The NCAA News - News and Features

The NCAA News -- January 4, 1999

Favorable review

Management Council chair reflects on new structure with eye toward future

Robert A. Bowlsby, director of athletics at the University of Iowa, concludes a two-year term as the first chair of the Division I Management Council upon completion of the 1999 NCAA Convention.

Bowlsby, who will continue his term as a member of the Management Council through January 2001, has shepherded the group through many complicated and sometimes challenging issues during its formative years.

In a recent interview with The NCAA News, Bowlsby commented on a number of issues that he has experienced as a result of his work with the Management Council, including issues pertaining to the new structure itself, the structure's impact on student-athlete welfare, the efficiency with which the structure has operated, and possible areas for review and change in the coming months.

Has the new structure performed the way those who created it intended?

It has worked very well on some of the major issues that have come down the pike in the first two years. Obviously there were some things that no one could have anticipated, and I think we've effectively worked through those opportunities as they've come up. We're in the process now of fine-tuning, so I think it may be a little early to draw any solid conclusions on what may need to be amended. The process of evaluation is ongoing, and my reaction is that the system has worked as envisioned and we've played it on the fly and done pretty well with it.

The changes in the Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse are a good example. Those would have taken considerably longer under the old structure. The issues regarding student-athlete employment and the fine-tuning that took place also would have been much more difficult to handle. That gives me a fair amount of confidence in the likelihood of the Division I Working Group to Study Basketball Issues finding success in dealing with its issues.

While this system has been criticized for its unwieldiness relative to routine legislation and the need for additional vigilance in monitoring the process and the pieces of legislation that make it up, on major issues it's clear that this allows for a level of initiative and efficiency that wasn't present in the old structure.

Have you been surprised at all in how the new structure has functioned?

I don't know that there's been anything that was an unintended outcome of the structure. Perhaps that's the biggest surprise -- that the thing has worked just about like the way it was drawn up on paper. There are some things that are easier, and there are some things that are more difficult, but basically it's a representative form of governance and it's probably somewhat surprising that we haven't had any major omissions in terms of the crafter's vision of how it was going to work.

One of the things that we're beginning to see is that some of the cabinets are a lot busier than others, and that may be a little surprising. But as we go through the evaluative process, those things will work themselves out and if this system is going to be good, especially in light of the Association moving from Kansas City to Indianapolis, it's an ideal time to take a fresh look at everything we do.

The whole process of evaluating the structure goes hand in hand with some of the other reviews that are taking place. So I don't know that I've been terribly surprised, except that something hasn't jumped up -- there have been a hundred little things that nobody thought of, but there hasn't been one major thing that has jumped up where everybody said, "I can't believe we missed this."

What changes would you suggest, or what parts of the current system do you think need to be reviewed?

The whole process needs to be reviewed and we're in midstream on that. There are some aspects of strategic planning and the budget process that probably are fairly difficult to do bottom-up, and I think we need to work through those, but I think with regard to Management Council and the cabinets, we ought to take a look at how we operate in all those areas -- take six months or a year and do the fine-tuning and tweaking that it takes to take the structure to the next level.

Is the Management Council more engaged in the legislative process than the former NCAA Council?

Having never served on the NCAA Council, it's hard for me to make that comparison. I will say that our Management Council has been enormously dedicated to the task. We've literally worked from the opening bell of our meetings to the closing bell and everyone has pitched in -- a terrific spirit of collegiality. It's 34 people around the table going forward in the spirit of what's best for college athletics. It's really been a gratifying part of being involved.

We've worked through some difficult tasks and some very political things. The outcome on the committee structure (divisional representation) is a good example. That one had the potential to be very divisive, and because of the good will of the group and spirit of collegiality, they were able to come up with something that I consider to be a very good outcome that serves our membership and does so in a way that wasn't divisive. I feel great about the people involved and the level of commitment and the extent to which that group is engaged.

Have the comment periods for legislative proposals allowed the membership to be as engaged in the legislative process as before?

The same sort of opportunity is available but I think it may be more difficult because it requires a little more week-to-week, month-to-month vigilance in terms of staying involved. It used to be we could get the books in October and study them in between then and November, and then in December meet with conference offices and then go vote in January and be done with it for eight months. This system isn't that way.

That's one of the things we need to look at is whetherfour-times-a-year legislation makes a lot of sense. From the Management Council standpoint, maybe three times a year would be plenty -- continue to have four meetings but use one of them specifically for visioning and planning -- work that we've found we don't have too much time for during the regular meeting schedule.

Do you see conferences or subdivisions aligning on Management Council votes?

There have been times when we've voted along subdivision or even conference lines, but that's what we're there for is to represent our constituents. There are many who come into the meetings with prescribed votes to be cast -- we all come in with a pretty good idea of what our constituents' philosophical bases are and how they feel about the issues.

