Investigating the impact of conference realignment on rivalry in intercollegiate athletics.

Havard, Cody T. ; Wann, Daniel L. ; Ryan, Timothy D. 等

Investigating the Impact of Conference Realignment on Rivalry in Intercollegiate Athletics

From 2010 to 2013, numerous institutions of higher education decided to change their athletic conference affiliation (i.e., Adelson, 2012; Big East, 2011; Maisel, 2011, Peloquin, 2013). Among these schools, Texas A&M University and the University of Missouri chose to leave the Big 12 Conference for the Southeastern Conference, West Virginia University, Syracuse University, and the University of Pittsburgh started a staggered departure from the Big East Conference, the University of Nebraska and University of Colorado joined the Big Ten and Pacific 12 Conferences, respectively, and Texas Christian University (TCU) chose to end their future relationship with the Big East to join the Big 12. Conference realignment has and will continue to fundamentally alter the traditional rivalries these and numerous other schools share with rival institutions and fan bases, along with the makeup of athletic conferences themselves. With the loss of traditional rivalries, many fans, schools, and marketers are left to search for other teams to fill the void left by conference realignment. The primary interest of the current study was to quantitatively investigate how rivalry in intercollegiate athletics is affected by conference realignment, and explore some marketing implications of the phenomenon for sport administrators.

According to the disposition of mirth theory (Zillman & Cantor, 1976), a person will rejoice if someone they dislike is unsuccessful, and the sport disposition theory (Zillman, Bryant, & Sapolsky, 1989) asserts that fans will cheer the failures of their opponent in direct competition. Kilduff, Elfenbein, and Staw (2010) have investigated the psychology of rivalry, and a number of studies have shed light onto how a rivalry impacts fan behavior (Cialdini & Richardson, 1980; Davies, Veloutsou, & Costa, 2006; Hillman, Cuthbert, Bradley, & Lang, 2004; Luellen & Wann, 2010; Sierra, Taute, & Heiser, 2010; Wann & Dolan, 1994; Wann & Grieve, 2005; Wann et al., 2006), willingness to consider committing anonymous acts of aggression (Wann, Haynes, McLean, & Pullen, 2003; Wann, Petersen, Cothran, & Dykes, 1999; Wann & Waddill, in press), and degree of perceptions of rival teams and fans (Havard, Gray, Gould, Sharp, & Schaffer, 2013).

Sport rivalry has been defined as "a fluctuating adversarial relationship existing between two teams, players, or groups of fans, gaining significance through on-field competition, on-field or off-field incidences, proximity, demographic makeup, and/or historical occurrence(s)" (Havard et al., 2013). Considering the recent changes in conference affiliation and its impact on rivalries, the current study investigated how realignment impacted fan perceptions of rival teams and willingness to consider committing anonymous acts of aggression toward rival participants in the former and new conference. Specifically, the current study examines if significant fan perceptual differences exist between the current and anticipated rival, the percentage of fans willing to consider committing anonymous acts of aggression toward participants of the current and anticipated rival teams, and if that willingness is significantly different regarding the current and anticipated rival teams. Because schools in the study have recently joined their respective new conferences (either competing in first or second season), the teams they identified as rivals in their current conference can still be seen as anticipated instead of established rivals, perhaps because the teams have not played many head-to-head competitions. For this reason, the term current rival is synonymous with the older, more established rival.

Review of Literature

Rivalry in Sport

According to competition and comparison theory, people like to favorably compare to another in an attempt to display superiority (Mowen, 2004). This desire for superiority can be one reason why individuals choose to participate in activities in which they can be successful or display efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Another way to feel better about oneself is to identify with other successful people or groups (Turner, 1982), take on the collective identity of the group (Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004), and derive vicarious achievement through that person, group, or team (Bandura, 1977; Cialdini et al., 1976; Snyder, Lassegard, & Ford, 1986; Tajfel, 1981). This vicarious achievement can also be derived from associating with fans of a favorite team. Additionally, unit relations in balance theory (Heider, 1958) asserts that people interact with others in dyadic and triadic relationships, helping to explain how sport fans of rival teams derive perceptions and feelings about out-group members (Havard et al., 2013). One way a group that shares a collective identity (fans of a favorite team in this example) bond together is by differentiating between members of their in-group and an out-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Sheriff, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sheriff, 1961). Typically, members of the in-group will describe actions of their group more favorably than those of out-group members, a phenomenon referred to as intergroup linguistic bias (or favoritism) (Maass, Salvi, Arcuri, & Semin, 1989).

In-group bias has been displayed in sport through fans' descriptions and evaluations of favorite and rival teams, players, and fans (Wann & Dolan, 1994; Wann & Grieve, 2005; Wann et al., 2006). Similarly, Cialdini and Richardson (1980) found that college students described the characteristics of their university more favorably than that of an identified rival. In fact, investigations of international soccer fans found that rivalry impacted perceptions toward team sponsors (Davies, Veloutsou, & Costa, 2006) and willingness to help others in emergency situations (Levine, Prosser, Evans, & Reicher, 2005).

