusion, unfairness, and potential mental health challenges
[43]
. Coaches and administrators have also emphasized the need for more education, improved monitoring, and greater access to NIL resources. While research has identified both positive and negative mental health impacts of NIL on student-athletes, it remains unclear how coaches have been personally affected by these legislative changes.
Coaches may experience increased organizational stress due to the new responsibility of fundraising NIL money for their teams. While athletic administration has staff members to assist with fundraising for NIL money, coaches are responsible for tasks such as attending fundraising events to engage and excite donors. This additional obligation can significantly heighten their perceived self-related stress levels, as they now need to balance fundraising efforts with their existing duties. Furthermore, if coaches foresee potential issues with team culture dynamics arising from NIL
[43]
this anticipation can further intensify their organizational stress. Moreover, coaches face increased pressure to secure victories to attract and maintain financial support from fans and donors. This pressure not only intensifies the performance-related stress already associated with their roles but also places a greater emphasis on achieving results to satisfy financial backers. Lastly, the time commitment to interacting with donors and fans to raise more NIL capital may increase self-related stressors, adding to the time that coaches may not have to allocate. Thus, the introduction of NIL to collegiate athletics can intensify all three levels of coaches’ stressors.
5. Changing Uniforms: The Transfer Portal-Era
In addition to NIL-related stressors, the Transfer Portal now adds an additional layer of stressors on coaches’ mental health. Monetary rewards aren’t the only shift in the student-athlete experience; they can now change schools without facing penalties. Comparable to employees leaving one company for another, student-athletes are now allowed to do the same: NCAA now allows all Division I athletes to transfer schools and be immediately eligible, provided they meet academic requirements
[44]
. In the past, transferring student-athletes had to sit out for a year as a penalty. However, athletes now have greater autonomy and freedom to switch programs at their discretion. Introduced in 2018, the Transfer Portal was created as a compliance tool to streamline the transfer process, enhance transparency, and empower student-athletes
[45]
. Since 2018, there has been a sharp rise in the number of student-athletes entering the Transfer Portal in men’s collegiate basketball. This spring saw a record 1962 men’s basketball players enter the NCAA Transfer Portal, translating to over five players per roster on teams that have only 13 scholarship spots
[46]
. Across all sports in collegiate athletics, the number of athletes entering the portal reached 13,025 in 2024, up from 9806 in 2021
[47]
. This marks a notable increase in athletes transferring between schools. Student-athletes have taken advantage of the rule change of not having to sit out for a season, creating increased movement from school to school.
The growing revenue-generating model of college athletics, along with the potential for universities and their coaches to earn significant revenue and compensation, creates strong incentives for recruiting and retaining top athletes
[48]
. Similar to “free agency” in professional sports, (i.e., the ability for an athlete to change teams when their contract expires and make a choice on where they want to play next based on contracts), college sports have now embarked on a parallel path. Given the autonomy that student-athletes are afforded to change schools and test their market value for NIL, some coaches have engaged in “tampering” by using boosters, Collectives, and other resources to entice student-athletes to enter the Transfer Portal and choose their program. Impermissibly recruiting athletes from another university violates NCAA policy, but coaches have engaged in tampering activities more often in the Transfer Portal era. Student-athletes who perform well in lower conferences are usually enticed to transfer to a higher conference with more NIL resources and visibility. One Power 5 conference coach stated that “Every one of my players except for the ones who went pro were tampered with during the year. Everyone —by Christmas.”
[49]
. Another former coach said “My best player had six agents reaching out to him during the course of the end of the year talking about, ‘Hey, you need to sign with an agent and transfer high-major. If you go back to (your school), you’re leaving a lot of money on the table’”
[49]
. Thus, coaches are expressing frustration with not only the increased mobility of players in the Transfer Portal era, but also with tampering permeating college basketball.
