The NCAA News - News and Features

The NCAA News -- January 4, 1999

NCAA strays from the Conventional way

Restructuring has brought change to Association's annual gathering

BY KAY HAWES
STAFF WRITER

The NCAA Convention is changing, that much is for certain.

The cause of the change -- Association restructuring -- also is known. Beyond that, however, there are only questions.

Is the Convention evolving or is it winding down as a significant Association-wide event? Is the Convention still relevant for the Division I membership? If not, what does that mean for the NCAA honors program, one of the most valued of all Association traditions?

The effect of the new governance system is clear as the Association conducts its second post-restructuring Convention January 9-12 in San Antonio: Fewer representatives from Division I institutions and conferences are attending, while representatives from Divisions II and III institutions and conferences are attending in greater numbers than ever before.

Division I legislation, which once took up a significant amount of time at the Convention, is now dealt with

throughout the year by the Division I Management Council and Board of Directors. Divisions II and III still vote on legislation at the Convention, but time once devoted to floor

debate before members of all three divisions may now be devoted to division-specific discussion forums.

The changes may provide less incentive for Division I members to attend and more incentive for Division II and III members to attend.

While it is much too soon to predict a future path for the Convention, it is not too soon to wonder if the Convention will remain a viable event for all three divisions if Division I attendance continues to decline.

Division I numbers down

Convention attendance totals show how the Convention is changing. In 1997 -- the last year Division I considered legislation at the Convention -- 339 Division I members (including conference representatives) attended, down only one from a record 340 in 1996. Last year, 310 Division I members attended.

Attendance in Divisions II and III -- in which members still consider legislation at the Convention -- set records last year. Division II had a record 258 members (including conference representatives) attend, up three members from 1997, while Division III saw a record 333 members (including conference representatives) attend last year, up from 318 the previous year.

Total Convention attendance numbers were down last year as well. In 1998, 2,096 individuals attended the Convention, down 589 from the previous year's record attendance of 2,685.

Registration numbers for this year are not yet complete, but Louis J. Spry, NCAA associate executive director and long-time Convention manager, estimates another decline in Division I.

"I believe we have nearly as many (Division I) institutions represented, but by fewer people," Spry said. "Instead of sending five or six people, now maybe they send just two or three."

Before the changes two years ago, Convention attendance figures had consistently increased.

"I came to work here in 1966, and my first Convention was in Houston in 1967, where we had 616 people," Spry said. "In 1997, in Nashville, the attendance reached 2,685. During that stretch between 1966 and 1997, we
never went more than three years without setting a Convention attendance record."

In the association business, it is quite unusual to see a convention that was as popular among its members as the NCAA Convention was, Spry said. "I think that (history of increasing attendance) was amazing," he said. "I don't think there are many associations that can say that their convention set records nearly every year. I think the reason for that was that the NCAA Convention became the place to be if you were in the business of intercollegiate athletics."

Reasons to attend

The situation is different now. Without the lure of legislative action, will the Convention continue to be valuable for Division I?

"Not as a legislative event, certainly, but I think it will serve us as a communications vehicle," said Tom Hansen, commissioner of the Pacific-10 Conference. "Certainly it's less of a valuable event than it was when we were conducting votes on the Convention floor."

Hansen has heard suggestions to enhance Division I participation, but he questions whether they make sense or if they would have much impact.

"There has been talk of having the cabinets meet at the Convention -- anything that would give people a reason to attend," he said. "But that would only affect the people on those cabinets. On the other hand, it may be that the Convention is just not useful anymore."

Division forums are helpful, Hansen said, but they alone probably are not a reason to attend the Convention. Conducting conference meetings at the Convention would increase attendance, but Hansen said the concept is not practical.

"We considered having a conference meeting at the Convention to help keep it viable, but it just doesn't make economic sense for us to go down to San Antonio to meet when we could meet at a city that's in our region," he said. "Generally, the reaction to that was quite negative. Overall, unless we have a recall vote on a significant issue, I think you'll see (Division I attendance) continue to dwindle."

Former NCAA President Alan Chapman, professor of mechanical engineering at Rice University and longtime NCAA parliamentarian, also thinks attendance will continue to decline.

"For Division I, it's pointless," he said of the Convention. "I don't think people thought there would be such a great decline. There really isn't much reason to go for Division I, except maybe to see old friends. In Division II and Division III, it's useful for them. They seem to show up in good numbers.

"I think it's unfortunate, because there used to be a good exchange of ideas."

Back then, of course, all business was done on a one-school/one-vote basis. While some individuals lament the loss of that philosophy, others don't see a problem.

"There was a very strong feeling among our people that most of the votes were a foregone conclusion anyway," Hansen said. "The crowd in the hall had become so large. Another problem was the frustration that many Division I-A institutions had with the process, as they felt they had different problems and different concerns."

Historically, the Convention was the place where any member could bring an issue.

"The NCAA has been criticized over the years for a lot of things, but one of the things they could not find fault with was the Convention," Spry said.

"I think a lot of people thought (former executive director) Walter Byers was a dictator, but he was 180 degrees from that. He was always respectful of the decisions made at the annual Convention. I used to tell institutions that were thinking of joining, 'If you make your proposal appropriately and timely, there is not anyone -- not the NCAA Council, not staff, not anyone -- who can keep that legislation from going to the Convention' .... I know that process appealed to a lot of people."