Disposition of mirth theory states that a person will experience joy when someone they dislike is unsuccessful (Zillman & Cantor, 1976). This is similar to the German term schadenfreude, which asserts that one takes pleasure in the demise of another (Kahle & Close, 2011). The disposition of mirth theory was tested in the sport setting by Zillman and his colleagues (1989). They found that fans tended to cheer for the successes of their favorite team and failures of the opposing team in direct competition. It is reasonable that fans would cheer for their favorite team and against an opponent or rival in direct competition as one team's success depends on the other's failure. Of particular interest concerns how fans feel when their favorite team's rival is playing someone other than the favorite team. Mahony and Moorman (1999) found that National Basketball Association fans were more likely to watch their rival team play a team other than the favorite if the rival was a direct threat to the favorite team or if the rival was likely to lose the game. Havard (in press) qualitatively investigated fan perceptions toward rival teams' competition against others and found that some fans enjoyed seeing their rival team lose to teams other than the favorite team. Based on the aforementioned research regarding rivalry in sport (Davies et al., 2006; Havard, in press; Havard et al., 2013; Levine et al., 2005; Mahony & Moorman, 1999; Wann & Dolan, 1994; Wann & Grieve, 2005; Wann et al., 2006), and the different ways fans treat members of the in-group and out-group (Cialdini & Richardson, 1980; Maass et al., 1966; Sherrif et al., 1961; Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), Hypothesis 1 was offered to explain how conference realignment will impact fans' perceptions toward rival teams.

H1: Fans will possess stronger negative perceptions of the current rival than the anticipated rival.

Sport Fan Aggression

Lee (1985) asserts that rivalry in sport has the capacity to allow fans to display in-group bias, and without control, can lead to antisocial behavior among rival fan groups. Recent examples of fan violence and deviance in United States professional sport include fan fights at games between the Oakland Raiders and the San Francisco 49ers (Killion, 2011) and the Los Angeles Dodgers and the San Francisco Giants (Winton, 2011). One of many examples illustrating how in-group bias can lead to deviant behavior at the intercollegiate level is the University of Alabama fan that poisoned trees on the Auburn University campus following the Tigers' 2010 football national championship (Schlabach, 2011). Some researchers assert that level of fan identification with a favorite team does not necessarily lead to increased fan aggression (Dimmock & Grove, 2005; Lewis, 2007). However, research on sport fan identification has found that fans with higher levels of identification with their favorite team were more likely to consider committing anonymous acts of aggression against rival players, coaches, and fans than those with lower levels of affiliation (Wann et al., 2003; Wann et al., 1999; Wann & Waddill, in press). Based on the existing literature, Hypothesis 2 was offered to explain how conference realignment affects fans' willingness to consider committing anonymous acts of aggression toward rival participants.

H2: Fans will be more likely to consider committing anonymous acts of aggression toward participants of the current rival team than the anticipated rival team.

Method

Participants

Participants were 168 fans of schools affected by conference realignment that followed their favorite intercollegiate teams through online team-specific web sites (e.g., texaggs.com; syracusefan.com; killerfrogs.com; tigerboard.com). Specifically, a link to the survey was posted on non-subscription-based fan sites and visitors were given a chance to complete the instrument. These fans were chosen because of their affinity to their favorite institutions (Gibson, Willming, & Holdnak, 2002), and online sampling allows a broad range of people the opportunity to participate that may not otherwise have the chance in paper-and-pencil distribution (Gaiser & Schreiner, 2009). Non-subscription sites were used to provide a broader range of people the opportunity to participate. The vast majority of fans were Caucasian (72.0%) males (92.3%) that were alumni of the university where their favorite team played (64.9%). Further, the majority of participants (58.3%) indicated that their favorite team had beaten the current rival in the most recent contest. Participant age ranged from 18 to 71 (M = 37.60, SD = 13.25), with 32.8% being 22 to 30 years of age. Further, participants reported being a fan of their favorite team six to 63 years (M = 24.40, SD = 13.63). Forty-four percent of participants indicated they spent 0-9 hours following their favorite team online, and 34.7% were season ticket holders for the favorite team.

Instrumentation and Procedure

Participants were administered a survey containing 64 questions through formsite.com. After providing consent and indicating they were at least 18 years of age, participants identified their favorite intercollegiate athletics team, the favorite team's rival in the current conference, and the anticipated rival in the future conference. The Sport Spectator Identification Scale (SSIS: Wann & Branscombe, 1993) was used to assess level of identification with the favored team. The SSIS contains seven Likert-scale items with response options ranging from 1 (low identification) to 8 (high identification). The SSIS has demonstrated to be a reliable measure of fan identification with a favorite team in numerous investigations (e.g., Wann & Grieve, 2005; Hillman et al., 2004).

Participants were then asked a series of demographic and fandom behavior items about their favorite and rival team in the current conference to give a better picture of the sample. Specifically, we asked participants about their relationship with the favorite team (Alum, Fan, etc.), how long they had been fans of the favorite team, if they were a season ticket holder, how much money and time they spent following the favorite team, how many games they attended or watched in the previous season, and the win/loss record for the previous year. Participants were also asked how many games of the identified current and anticipated rival teams they watched on television/Internet the previous season and the outcome of the most recent game between the favorite and current rival team.

Next, participants completed the Sport Rivalry Fan Perception Scale (SRFPS: Havard et al., 2013) for the rival in the current conference. The SRFPS was validated on a sample of highly identified fans of intercollegiate football and men's basketball, and is designed to assess perceptions toward the rival team regarding competition against teams other than the favorite team (Out-group Competition {Indirect} against Others, OIC), academic prestige of the rival institution (Out-group Academic Prestige, OAP), rival fan sportsmanship (Out-group Sportsmanship, OS), and sense of satisfaction when the favorite team beats the rival team in direct competition (Sense of Satisfaction, SoS). It utilizes a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A sample question from the SRFPS is "Fans of my favorite team's rival are not well behaved at games."