The Movement Creates Stress
With the broader context of NIL legislative changes and the relaxed transfer restrictions have played a significant role in these shifting patterns
[50]
mental health has been impacted by these changes. And not just the mental health of the student-athlete, but of the coaches as well. For student-athletes, research has highlighted mental health as a primary reason for student-athletes changing schools
[51]
. When surveyed about roster management, nearly one-third of head coaches across all three divisions expressed significant concern over the potential for player transfers
[52]
. At the same time, 25% of Division I coaches, 18% of Division II coaches, and 12% of Division III coaches reported high levels of stress related to the perceived necessity of recruiting four-year transfers into their programs
[52]
.
Consequently, the Transfer Portal adds an extra layer of organizational stress for coaches. Since the significant rise in the number of student-athletes transferring between schools, concerns about tampering by coaches and the heightened stress among coaches managing roster changes have been prevalent. Managing a roster has become more intricate than ever, requiring coaches to navigate frequent player transfers and adapt to constantly shifting team compositions. Likewise, coaches may be under the added strain of performance stress, having to ensure that their student-athletes remain engaged in their team and accumulate wins to mitigate student-athletes leaving for another school. They must work hard to keep their athletes satisfied and motivated to prevent transfers, which further compounds their personal stress and workload. Thus, while great for the autonomy of student-athletes, the Transfer Portal very likely creates added stress on coaches due to these new and demanding tasks piled upon the mountain of existing expectations.
6. A Need for Data and Call for Action
Baylor coach Scott Drew said it best: “If we don’t change some things, we’re going to lose some coaches”
[53]
. This means that if collegiate athletics doesn’t create more parameters and regulations around NIL and the Transfer Portal, coaches may leave the industry because they see the current model as unsustainable. Before the NIL legislation changes in 2021, managing a roster was relatively straightforward: each men’s basketball team was allotted 13 scholarships, athletes who wanted to transfer schools had to sit out an entire season, reducing their incentive to move, and athletes weren’t allowed to make money. Now, starting with the 2025-2026 season, the scholarship limit will increase from 13 to 15, student-athletes will also have greater freedom to transfer between schools with fewer penalties, and coaches are now tasked with raising NIL funds to support their players. These changes, such as the increased financial compensation for athletes and the ease of transferring between schools, may add significant stress to coaches, who must now navigate new challenges in roster management and recruitment. While prior research has already found that coaches perceive NIL as a form of inequity and that coaches also foresee a potential for future term culture and mental health challenges
[43]
, more research on the topic is needed. The manuscript argues for increased attention to the mental health of coaches, noting that their psychological distress can be as severe as that experienced by elite athletes. It highlights recent revelations from prominent coaches like Danny Hurley of the University of Connecticut, who shared his struggles with panic attacks and whose story underscores the hidden pressures and emotional toll of coaching despite the perception of public success. Similarly, Nick Saban’s decision to retire from coaching, despite a successful season atop a legendary career, reflects the growing stress and demands associated with modern coaching, including the complexities introduced by NIL and Transfer Portal regulations. It is possible, as Coach Saban alluded to, that the introduction of NIL and the Transfer Portal may intensify these stressors, as coaches deal with the complexities of new regulations and heightened competition for athletes.
This manuscript presents a twofold call to action: 1) to expand research on how recent changes in collegiate athletics affect coaches’ mental health, and 2) to foster more discussions that mobilize resources aimed at addressing the needs of not only student-athletes, but coaches as well. Given the existing pressures of performance, organizational demands, and self-related stress pre-NIL and Transfer Portal, it is crucial for stakeholders to comprehend how these developments in collegiate athletics impact these stressors. A comprehensive examination of coaches’ experiences and behaviors in the NIL and Transfer Portal era is essential, emphasizing the need for empirical research on how the evolving landscape of collegiate athletics influences coaches’ psychological well-being. The authors also ponder which one of the three stressors coaches cope with most and how years of experience coaching impact the pressure to perform. In a similar vein, collegiate athletics systems should be engaging in conversations about how to best support coaches during these novel times. With such an enhanced emerging infrastructure surrounding the well-being of our student-athletes, the authors challenge athletic directors with a looming question: How are you supporting your coaches during these unique and challenging times?
