Ask anyone involved in choosing the NCAA Woman of the Year and they'll tell you that it's as challenging to give the award as it is for the winner to earn it.

The premier NCAA award for women student-athletes has reached such a lofty level of prestige that it annually attracts a wealth of worthy candidates, making it increasingly difficult for the selection committees to pick just one winner.

Not only is the task of finding the perfect recipient becoming more like finding a diamond among other gems than a diamond in the rough, but people involved in the selection process have to do it 51 times -- one winner per state and the District of Columbia -- before the national Woman of the Year is named.

But another concern has developed recently, one that has surfaced for many Association-wide initiatives -- one that questions whether the candidate pool is as diversified as it could be.

The selection committees have attempted to ensure that the number of ethnic minority women in the candidate pool is representative of the number of ethnic minority women on the NCAA's playing fields and courts. Some constituents within the membership, though, have questioned whether that effort has been successful over the past couple of years, particularly when it comes to African Americans.

In 1998, a total of 381 applications were received, and of the 337 that had ethnicity identified, 273 (81 percent) were white and 64 (19 percent) were ethnic minorities, 30 (9 percent) of which were African Americans. In 1999, 258 (80.6 percent) of the 374 applicants who marked the ethnicity box were white and 62 (19.4 percent) were ethnic minorities, of which 24 (8 percent) were African Americans.

Of the 51 state winners in 1998, there were six minorities (one African American). That number grew to eight in 1999 (three African Americans).

Some people think those numbers don't jibe with ethnic minority student-athlete representation. The most recent undergraduate enrollment data indicate that a little more than 27 percent of the Division I women student-athletes receiving athletics aid in 1997-98 were ethnic minorities (13.9 percent African American). In Division II, it's about 23 percent (about 11 percent African American). (Because the NCAA doesn't track data for student-athletes who do not receive athletics aid, a breakdown of ethnicity in Division III is not available.)

A quick comparison shows that the two sets of numbers aren't that far apart, but those in charge are trying to do better.

The first step according to some is to grow the overall field. The number of schools that submit nominations is disappointingly low. Though each school is encouraged to submit a nomination (their own institutional Woman of the Year), those that actually do represent only about 37 percent of the total membership.

Any number of hypotheses exist for that condition. People responsible for submitting candidates may not believe their school has that diamond to ultimately win the national award. Some wonder if the time of year nominations are solicited (spring) puts too much of a crunch on school administrators gathering nomination information. Others think it's a matter of not enough schools being aware that the award is available -- or attainable.

Whatever the reason, the NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics, which ultimately is responsible for the administration of the award, wants to ensure that the candidate pool grows, both in overall numbers as well as in the number of qualified ethnic minorities.

This year, the committee is giving schools a chance to nominate two candidates instead of just one, as long as one of the candidates is an ethnic minority. Schools don't have to nominate two student-athletes, but if they choose to do so, they are responsible for diversifying the field.

Cheryl L. Levick, chair of the Committee on Women's Athletics and senior associate director of athletics at Stanford University, said the move in this instance supports the old adage that more is better.

"We realize that there is a concern, and we want to make sure that we have a very strong and diverse pool of candidates," she said. "Allowing schools to nominate two women if one is an ethnic minority will help us enlarge our pool, and from there we can go through our same selection process to find the deserving winners."

Levick said in addition to the increased pool going a long way toward addressing the diversity need, it also allows schools another opportunity to shine the spotlight on more people who meet the criteria.

For a while, some wondered if the criteria itself somehow kept the pool from being as diversified as it should be. Was there too much focus on grade-point average? Was the community-service component too subjective? But Levick said her committee reviews the selection criteria annually to determine if it indeed is a contemporary gauge of what the award is intended to honor. Candidates must meet specific athletics, academic and community-service standards in order to be considered. Those three areas are equally weighted in order to honor what Levick calls the complete student-athlete.

"This should be the premier award that any female college athlete would want to achieve because it combines academics, athletics and community service," Levick said. "No other award with the same criteria exists for women in sports. We don't want to change that -- we think the criteria shakes out very well-rounded athletes, which is who we want as our winners."

More than star athletes

Alfreeda Goff, associate commissioner of the Midwestern Collegiate Conference, chairs the Woman of the Year screening committee responsible for sifting through the hundreds of nominations, naming the 51 state winners and selecting the 10 finalists who are then considered by the Committee on Women's Athletics for the national award. She said that for diversity to improve, change has to occur at the grass-roots level. The more people who know about the award and its importance, the more likely it is that they will submit candidates.

The challenge, Goff said, is not unlike the one facing college athletics departments in identifying qualified minority candidates to fill administrative positions. The numbers in the NCAA's soon-to-be-released two-year study on race demographics indicate that schools are less than successful in meeting that challenge as well.