Following completion of the SRFPS for the current conference rival, participants responded to six questions measuring willingness to consider committing anonymous acts of aggression toward the star player and coach of the rival team in the current conference (Wann et al., 2003; Wann et al., 1999; Wann & Waddill, in press). A sample question read, "If you could remain completely anonymous and there was no possibility of arrest or retaliation, would you consider tripping the star player of the rival team?"

Once participants completed the section addressing their favorite team's rival in the current conference, they provided their responses to the SRFPS and anonymous acts of aggression scales using the anticipated rival in the future conference as the target. On the final portion of the survey, participants were asked to provide general demographic information and leave a comment about their perceptions of rivalry and conference realignment. At the conclusion of the survey, participants were thanked for their time and given a chance to indicate if they wished to discuss their perceptions of their favorite and rival teams at a later date. The survey took approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete. No incentive was offered for completion.

Results

The items on the SSIS, SRFPS subscales, and those addressing anonymous acts of aggression were combined to form a single index of each measure (the items were summed and divided by the number of items for each measure to provide a single average score for each scale). Means, standard deviations, and reliability alphas appear in Table 1. Gender was not analyzed in the current study due to the sizable difference between male (92.3%) and female (6.0%) participants, with 1.7% not reporting. Participants were highly identified with their favorite team, as indicated by a mean score of 7.21 and standard deviation of 0.77 (the maximum score was 8.00 on the SSIS). Thus, it is evident that highly identified fans often follow their favorite team on team-specific fan pages. Frequency distributions of the four most identified favorite teams, rival teams in the current conference, and anticipated rival in the future conference are presented in Table 2. During data collection, questions measuring OIC in the SRFPS were worded so that a 7 indicated strong agreement that a person would support their rival in competition against teams other than the favorite team. For uniformity sake with the other subscale scores, the OIC questions were reverse coded during analysis so that a response of 1 indicated an individual would support their favorite team's rival in competition against others and 7 indicated they would not support the rival team. A total of four tests were used to analyze the data, therefore a significance level of .0125 was used for each analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

H1 predicted that fans would show stronger negative perceptions toward the current rival than the anticipated rival using the SRFPS subscales. Prior to testing H1, a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) tested for significant differences regarding the subscales among the identified favorite teams, using SPSS 20 with a significance level of .0125 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Wilk's [lambda] was significant .881, F (16, 489.45) = 3.35, p < .001, indicating differences existed regarding identified favorite team. Specifically, significant differences were found regarding OIC (F (4, 19.58) = 6.91, p < .001) between Texas A&M (M = 6.24, SD = 1.23) and TCU (M = 4.43, SD = 2.06), and Missouri (M = 6.04, SD = 1.60) and TCU (M = 4.43 SD = 2.06). Additionally, Texas A&M (M = 2.73, SD = 1.63) fan' scores on the OAP subscale were significantly different (F (4, 20.58) = 6.50, p < .001) from Missouri (M = 4.14, SD = 1.82) and TCU (M = 4.41, SD = 1.90). TCU (M = 4.41, SD = 1.90) and Syracuse (M = 2.92, SD = 1.62) fan responses on OAP also significantly differed. However, the current study investigated the main effects difference in rival perceptions caused by conference realignment, therefore statistical controls were used to test H1.

Because team differences were present, H1 was tested using a two-way MANOVA with a significance level of .0125 to determine if significant differences existed between the SRFPS subscales toward the current and anticipated rival while controlling for possible differences caused by the favorite team and interaction of the fixed variables. After controlling for possible differences among favorite teams and the interaction, main effects Wilk's [lambda] .872, F (4, 323) = 11.87, p < .001 illustrated there was a significant difference in fan perceptions toward the current and anticipated rival teams, illustrating the robustness of the result. Examining the univariate tests, the main effects for the OIC subscale was significant, F (1, 125.88) = 41.11, p < .001, while no significant differences existed regarding OAP, OS, or SoS. Regarding OIC, fans were less likely to support their current rival team in competition against others (M = 5.60, SD = 1.80) than the anticipated rival (M = 4.12, SD = 1.81), thus partially supporting H1.

Frequency distributions were analyzed to identify the percentages of fans willing to consider committing anonymous acts of aggression toward the star player and coach of both the current and anticipated rival. These percentages are presented in Table 3, and responses tended to group at both ends of the 8-point Likert-scale. The vast majority of participants indicated they would not consider committing anonymous acts of aggression on the star player or coach from the rival team in either the current or future conference. Regarding anonymous acts of aggression against the star player of the current and anticipated rival team, respectively, 71.4% and 81.5% indicated they definitely would not consider tripping, 85.7% and 91.0% definitely would not consider breaking the leg, and 85.7% and 91.0% definitely would not consider physical harm. Further, an overwhelming number of participants indicated they would not consider anonymous acts of aggression toward the current and anticipated coach. Specifically, 67.9% indicated they definitely would not trip the current rival coach, and 80.8% definitely would not trip the anticipated rival coach. Regarding breaking the rival coach's leg, 83.9% definitely would not consider the act toward the current rival, and 89.8% indicated the same for the coach of the anticipated rival. Additionally, 83.8% and 89.8% indicated they definitely would not consider hurting the coach of the current and anticipated rival, respectively. However, 13.1% indicated they definitely would consider tripping the star player and 16.1% indicated the same behavior toward the coach of the current rival team. Additionally, 5.4% of participants admitted they definitely would consider breaking the leg of the star player and 4.8% the coach's leg of the current rival. Further, 6.0% indicated they definitely would consider hurting the star player of the current rival, and 5.4% would do the same regarding the coach of the current rival. Regarding the anticipated rival, 6.5% definitely would consider tripping the star player and 7.8% the coach. A smaller percentage, 1.2% definitely would consider breaking the leg of the star player and 4.2% definitely would consider breaking the rival coach's leg. Finally, 1.2% definitely would consider hurting the star player of the anticipated rival, and 4.2% would do the same toward the coach of the anticipated rival.