Acknowledgements
E.J.F expressed gratitude to all the coaches “in the arena” who have poured their lives into others, pedagogy, and nurturing the game of basketball.
References
Pilkington, V., Rice, S.M., Walton, C.C., Gwyther, K., Olive, L., Butterworth, M., et al. (2022) Prevalence and Correlates of Mental Health Symptoms and Well-Being among Elite Sport Coaches and High-Performance Support Staff. Sports Medicine-Open, 8, Article No. 89. >https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-022-00479-y
Sweeney, K. (2024) Dan Hurley Masters Winning Formula at UConn with Back-to-Back Men’s Titles. >https://www.si.com/college/2024/04/08/dan-hurley-winning-formula-uconn-national-championship
Zakrajsek, R.A., Raabe, J., Readdy, T., Erdner, S. and Bass, A. (2019) Collegiate Assistant Coaches’ Perceptions of Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Thwarting from Head Coaches: A Qualitative Investigation. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 32, 28-47. >https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2019.1581855
NCAA (2011) Head Coach Control NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1. >http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/AMA/legislative_actions_issues/LSDBi/HeadCoachControl.pdf
Low, C. (2024) How Alabama Moved from Nick Saban to Kalen DeBoer in 49 Hours. >https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39623503/how-alabama-moved-nick-saban-kalen-deboer-49-hours
Egan, K.P. (2019) Supporting Mental Health and Well-Being among Student-Athletes. Clinics in Sports Medicine, 38, 537-544. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csm.2019.05.003
Gouttebarge, V., Aoki, H., Verhagen, E.A.L.M. and Kerkhoffs, G.M.M.J. (2017) A 12-Month Prospective Cohort Study of Symptoms of Common Mental Disorders among European Professional Footballers. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 27, 487-492. >https://doi.org/10.1097/jsm.0000000000000388
NCAA (2024) New NCAA Mental Health Best Practices Approved for All Schools to Follow. >https://www.ncaa.org/news/2024/1/10/media-center-new-ncaa-mental-health-best-practices-approved-for-all-schools-to-follow.aspx
NCAA and Sport Science Institute (2016) Mental Health Best Practices: Understanding and Supporting Student-Athlete Mental Health.
Eckenrod, M.R., Hill, H., Thompson, M., Neelis, L.A. and Donahue, P.T. (2023) National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Assistant Coaches’ Understanding and Use of Mental Performance and Mental Health Services. The Sport Psychologist, 37, 190-200. >https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2022-0163
Kegelaers, J., Wylleman, P., van Bree, I.N.A., Wessels, F. and Oudejans, R.R.D. (2021) Mental Health in Elite-Level Coaches: Prevalence Rates and Associated Impact of Coach Stressors and Psychological Resilience. International Sport Coaching Journal, 8, 338-347. >https://doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2020-0066
NCAA (2023) NCAA Coach Well-Being Study. >https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2023/1/25/ncaa-coach-well-being-study.aspx
Beebe, K.E. and Petrie, T.A. (2024) On the Frontline of Athlete Mental Health: The Mental Health Literacy of NCAA Coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 38, 38-47. >https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2023-0007
Schneiderman, N., Ironson, G. and Siegel, S.D. (2005) Stress and Health: Psychological, Behavioral, and Biological Determinants. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 607-628. >https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144141
Sarkar, M. and Fletcher, D. (2014) Psychological Resilience in Sport Performers: A Review of Stressors and Protective Factors. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32, 1419-1434. >https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.901551
Powell, S.M., Fasczewski, K.S, Stevens Jr., N., Tocci, N.D., Jewell, S., Blumberg, J., et al. (2022) Pressure, Stress, and Coping: Exploring the Professional Demands of NCAA Division I Coaching. Journal of Sport Behavior, 45, 77-94.