"There was some value in the old one-institution, one-vote concept," Chapman said. "I really think it's a loss. Also, I think it was a benefit for the members just to hear other members argue different issues on the Convention floor."

As the Association has grown more federated, so has the Convention. "I think that there are trade-offs with the new structure," said Judith M. Sweet, athletics director at the University of California, San Diego, and president of the NCAA from 1991 to 1993. "As for Division III, it allows for more concentration and more focus on Division III issues and Division III legislation. On the other hand, the opportunity to interact with colleagues from all divisions has been diminished, and that's a real loss to collegiality.

"I think the Association is no longer truly one association. I think the Association is more like three associations, and I think that is an unfortunate consequence of the restructuring."

Hansen noted, however, that the concerns of different divisions made greater federation necessary. "My background as an NCAA staff member has always made me somewhat of a 'big-tent person,' but the practical reality is that in the year 2000 we find ourselves in increasingly complex programs that are increasingly different. It's hard to work together on issues, and federation becomes more attractive.

"There was considerable frustration in the past when Division I had to wait for Division II or Division III to finish up business."

John S. Biddiscombe, athletics director of Wesleyan University (Connecticut) and chair of the Division III Management Council, said he thought some issues still need to be addressed by all three divisions.

"We need a little more opportunity for exchange of ideas," Biddiscombe said. "It's going to be easy for divisions to move away from discussing issues that affect all divisions."

Biddiscombe said an issue that starts out as a hot topic in only one division can end up affecting all.

"The public views the NCAA as one, not as Division I, Division II and Division III," he said. "To some degree, the perceptions of one division are reflected on all."

Biddiscombe acknowledged that social events involve all divisions and create opportunity for interaction, but he questioned whether that was the most useful way to exchange ideas.

"Maybe there needs to be an Association-wide forum," he said. "While the social events are terrific, it's more important for me to know what the person's (from Division I or Division II) views are. It's much less important for me to get to know them socially.

"Besides, by having three different divisions at a social event, you don't automatically get social interaction. People tend to gravitate toward people they already know."

Divisions II and III may benefit

While there may be fewer reasons for representatives from Division I to attend the Convention, there may be more reasons than ever for representatives from Division II or Division III to make the trip.

"Given the move away from the long, all-Association legislative sessions, it has provided more time for Divisions II and III to address issues that are directly relevant to that division, rather than to Division I," Biddiscombe said.

"Division III established a Division III Convention Planning Committee that has worked on this all year. From our point of view, I think the Convention is taking on a new direction. We're using it as an educational forum and as a forum for debate."

Division II is taking a similar approach.

Biddiscombe also said the present system allows for issues to be discussed thoroughly before they are ever presented as legislation.

"It's almost like a two-year cycle," he said. "Issues get brought up and reviewed for discussion, then the next year they get brought up for a vote. It gives us a forum for the membership to let the leadership know how they feel. Last year the membership voiced their concerns loud and clear. That wouldn't have happened that way before."

Though such changes have been beneficial, Biddiscombe said, a need still exists for the Association to meet together. He hopes Division I shares that attitude, even if fewer individuals from that division attend.

"I think there's a critical mass needed for a Convention to be successful," he said. "But rather than looking at the number of individuals attending, we should look at the number of institutions that are represented. We don't want things like the honors dinner to be diminished because they are wonderful events and need to continue."

Effect on honors dinner

What about the honors dinner? Could the decline in Division I attendance harm one of the most cherished of all Association traditions?

"The honors dinner is an outstanding event that has always been the highlight of the Convention," Sweet said. "With the decreasing numbers, I think the event will continue to be an outstanding event, but my fear is that if there are decreasing numbers of Division I members in attendance, will the honors dinner continue to flourish in the manner that it has in the past?"

At least one other event that was held at the Convention has been moved because of declining Division I attendance. "I'm on the Honda Broderick Award board, and we moved our event to the summer," Hansen said. "We weighed our options and decided we needed to do that."

The Honda Broderick awards dinner is now held during the convention of the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics.

"I think the NCAA is going to have to evaluate it," Hansen said of the future of the honors dinner. "Maybe they could have it at the Final Four, but there are drawbacks to that, too. I'm not sure what the answer would be."

Spry also has heard concern over the fate of the honors dinner. "It is a concern, I think, whether the honors dinner will survive," he said. "But I don't know where else you would have it. Now I suppose you could do it separately, like the Woman of the Year dinner is done. But I don't know. I think we have to let the dust settle some more. It may be a little too soon to jump around a lot."

One reason for the concern about the honors dinner is that it's truly a wonderful event for intercollegiate athletics, Spry said.

"I believe that if you go to the honors dinner and you don't have a warm feeling about what you do for a living by the end of it, you're in the wrong line of work," he said.

Too soon to tell

On one point, most people agree: It's still too soon to tell what the future may hold for the NCAA Convention.

"I think it is probably too soon to answer many of the questions about what will happen to the Convention or to the honors dinner," Hansen said. "A lot of things could change. I think the timing of the Convention is inconvenient for many people. Many of our people are just back from bowl games and just getting ready for conference basketball. And we have five-quarter schools, so they start right away. I'd like to see it later in January or in early February."

And, just because the Convention is set up a certain way now doesn't mean that it won't change again.

"It again proves the democracy of this organization, in that this is what the members voted for," Spry said. "And from that standpoint, if they don't think it's working, then they can vote to do something else."