H2 predicted that fans would be more willing to consider committing anonymous acts of aggression toward participants of the current rival than anticipated rival. An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test if significant differences between fans existed regarding identified favorite team, and found no significant differences were present. Therefore, H2 was tested using an ANOVA in SPSS 20, with a significance level of .0125 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Significant differences existed between willingness to consider committing anonymous acts of aggression toward participants of the current and anticipated rival teams, F (2, 12) = 5.27, p = .024. Further, fans were more willing to consider committing anonymous acts of aggression against participants of the current rival (M = 1.91, SD = 1.82) than the anticipated rival (M = 1.51, SD = 1.61). Thus, H2 was also supported.

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to quantitatively investigate how conference realignment might affect fan perceptions and willingness to consider committing anonymous acts of aggression toward current and anticipated rival teams in intercollegiate athletics. It is again important to note that the term current refers to the established rival in the former conference and anticipated refers to the rival in the new conference. This discussion will address the theoretical and marketing implications of the current study and present areas for future research. However, prior to discussing results it is important to address limitations with the current study. The large percentage of male respondents did not allow researchers to test if significant gender differences were present. Also, the high identification of participants toward their favorite team may have impacted results, as fans with varying levels of identification may have differed in their responses. The online nature of the survey may have affected participant responses, as the perceived invisibility of an online survey could have caused some participants to exaggerate responses.

As shown in Table 2, fans readily indicated the team they anticipated adopting as a rival in the conference their favorite team was joining. It is interesting to note that most Missouri fans identified Arkansas as their anticipated rival in the SEC, while Texas A&M fans indicated both Arkansas and LSU as potential rivals. The phenomenon of fans searching for anticipated rivals in the current study supports the disposition of mirth theory (Zillman & Cantor, 1976), sport disposition theory (Zillman et al., 1989), and the competition and comparison theory (Mowen, 2004). In other words, people desire to have someone they view as a rival and because their favorite team is joining a new conference there is a need for fans to identify a new rival before play in the new conference begins. Out-group derogation and negative perceptions was further supported by the strength of negative perceptions participants indicated having toward rival teams and players (Sherif et al., 1961). Many persons have a strong need for distinction (Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999). That is, people often need to feel as though their groups and those who comprise them are special and different from those in rival groups (Jetten, Spears, & Manstead, 1999) and the value of one's group can be, at least partially, a function of this distinctiveness (Hornsey & Jetten, 2004). A lack of distinctiveness with rival groups can potentially be threatening to the identities of highly identified in-group members (Branscombe et al., 1999). Sport fans can help fulfill their need for distinctiveness by perceiving their fans as special and unique from rival fans (Dimmock & Gucciardi, 2008; Holt, 1995). Thus, they are motivated to find a team (or teams) to identify as a rival.

Fans held stronger negative feelings toward the rival in their former conference than the anticipated one in the new conference in the OIC factor. Fans indicating they would not be willing to support their rival team in competition against other teams support research on intercollegiate athletics fans (Havard, in press). This could be a result of the history between the traditional rivals in the former conference and the anticipated move by the school to a new conference being viewed in a favorable light by fans, which was an overriding sentiment participants provided in the open comments box.

It may also be an offset of the in-group and out-group tendencies discussed in social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). For example, a group of fans supporting a favorite team serves as an in-group for a person, whereas a group of fans supporting the rival team acts as an out-group. However, fans also identify with the conference their favorite team plays in to a certain extent, and can act as an extended or larger in-group as well. For example, if a rival team is successful in post-season play some fans may rejoice in the fact that the rival's outcome reflects positively on the favorite team because of conference affiliation. This is seen annually when fans from different conferences debate which is considered to be the best in the respective sport. However, results in the current study illustrate that participants indicated they were not likely to support their rival team in competition against other teams, including post-season competition. This is also consistent with qualitative research where a number of fans stated they would support conference teams in a championship game, unless it was the identified rival (Havard, in press). For this reason, when a fan knows their favorite team is leaving a conference, they may start to qualify that decision by arguing the conference they are joining is better than the one being left, thus adopting the new conference as an extended in-group. When this occurs, the conference being left acts as out-group in addition to the respective rival team. Therefore, fans may display more support for an anticipated rival in the new conference knowing that their feelings may change once their favorite team has played the anticipated rival in future contests. Further, periphery members of an in-group tend to show more derogation toward out-group members to prove the strength of their membership with the in-group (Noel, Wann, & Branscombe, 1995). This may help to explain why participants held less negative perceptions toward the anticipated than current rival team.

It is alarming that a sizable minority of fans would consider committing anonymous acts of aggression toward rival participants, and supports research on fan deviance in sport (Wann et al., 2003; Wann et al., 1999; Wann & Waddill, in press). Although the vast majority of fans indicated they definitely would not consider committing anonymous acts of aggression toward participants of the rival team, the fans indicating they definitely would consider it should be a warning to school and sport administrators. This may be a result of the online data collection format, where participants may be more willing to derogate the rival than if face-to-face with a supporter of the rival team. It also could mean that highly identified fans aggressive tendencies toward rival teams have increased over the development of the rivalry, suggesting that the decision to not play a traditional rival leaving a conference for a prolonged period of time may be a responsible one.