DeWolfe, C.E. and Dithurbide, L. (2022) Beware of the Blues: Wellbeing of Coaches and Support Staff Throughout the Olympic Games. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 17, 1243-1257. >https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541221116880
Wright, S.A., Walker, L.F. and Hall, E.E. (2023) Effects of Workplace Stress, Perceived Stress, and Burnout on Collegiate Coach Mental Health Outcomes. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 5, Article 974267. >https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2023.974267
Yoshonis, S. (2023) Highest-Paid State Official in 43 States Is a College Coach; Louisi ana in Top 5. >https://www.brproud.com/sports/college-sports/lsu/highest-paid-state-official-in-43-states-is-a-college-coach-louisiana-in-top-5/
NCAA (2023) How Much Experience Coaches Have When They Reach Their First Final Four. >https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/bracketiq/2023-04-04/how-much-experience-coaches-have-when-they-reach-their-first-final-four
Mallett, C.J. and Hanrahan, S.J. (2004) Elite Athletes: Why Does the ‘Fire’ Burn So Brightly? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5, 183-200. >https://doi.org/10.1016/s1469-0292(02)00043-2
Tashman, L.S., Tenenbaum, G. and Eklund, R. (2010) The Effect of Perceived Stress on the Relationship between Perfectionism and Burnout in Coaches. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 23, 195-212. >https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800802629922
Cunningham, G.B. and Sagas, M. (2005) Access Discrimination in Intercollegiate Athletics. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 29, 148-163. >https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723504271706
Thelwell, R.C., Wagstaff, C.R.D., Rayner, A., Chapman, M. and Barker, J. (2016) Exploring Athletes’ Perceptions of Coach Stress in Elite Sport Environments. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35, 44-55. >https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1154979
Fletcher, D. and Hanton, S. (2003) Sources of Organizational Stress in Elite Sports Performers. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 175-195. >https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.17.2.175
Woodman, T. and Hardy, L. (2001) A Case Study of Organizational Stress in Elite Sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 207-238. >https://doi.org/10.1080/104132001753149892
Levy, A., Nicholls, A., Marchant, D. and Polman, R. (2009) Organisational Stressors, Coping, and Coping Effectiveness: A Longitudinal Study with an Elite Coach. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4, 31-45. >https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.4.1.31
Graham, J.A., Smith, A.B. and Dixon, M.A. (2019) Choosing between Work and Family: Analyzing the Influences of Work, Family, and Personal Life among College Coaches. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 12, 427-453.
Taylor, E.A., Siegele, J.L., Smith, A.B. and Hardin, R. (2018) Applying Career Construction Theory to Female National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Conference Commissioners. Journal of Sport Management, 32, 321-333. >https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2017-0179
Fleming, D. (2007) Away Games. ESPN. >https://www.espn.com/espnmag/story?id=3622523
Wiese-Bjornstal, D. and Weiss, M. (2009) Promoting Positive Youth Development through Physical Activity. President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Research Digest, Series 10, No. 3.
Murphy, D., Murphy, D., Thamel, P. and Thamel, P. (2024) NCAA, Power 5 Agree to Deal That Will Let Schools Pay Players. >https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/40206364/ncaa-power-conferences-agree-allow-schools-pay-players
Parrish, G. (2023) Candid Coaches: What NIL Price Is a Projected High-Major Starter in the Transfer Looking Portal Looking For? >https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/candid-coaches-what-nil-price-is-a-projected-high-major-starter-in-the-transfer-looking-portal-looking-for/
Givony, J. (2024) Great Osobor Transferring to Washington with Big NIL Deals. >https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/40137329/great-osobor-transferring-washington-big-nil-deals
Nakos, P. (2022) What Are NIL Collectives and How Do They Operate? >https://www.on3.com/nil/news/what-are-nil-collectives-and-how-do-they-operate/
Dellenger, R. (2023) Ole Miss Collective Director Walker Jones, a Witness at the Hearing, Says Collectives are Responsible for 80% of NIL Compensation. Roughly 20% Is from Brands and Such. >https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status/1714290608209379775
Low, C. (2024) Tennessee Increases Ticket Prices by 10% to Help Pay Athletes. >https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/41302985/tennessee-ups-season-ticket-prices-10-help-pay-athletes
Wood, S. (2021) More Money, More Problems. Texas A&M Journal of Property Law, 7, 287-313. >https://doi.org/10.37419/jpl.v7.i2.6
Stephenson, L. (2022) More Money, More Problems? A Look into the Psychological Ramifications of Name, Image, and Likeness Deals in College Athletics. The University of Alabama School.