I know in the case of the Big Ten, if they feel strongly about an issue, they let us know, and if it's a vote that's 6-5 or 7-4, we come and listen to the debate, draw our own conclusions--and it hasn't been unusual for us to not always vote the same.

That's a healthy process. We've had lots of very substantive discussions. It's a group that is very thoughtful and deliberative in its consideration of suggestions and issues. I continue to be impressed by the spirit of cooperation. And that's not to say we aren't going to disagree, but clearly there's a tremendous spirit of cooperation.

Do you think the Management Council offers an adequate discussion forum whereby members can be persuaded by discussion, or do conference voting policies preclude such an exchange?

I wouldn't want to think that just because people have their minds made up that we couldn't have open discussion and talk about issues because I think this is a great forum for the exchange of information and the debate of issues. If you're directed to vote a certain way, you ought to vote that way, but in the case of most members, there hasn't been a lot of indication that there have been directed votes.

What will Division I's presence be at future Conventions?

I hope that Division I continues to participate actively in the processes of the Convention. It's clearly not the same Convention that it was before, but I also think it's the best opportunity for us to get together as a membership and talk about things that concern all of us. It's not the same as it was before, but it also is not dysfunctional. It's a great place for forum discussion and for people involved in the governance structure to hear from members -- and it doesn't require an e-mail, telephone call or letter -- it's face-to-face and gives an opportunity for major issues to be aired.

We had a forum last year on the jobs program and initial eligibility. There are going to be forums this year that are very focused on what we consider to be the major issues in college athletics for the coming year. That's an important role for the Convention to play, and I think there's an important role from a collegiality standpoint too. Having people getting together, honoring those who have done great things in our profession, honoring student-athletes -- the Convention is an appropriate place for all that.

I hope everyone continues to support it because that what it's all about in our profession. We're here through collaboration to provide great experiences for student-athletes. And I think we can do that better together than separately.

Does this structure better serve the needs and interests of the student-athletes?

It addresses their needs better than ever before simply because I believe it's a better way to manage the athletics enterprise nationwide. Now, is it as easy for the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee to have its voice heard? That group has two excellent representatives at the table throughout the Management Council meetings and they do have an opportunity for that kind of input, but that probably isn't the same opportunity as they had when they could get up on the Convention floor and make an impassioned speech about a particular topic.

It is more difficult for the SAAC to have its voice heard because it doesn't have as many people at the table as it did at Convention. Having said that, we're working hard to make sure that student-athletes are represented on committees and cabinets where they need to have input. I think over time it's evolving into a pretty good situation for the voice of the student-athlete. But I want to reiterate that even though reasonable people may disagree on whether or not the voice is better or diminished as result of the new structure, I think the end product for student-athletes in the global sense is much better in the new structure because it works more efficiently and it deals with their concerns more gracefully -- and I think the outcomes are really what's important -- and the outcomes to this point have been very positive.

DIVISION I MANAGEMENT COUNCIL (as of January 1999)

Percy Bates, faculty athletics representative University of Michigan

Robert A. Bowlsby, director of athletics University of Iowa

Linda Bruno, commissioner Atlantic 10 Conference

Nigel Burton, student-athlete University of Washington

Arthur W. Cooper, faculty athletics representative North Carolina State University

W. James Copeland Jr., director of athletics Southern Methodist University

Joan C. Cronan, women's director of athletics University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Eugene DeFilippo, director of athletics Boston College

Richard J. Ensor, commissioner Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference

Jeremy N. Foley, director of athletics University of Florida

Nancy R. Hamant, faculty member University of Cincinnati

Alan Hauser, faculty athletics representative Appalachian State University

Thomas N. Hickman, director of athletics Winthrop University

Constance H. Hurlbut, executive director Patriot League

James Jarrett, director of athletics Old Dominion University

Edgar N. Johnson, director of athletics University of Delaware

Gerald M. Lage, faculty athletics representative Oklahoma State University

Kathleen LaRose, senior associate director of athletics University of Arizona

Ted Leland, director of athletics Stanford University

Kerry McCoy, student-athlete Pennsylvania State University

Richard A. McDuffie, director of athletics Eastern Illinois University

Marilyn A. McNeil, director of athletics Monmouth University

Richard M. Mello, director of athletics University of Arkansas, Little Rock

Orby Moss Jr., director of athletics Georgia State University

Andrea Myers, director of athletics Indiana State University

Gregory Sankey, commissioner Southland Conference

Andrea Seger, director of athletics Ball State University

Michael L. Slive, commissioner Conference USA

Eugene D. Smith, director of athletics Iowa State University

Patricia Thomas, associate director of athletics Georgetown University

Angela D. Taylor, assistant director of athletics University of Nevada

Lynda V. Tealer, senior woman administrator Santa Clara University

Rudy Washington, commissioner Southwestern Athletic Conference

Charles Whitcomb, faculty athletics representative San Jose State University

Kelly Woodward, associate director of athletics Northern Arizona University

Deborah A. Yow, director of athletics University of Maryland, College Park