When tested for differences, fans indicated they were more likely to consider committing anonymous acts of aggression toward participants of the current rival team than the anticipated rival team. While previous anonymous aggression research asserts that highly identified fans are more likely than low or moderately identified fans to consider committing anonymous aggressive acts toward rival participants (Wann et al., 2003; Wann et al., 1999; Wann & Waddill, in press), this was the first examination of the comparison between a current and anticipated rival. This appears logical conceptually because most fans have not had as much exposure to the anticipated rival team as the current rival team. It is noteworthy that frequency scores were higher for the coach than player for the current rival. This could be a result of the revolving door of intercollegiate players compared to coaches. In other words, maybe it is easier for fans to hold negative sentiments, and thus consider anonymous acts of aggression, toward a rival coach than player since the coach typically stays with the rival team longer than a specific player and many times becomes the face of the program. Further, it is not unheard of for players from an intercollegiate rival team to be drafted by a fan's favorite professional team, thus causing fans to choose whether to hold onto or decrease their animosity toward the player in some instances.

It was interesting that H1 was only partially supported, as the OIC subscale was the only significant difference that existed between fans regarding the current and anticipated rival teams. It was anticipated that fans would reserve stronger negative feelings for their current rival than anticipated rival. Further, the scores for the SRPFS subscales were remarkably similar, while fans indicated they were more likely to consider committing anonymous acts of aggression toward participants of the current rival team than the anticipated rival team. This could suggest that fans already started to move on after the decision to change conference affiliation was made and find a rival team in the new conference to fill the void caused by conference realignment, while still holding onto a level of animosity toward participants of the current rival team.

Implications

Findings from the current study carry many implications for researchers, school and conference administrators, and marketers. The current study adds to the intergroup relations and sport rivalry literature by providing evidence to explain how fans will react when their favorite team is impacted by conference realignment. The current study also provides further validation for using the SRFPS to measure degree of perceptions toward rival teams among highly identified fans. However, participant data indicates that future researchers should change the wording of the out-group competition against others (OIC) subscale to reflect the negative perceptions participants have toward their rival team.

Athletic administrators and marketing professionals can use findings from the current study to better promote favorite and rival teams to fans. The fact that the SRFPS subscales were similar with the exception of the OIC subscale indicates that administrators should begin marketing the anticipated rival teams in the new conference. Further, the frequency data provided in the current study could provide schools with a potential rival team in the new conference, which could also be beneficial to conference administrators and marketers when planning team and televised game schedules. Athletic programs changing conferences started promoting the move through such slogans as SECede, and Proud to be SEC, and focusing marketing efforts toward teams and future conference affiliation could prove beneficial to school administrators. Inspecting one of the many examples in intercollegiate athletics, Texas A&M and Texas have promoted their competitive relationship in all sports as the "Lone Star Showdown," as both universities promoted the on-field and on-court efforts of their rival teams through this marketing endeavor. With the departure of Texas A&M from the Big 12, it is an opportunity for administrators at both schools to begin marketing competitive relationships with other teams they will play regularly. In Texas A&M's case, some participants indicated in the open comment box that the move to the SEC was a chance for the university to distinguish itself from Texas and begin a new era in athletics. Due to these fan impressions, marketers should take full advantage of the school joining the SEC. For example, in Texas A&M's first year in the SEC, the institution received record-high donations (Kahn, 2013).

Conferences can also use findings from the current study to market new teams joining their conferences and begin to focus on new fan-based rivalries between new and existing member institutions. For example, in 2011 the Big Ten Conference decided to match the University of Nebraska and University of Iowa at the end of the regular season in football, with the game presently falling on Thanksgiving weekend. By marketing the competitive relationships of conference teams, administrators can work to build interest in the new members along with the idea of conference loyalty. It was indicated by several Texas A&M and Missouri fans that they felt teams in the SEC were more likely to support rival schools than in the Big 12. This sentiment may change over time, but conference administrators should take notice of these perceptions to better market the conference to various fan groups.

It is important that administrators and marketers pay attention to the fan aggression data from the current study. As previously stated, the results support research in the area (Wann et al., 2003; Wann et al., 1999; Wann & Waddill, in press), and administrators have to be cognizant of ways to market these competitive relationships in a safe and responsible way. Administrators want fans to gain excitement from the rival team without pushing the relationship too far so that some fans may overreact and display deviant behavior. Many rival institutions currently take part in joint ventures such as food drives to promote the friendly nature of the competitive relationship. A good example is the football game between Nebraska and Iowa mentioned earlier. After the conference decided to schedule the two schools at the conclusion of the football season, the universities decided to market the contest as the "Heroes Game" in an attempt to bring attention to the goodwill of citizens in each state (Shatel, 2011). These types of attempts highlight the fact that the competitive relationship is friendly in nature and tries to discourage fans from participating in deviant behavior. These efforts should be replicated on a grand scale.

Suggestions for Future Study

The current study provided many areas for future study. Regarding the high team identification and large percentage of male fans, future researchers should attempt to reach a broader participant pool. Future study could also measure perceptions of participants gathered via paper-and-pencil self-administered questionnaires to address the perceived invisibility of online survey collection. Wann and Waddill (in press) measured the willingness of fans to consider committing anonymous acts of aggression toward fans of the rival team in addition to the star player and coach, and future research should do the same. Focusing on fan aggression would benefit from the addition of these questions as it could provide interesting comparisons between perceived out-group fan sportsmanship and anticipated personal fan deviance. Participants' affinity toward the current and future conference was not measured in the current study, and future study could focus on this attachment. Measuring a fan's affinity to the conference could be useful in supporting the assertion made in the current study regarding the perceptions fans have about the former and new conference.