Grambeau, K. (2021) Student-Athlete Perceptions of Name, Image, and Likeness Compensation (Order No. 28318630). ProQuest Dissertations&Theses Global Closed Collection. >https://proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fdissertations-theses%2Fstudent-athlete-perceptions-name-image-likeness%2Fdocview%2F2546604592%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D11620
Simmons, D. (2023) NIL Deals Need Reformation: Uniform Legislation Needed to Protect Student. Washburn Law Journal, 63, 125-157.
Economou, P.J. and Gamble, A. (2024) Navigating an Intercollegiate Athletes’ Transition Related to the Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) Interim Policy. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 1-10. >https://doi.org/10.1080/21520704.2024.2348153
Newell, E.M. and Kaur Sethi, S. (2023) Exploring the Perception of Division I Coaches and Administrators about International Collegiate Athlete Exclusion from Name, Image, and Likeness Opportunities. Journal of Sport Management, 37, 345-358. >https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2022-0141
NCAA (2024) Division I Council Approves Changes to Transfer Rules. >https://www.ncaa.org/news/2024/4/17/media-center-division-i-council-approves-changes-to-transfer-rules.aspx
Johnson, G. (2019) What the NCAA Transfer Portal Is … and What It Isn’t. NCAA Champion Magazine. >https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/2/8/media-center-what-the-ncaa-transfer-portal-is-and-what-it-isn-t
Moore, C.J., Marks, B. and Tucker, K. (2024) College Basketball Confidential: What’s Driving the Rising Costs in the Transfer Portal? The New York Times. >https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5644106/2024/07/18/college-basketball-transfer-portal-nil-money/
NCAA (2024) Transfer Portal Data: Division I Student-Athlete Transfer Trends. >https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2022/4/25/transfer-portal-data-division-i-student-athlete-transfer-trends.aspx
Josh, L. (2023) BYU Law Review. Forthcoming. >https://ssrn.com/abstract=4366040
Moore, C.J., Marks, B. and Tucker, K. (2024) College Basketball Confidential: Tampering, Transfer Portal Free-for-All and What’s Next. The New York Times. >https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5648790/2024/07/22/college-basketball-transfer-portal-nil/
Browndorf, C. (2021) A Perfect Storm: Transfer Restrictions, Pay-for-Play, and the Future of Collegiate Athletics. Mississippi Sports Law Review, 10, 5-41.
NCAA (2023) College Sports Not Immune to Mental Health Challenges. >https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/5/4/media-center-college-sports-not-immune-to-mental-health-challenges.aspx#:~:text=Among%20the%20student%2Dathletes%20in,as%20part%20of%20the%20decision
NCAA (2023) NCAA Coaches Report Increased Focus on Mental Health, Detail Personal Challenges. >https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/1/26/media-center-ncaa-coaches-report-increased-focus-on-mental-health-detail-personal-challenges.aspx
Norlander, M. (2023) Citing Burnout from NIL, Transfer Portal and Non-Stop Recruiting, College Basketball Coaches Make Big Changes. >https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/citing-burnout-from-nil-transfer-portal-and-non-stop-recruiting-college-basketball-coaches-make-big-changes/