Preferred Name
Nick
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
ORCID
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2866-360X
Date of Graduation
5-15-2025
Semester of Graduation
Spring
Degree Name
Master of Science in Education (MSEd)
Department
Department of Learning, Technology and Leadership Education
First Advisor
Laura Desportes Bowman
Second Advisor
Tabitha Coates
Third Advisor
Roger Soenksen
Abstract
College golf recruiting is a complex process influenced by evolving factors such as Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policies and new alternative professional golf pathways. This qualitative study aims to fill this gap by examining the key strategies, challenges, and best practices National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I college golf coaches use in their recruitment processes. Utilizing interviews with twelve NCAA Division I golf coaches, this study explores how coaches identify potential recruits, evaluate talent, and navigate limitations such as scholarship availability and regulation compliance. Findings highlight the importance of tangible factors, such as tournament performance and statistical analysis, and intangible elements, such as cultural fit, mental resilience, and long-term development potential. The study also reveals key differences in recruiting practices between top-ranked programs and mid-major teams, emphasizing the impact of financial resources, geographic location, and international recruiting trends. Grounded in Rational Choice Theory and Path-Goal Theory, this research provides insights into the decision-making processes of college golf coaches and contributes to the broader field of Human Resource Development (HRD) by offering practical recommendations for optimizing talent identification and recruitment strategies. The researcher's prior experience as an NCAA Division I golfer and coach introduces potential bias in interpreting results, while the use of purposeful sampling, despite ensuring relevant participants, limits the generalizability of the results to a broader population of coaches and recruiters.