The current study investigated a known commodity to fans (current rival) versus an unknown commodity (anticipated rival). Since the identified teams in the current study had yet to change conferences at time of data collection, the current study relied on fan speculation as to whom the anticipated rival would be. This is evident by the fact that fans identified different teams as the anticipated rival. Further, as schools compete numerous seasons in the new conference, fan perceptions of the anticipated rival may change. Because of this, future study using the same favorite team fan bases should be conducted to test whether the anticipated rivals in fact became rivals of the favorite team, and how perceptions of such teams changed over time. Further, longitudinal data would also provide insight whether fans felt that conference realignment was beneficial to the institution and athletic programs in the long run. By replicating the current study after teams and fans are removed from the current rival team, researchers could also examine if fan perceptions are more negative toward the rival team in the new conference than the former conference once they have played a number of contests. Investigating how fan perceptions toward rival teams change the longer they are removed from the current rival could provide academics and practitioners with valuable information regarding establishing and fostering healthy athletic rivalries.

Research into fan perceptions regarding the conference they are leaving could provide interesting information for administrators and marketers. For example, how do perceptions of the current rival impact a fans image or attitudes toward the conference they are leaving? Further, do those perceptions of the current rival impact the image fans have of the conference they are joining? Most participants in the current study were fans of teams moving to a conference where their anticipated rival team(s) would be a further distance than was the case in the previous conference. Therefore, future study could also focus on how the distance from rival teams impacts fan perceptions. TCU joining the Big 12 is interesting because they share long-standing rivalries with many teams in the Big 12 from their time in the Southwest Conference. Their transition also warrants a case study investigation.

Future study should focus on the outcome of the latest rivalry game in forming a fan's degree of perceptions toward the rival team. Contrasting research exists regarding favorite team perceived failure and fan identification, as Wann and Branscombe (1990) found that highly identified fans were less likely than low or moderately identified fans to Cut Off Reflected Failure (CORFing: Snyder & Fromkin, 1980) following a loss and Bizman and Yinon (2002) adopted a somewhat different view. Further, Cialdini and Richardson (1980) asserted that highly identified fans might choose to Blast, or derogate the rival team when faced with perceived failure rather than CORF. For this reason, it would be of interest for future study to focus on different types of fan reactions to wins and losses at the hands of the rival team. For example, when a favorite team loses to its rival, do highly identified fans Blast the rival team or institution, accuse the rival of cheating, or call for a change within their favorite team (i.e., firing of coach(es)). Further, how does the loss of competition against the current rival impact fan perceptions toward the rival(s) in the new conference? In other words, if Texas A&M and Texas renew their rivalry after playing in different conferences for a number of years, how will fans' perceptions of the rival in the Southeastern Conference be impacted?

Longitudinal data would prove valuable to sport academics and administrators as well. A consensus of fans in the current study believed changing conferences was a good move for their favorite team. Research on reclassification in intercollegiate athletics indicates that stakeholders tend to hold a neutral to positive view of the athletic department years after the decision (Dwyer, Eddy, Havard, & Braa, 2010). For this reason, it would be interesting to gauge fan perceptions after the favorite team has competed in the new conference for several years, especially if they do not continue to play the traditional rival from the former conference.

Additional qualitative data is needed to gain further insight on fan perceptions of rivalry and conference realignment. There were also significant differences in SRFPS subscale scores regarding favorite team and the interaction factor, although further investigation of parameter estimates showed no direct interaction effects. However, this illustrates that there is more investigation needed to fully understand realignment and rivalry in intercollegiate athletics. Qualitative investigation should be combined with quantitative study to further investigate the rivalry and conference realignment phenomena. Further, it is worth conducting further investigation regarding the aggressive tendencies among a small minority of fans toward rival teams and participants, and why those tendencies differ between current and anticipated rival teams, and qualitative investigation is one way to accomplish this task. As sport marketers, it is important to pay attention to the perceptions and extreme actions of fans, no matter how small the group may be. Finally, as conference realignment continues, it is important that further research into the phenomenon be conducted.

The current investigation, along with those mentioned above, could be conducted at the professional sport level as well to determine if and how conference or division realignment impacts rivalry. The Houston Astros joined the American League in 2013, and it would be beneficial for team marketers to understand how that move will impact their ability to promote competitors in the new league in the coming years.

The current study investigated how perceptions and willingness to consider committing anonymous acts of aggression toward rival teams was impacted by conference realignment in intercollegiate athletics. Results show that participants were looking forward to joining the new conference, were beginning to identify a new team to share a competitive rivalry with, and that fans held stronger negative perceptions of the current rival than the anticipated rival in regards to supporting the rival in indirect competition. Further, participants were more willing to consider committing anonymous acts of aggression toward participants of the current rival than the anticipated rival. The study of rivalry in sport is important to both academics and administrators, as it can provide information to those given the task of marketing the on-field and on-court actions of favorite and rival teams. The current study provides valuable information to both parties, and warrants further investigation into rivalry and conference realignment.

References

Adelson, A. (2012, February 14). What now for Pitt? Retrieved from http://espn.go.com /blog/ncfnation/print?id=59379

Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multi dimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80-114.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 8, 191-215.