This year, Goff is taking the charge to a new level. She said she'll be on the phone with athletics directors, senior woman administrators, faculty athletics representatives and commissioners from historically black conferences to spread the word. She said the mission isn't to drum up token candidates, but to make schools aware that different types of candidates are worthy of the recognition -- and in fact can succeed in the system if given the opportunity.

"There's an aura about the award -- people think their candidates have to be on a championship team, or be an individual champion or an all-American," said Goff. "Not everyone can be on that level. Let's dig a little beyond the surface--I think these calls I'm going to be making will encourage people to take more than a quick moment before they say they don't have anyone."

Charles Whitcomb, faculty athletics representative at San Jose State University and chair of the NCAA Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee, said he believes a similar perception exists with the grade-point-average component in the selection criteria. He said it's not that the criteria itself is the culprit, but the amount of attention it receives at the awards banquet puts a subliminal bug in peoples' ear.

"It seems that the message to those reviewing the applications in subsequent years becomes, 'we better have candidates with a 3.9 or a 3.8 grade-point average because that's what's being emphasized when the winners are presented,' " he said.

But Goff said there are too many important factors taken into consideration in order for one to unduly stand out. Though her group has a scoring system to compare candidates against the field, screening committee members conduct a thorough discussion on the nature of each candidate's merits. The group considers not only the candidate's grade-point average, but the curriculum in which it was achieved, the number of hours of community service and the demands of the sport in which the nominee participates.

Levick, too, said the Committee on Women's Athletics conducts similar discussions before independently voting to narrow the 10 finalists to one winner.

"There's not a cutoff for any of the categories," she said. "The top candidates will rise above the rest -- that takes care of itself -- but there's not a cutoff for any of the criteria. Neither the screening committee nor the Committee on Women's Athletics operates under a cutoff condition."

Looking outside the box

In order to fully satisfy the diversity concern, Levick said several factors need to be addressed. First, the award needs to be promoted as the top rung for achievement for women student-athletes. "There are many, many awards, scholarships and prizes out there, and they're all good," she said. "But the Woman of the Year award, because it's the only one that combines achievement in athletics, academics and community service, should be the one that rises above the rest."

Second, change has to occur at the campus level. Ultimately, schools shoulder the responsibility for diversifying the candidate pool. The new two-nomination system provides the vehicle, but school administrators still must do the legwork to identify the candidates. That may require some people to look outside the box.

"Many administrators fail to seek out people who are not like them," said Jane Meyer, the NCAA's director of education outreach. "The same thing often happens with selections for the NCAA Foundation Leadership Conference -- the CHAMPS/Life Skills coordinator looks for the kids with whom he or she has the most contact.

"It's important that the applications get to as diverse a set of people as possible so that there'll be more of a chance that different names will pop up during those conversations. We want institutions to take responsibility and not deny student-athletes the opportunity to be recognized. We're providing a way to get that done, but we can't complete the process for them."

It's a process that many people will be watching.

Jamila Demby, last year's Woman of the Year, said a lot of those who will be watching have some big dreams of their own. Demby, who is an African American, said a diverse field touches thousands of young, aspiring athletes searching for an example to follow.

"One of the main purposes for the award is to establish and recognize women intercollegiate athletes as role models for young girls who are competing in sports," Demby said. "It's nice for a young African-American girl, for instance, to look at the group of women and see someone who represents them and has a similar background."

With all the attention being given toward diversifying various NCAA initiatives, the Woman of the Year selection groups believe their increased emphasis on minority nominations may in fact serve as a model for similar projects. But that can't be successful unless schools put in the effort.

"We're going to do everything we can to do the right thing for the student-athletes, but we need some help and it starts at the grass-roots level," Goff said. "We've got to encourage administrators to put people in the pool--then if that happens and we still aren't addressing diversity, then we really need to back up and take a different approach."

Woman of the Year state winners by ethnicity,

1998-99

1998

White 38

African American 1

International 4

Other 1

Not answered* 7

1999

White 36

African American 3

International 4

Other 1

Not answered* 7

*Nominees not required to identify ethnicity on application form.

Two-year breakdown of ethnicity in Woman of the Year applicant pool

1998

Total nominees 381

White 273

Black 30

International 15

Other 19

Ethnicity not identified 44

Total nominees 374

White 258

Black 24

Hispanic 7

International 25

Other 6

Ethnicity not identified 54

1999 nominees by division:

Division I 173

Division II 76

Division III 125

(includes multiple-sport nominees):

Track 98

Basketball 82

Volleyball 62

Softball 58

Soccer 48

Swimming 24

Tennis 18

Field Hockey 15

Lacrosse 15

Golf 9

Gymnastics 9

Rowing 3

Fencing 1

Skiing 1