Big East introduces five new members (2011, December 8). Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.com/ news/football/article/2011-12-07/big-east-intro duces-five-new-members

Bizman, A., & Yinon, Y. (2002). Engaging in distancing tactics among sport fans: Effects on self-esteem ad emotional responses. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 381-392.

Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity(pp. 35-58). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375.

Cialdini, R. B., & Richardson, K. D. (1980). Two indirect tactics of impression management: Basking and blasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 406-415.

Davies, F., Veloutsou, C., & Costa, A. (2006). Investigating the influence of a joint sponsorship of rival teams on supporter attitudes and brand preferences. Journal of Marketing Communication, 12, 31-48.

Dimmock, J. A., & Grove, J. R. (2005). Relationship of fan identification to determinants of aggression. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 37-47.

Dimmock, J. A., & Gucciardi, D. F. (2008). The utility of modern theories of intergroup bias for research on antecedents to team identification. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 284-300.

Dwyer, B., Eddy, T., Havard, C., & Braa, L. (2010). Stakeholder perceptions of an athletic program's reclassification from NCAA Division II to NCAA Division I (FCS) membership: A case study. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 3, 76-97. Retrieved from http://csri-jiia.org/

Gaiser T. J., & Schreiner, A. E. (2009). A guide to conducting online research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Gibson, H., Willming, C., & Holdnak, A. (2002). "We're Gators ... Not just Gator fans": Serious leisure and University of Florida football. Journal of Leisure Research, 34, 397-425.

Havard, C. T. (in press). Glory Out of Reflected Failure: The examination of how rivalry affects sport fans. Sport Management Review.

Havard, C. T., Gray, D. P., Gould, J., Sharp, L. A., & Schaffer, J. R. (2013). Development and validation of the Sport Rivalry Fan Perception Scale (SRFPS). Journal of Sport Behavior, 36, 45-65.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.

Hillman, C. H., Cuthbert, B. N., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (2004). Motivated engagement to appetitive and aversive fanship cues: Psychophysiological responses of rival sport fans. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, 338-351.

Holt, D. B. (1995). How consumers consume: A typology of consumption practices. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 1-16.

Hornsey, M. J., & Jeten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 248-264.

Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1999). Group distinctiveness and intergroup discrimination. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity (pp. 107-126). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Kahle, L. R., & Close, A. G. (2011). Consumer behavior knowledge for effective sports and event marketing. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

Kahn, S. (2013, September 18). Texas A&M raises $740 million. Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/espn/print?id=9690028&type=story

Kilduff, G. J., Elfenbein, H. A., & Staw, B. M. (2010). The psychology of rivalry: A relationally dependent analysis of competition. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 943-969.

Killion, A. (2011, August 22). Increased security is logical step after more Bay Area fan violence. Sports Illustrated. Retrieved from http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers /ann_killion/08/22/49ers.Raiders.fans/index.html

Lee, M. J. (1985). From rivalry to hostility among sports fans. Quest, 38-49.

Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Reicher, S. (2005). Identity and emergency intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 343-353.

Lewis, J. M. (2007). Sports fan violence in North America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleton Publishers, Inc.

Luellen, T. B., & Wann, D. L. (2010). Rival salience and sport team identification. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19, 97-106.

Maass, A., Salvi, D., Arcuri, L., & Semin, G. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 981-993.

Mahony, D. F., & Moorman, A. M. (1999). The impact of fan attitudes on intentions to watch professional basketball teams on television. Sport Management Review, 2, 43-66.

Maisel, I (2011, November 2). Conference chaos envelops Missouri. Retrieved from http:// espn.go.com/espn/print?id=7200273&type=story

Mowen, J. C. (2004). Exploring the trait of competitiveness and its consumer behavior consequences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1&2), 52-63.

Noel, J. G., Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Peripheral ingroup membership status and public negativity toward outgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 127-137.

Peloquin, M. (2013, September 4). Conference realignment. Retrieved from http://collegesportsinfo.com/conference-realignment-grid/

Schlabach, M. (2011). Toomer's Corner poisoning a new low. Retrieved from http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mar k&id=6132246

Shatel, T. (2011, Jul 29). 'Heros' game about more than football. Omaha World-Herald. Retrieved from http://omaha.com/article/20110729/BIGRED/110729727

Sheriff, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sheriff, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robber's Cave experiment. Norman, OK: The University of Oklahoma.

Sierra, J. J., Taute, H. A., & Heiser, R. S. (2010). Personal opinions and beliefs as determinants of collegiate football consumption for revered and hated teams. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19, 143-153.

Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. New York, NY: Plenum.

Snyder, C. R., Lassegard, M., & Ford, C. E. (1986). Distancing after group success and failure: Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 , 382-388.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-48). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc.

Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15-40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1990). Die-hard and fair-weather fans: Effects of identification of BIRGing and CORFing tendencies. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 14, 103-117.

Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1993). Sports fans: Measuring degree of identification with the team. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 1-17.

Wann, D. L., & Dolan, T. J. (1994). Spectators' evaluations of rival and fellow fans. The Psychological Record, 44, 351-358.

Wann, D. L., & Grieve, F. G. (2005). Biased evaluations of in-group and out-group spectator behavior at sporting events: The importance of team identification and threats to social identity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 531-545.

Wann, D. L., Haynes, G., McLean, B., & Pullen, P. (2003). Sport team identification and willingness to consider anonymous acts of hostile aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 406-413.

Wann, D. L., Koch, K., Knoth, T., Fox, D., Aljubaily, H., & Lantz., C. D. (2006). The impact of team identification on biased predictions of player performance. The Psychological Record, 56, 55-66.

Wann, D. L., Peterson, R. R., Cothran, C., & Dykes, M. (1999). Sport fan aggression and anonymity: The importance of team identification. Social Behavior and Personality, 27, 567-602.

Wann, D. L., & Waddill, P. J. (in press). Predicting sport fans' willingness to consider anonymous acts of aggression: Importance of team identification and fan dysfunction. In C. Mohiyeddini (Ed.), Psychology of sports. Hauppauge, NY: Nova.

Winton, R. (2011, April 1). Giants fan critically beaten after Dodgers home opener. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/04/giants-fan-criticallybeaten-after- dodgers-home-opener-team-rivalry-may-be-factor.html

Zillman, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1976). A disposition theory of humor and mirth. In T. Chapman & H. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and application (pp. 93-115). London, UK: Wiley.

Zillman, D., Bryant, J., & Sapolsky (1989). Enjoyment from sports spectatorship. In J. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports, games, and play: Social and psychological viewpoints (2nd ed.) (pp. 241-278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Cody T. Havard is an assistant professor in sport commerce at The University of Memphis. His research interests involve fan perceptions of rival teams, consumer behavior, and the use of online social networking by athletes and sport organizations. Daniel L. Wann is a professor of psychology at Murray State University. His research interests include the causes and consequences of sport team identification.

Timothy D. Ryan is an associate professor in sport commerce at The University of Memphis. His research interests include employee and fan satisfaction.

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, reliability for SSIS, SRFPS,
SRFPS Subscales, and Anonymous Aggression

Scale                                             M     SD    [alpha]

Total Sport Spectator Identification Scale      7.21   0.77      .809
(SSIS)

Current Total Sport Rivalry Fan Perception      4.88   1.00      .785
Scale (SRFPS)

Current Out-group Competition (Indirect)        5.55   1.81      .883
against Others (OIC)

Current Out-group Academic Prestige (OAP)       3.57   1.90      .933

Current Out-group Sportsmanship (OS)            4.47   1.74      .931

Current Sense of Satisfaction (SoS)             5.93   1.02      .717

Anticipated Total Sport Rivalry Fan             4.51   0.95      .808
Perception Scale (SRFPS)

Anticipated Out-group Competition (Indirect)    4.12   1.81      .888
against Others (OIC)

Anticipated Out-group                           3.60   1.67      .952
Academic Prestige (OAP)

Anticipated Out-group                           4.50   1.47      .897
Sportsmanship (OS)

Anticipated Sense of                            5.80   1.13      .842
Satisfaction (SoS)

Total Anonymous Acts of Aggression              1.71   1.61      .946

Current Anonymous Acts of Aggression            1.91   1.82      .939

Anticipated Anonymous                           1.51   1.35      .929
Acts of Aggression

Table 2
Frequency Distributions of Favorite, Current,
and Anticipated Rival Teams.

Favorite Team

Team                       N       %

Missouri Tigers            49    28.0
Texas A&M Aggies           45    25.7
TCU Horned Frogs           35    20.0
Syracuse Orange            28    16.0

Current Rival Team

Team                       N       %

Kansas Jayhawks            49    28.0
Texas Longhorns            44    25.1
Boise State Broncos        32    18.2
Georgetown Hoyas           17     9.7

Anticipated Rival Team

Team                       N       %

LSU Tigers                 39    22.2
Arkansas Razorbacks        38    21.7
Baylor Bears               26    14.8
Boston College Eagles      11     6.2

Table 3
Frequency Distributions (percentages) of Fans Willingness to
Commit Anonymous Acts of Aggression toward Rival Participants

Response (Current/            1            2           3
Anticipated)
Item (Willingness to)    (Definitely
                         Would Not)

Trip Star Player         71.4 / 81.5   6.5 / 4.2   0.6 / 1.8
Trip Coach               67.9 / 80.8   5.4 / 3.0   2.4 / 1.8
Break Star Player Leg    85.7 / 91.0   3.6 / 3.0   1.8 / 0.6
Break Coach Leg          83.9 / 89.8   3.6 / 2.4   3.0 / 0.6
Hurt Star Player         85.7 / 91.0   3.0 / 3.0   1.8 / 0.0
Hurt Coach               83.8 / 89.9   3.6 / 2.4   2.4 / 0.0

Response (Current/           4           5           6
Anticipated)
Item (Willingness to)

Trip Star Player         3.0 / 3.0   4.2 / 3.0   1.2 / 0.0
Trip Coach               2.4 / 3.0   3.0 / 2.4   1.2 / 0.6
Break Star Player Leg    1.2 / 2.4   0.6 / 0.0   0.6 / 1.2
Break Coach Leg          1.2 / 1.8   0.6 / 0.6   1.8 / 0.6
Hurt Star Player         0.6 / 1.8   1.8 / 1.2   0.6 / 0.0
Hurt Coach               1.8 / 1.8   1.2 / 1.8   0.6 / 0.0

Response (Current/            7            8
Anticipated)
Item (Willingness to)    (Definitely
                           Would)

Trip Star Player          0.0 / 0.0    13.1 / 6.5
Trip Coach                1.8 / 0.6    16.1 / 7.8
Break Star Player Leg     1.2 / 0.6    5.4 / 1.2
Break Coach Leg           1.2 / 0.0    4.8 / 4.2
Hurt Star Player          0.6 / 1.8    6.0 / 1.2
Hurt Coach                1.2 / 0.0    5.4 / 4.2