It often seems that the NCAA's purse strings are the most sought-after strands beyond the nets at the Final Fours.

But it also seems that the Association's fiscal matters are the most misunderstood aspect of an organization built on a complex foundation.

Ask most people about the NCAA's financial state of affairs and they will say the NCAA has enough money to do just about whatever it wants. Ask some member schools, though, and they may say there is not enough money for the Association to do what it should. And, even though the membership understands better than the public the limits on the new $6 billion television contract with CBS, member schools and constituent groups nevertheless have been eyeing fresh dollars they figure will be available when the new television pact becomes effective in 2003.

But a funny thing happens on the way to the bank when there are more than 1,000 participants with varying degrees of access to the withdrawal

slips. What seems like a huge pie ends up as thin slices on so many NCAA plates. In fact, most of the Association's revenues get used up quickly to help alleviate debts at individual athletics departments. Fewer than 80 of the NCAA's more than 1,000 schools operate their athletics programs in the black.

That need for dollars creates a fundamental tension when those who administer the NCAA budget sit down to discuss allocations, particularly when it comes to funding Association-wide programs. That is because the money to fund Association-wide initiatives otherwise could go to Division I schools and conferences. Indeed, most Division I schools would prefer to have the money returned to them to administer programs such as career development and CHAMPS/Life Skills, among many others.

Schools in Divisions II and III, however, contend that they need centralized programming because they don't have the infrastructures in place to support them. Also, NCAA constituent groups that monitor the Association's commitment to gender and ethnic diversity argue that centralized programming is more accountable, and in some cases effective, than programs administered on individual campuses.

Executive Committee Chair Charles Wethington, president of the University of Kentucky, makes the case for effective local administration.

"Any dollars we can get back into the hands of the members will help them finance their programs and help them benefit the greatest number of student-athletes," he said. "That's not a question that is a big-institution versus small-institution issue. Virtually all schools need significant assistance in being able to support their programs."

For all three divisions, there is widespread agreement that discretionary funds should benefit student-athlete welfare.

"That's a consistent thread that runs throughout the Executive Committee and the NCAA's three divisions: that we ought to be trying to get money placed in a fashion that would benefit the greatest number of student-athletes," Wethington said.

Toward that end, the Executive Committee last fall developed a set of priorities it felt were at the core of the Association's future. Among those was "increasing access to higher education and enhancing the collegiate experiences

of young men and women through sound fiscal management."

That is a broad brush, but it paints the big picture.

"Any new initiatives must support those priorities or we shouldn't be considering them at all," said NCAA Senior Vice-President Daniel Boggan Jr.

To try to corral the anticipated flood of budget requests that will be coming its way in the months to come, the Executive Committee in January developed a process for allocating dollars. The plan calls for the Executive Committee's Budget Subcommittee to project budget allocations based on the new television contract and for each of the divisions to develop a three-year plan for those projected allocations. In other words, the Executive Committee will set financial boundaries that the divisions will need to work within in order to "budget" their requests for programming.

That sets up a federated approach on how each division determines what kind of programming is a priority. Still, the fact remains that Association-wide initiatives are perceived to shrink Division I's wallet, which can create a strain.

"Given the financial situation at most Division I schools, there is a lot of pressure to return as much of the revenue as possible," said V. Lane Rawlins, former president at the University of Memphis who took over as CEO at Washington State University in May. "At the same time, the NCAA has an obligation to ensure that student-athletes are fairly treated, that we are providing for them the right kind of environment."

Rawlins, former chair of the Executive Committee's Budget Subcommittee, said that the cost of running big-time college athletics programs has skyrocketed and that most schools have difficulty keeping up. Those deficits, left untreated, could lead to cuts in sports participation opportunities.

"The tension goes beyond how best to serve the student-athlete to whether we're going to have student-athletes," he said.

"The ability to conduct a large number of sports is dependent on the success of the two cash sports (football and men's basketball). At some point, when you are providing for student-athletes the kinds of services that other students don't get and at the same time you are canceling sports and participation opportunities because of financial hardships, the answer as far as the membership is concerned is pretty obvious: 'Let us have the money and let us try to manage the programs as best we can.' "

Deborah A. Yow, athletics director at the University of Maryland, College Park, and a member of the Division I Budget Subcommittee, agrees with Rawlins.

"Schools need as much revenue returned to their campuses for their student-athlete programs as possible," Yow said.

The trust gap

While it is difficult to argue that point, there are those who are concerned about how such money may be used. Unless funds are earmarked for a specific purpose, schools and conferences can use them as they please.

Brian Dillon, a golf student-athlete from the University of the Pacific (California) and chair of the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, said while most schools have good intentions, not all are able to apply funds to programs that benefit student-athletes.

"If you provide that money, there's a chance they'll use it for other parts of the athletics budget and not for what it is intended," he said.

Even when funds are earmarked, some NCAA constituent groups are not certain the money is well-spent.

Charles Whitcomb, longtime chair of the NCAA's Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee, advocates centralized programming even though he understands Division I's need for revenue. Whitcomb, faculty athletics representative at San Jose State University, said he believes an Association-wide focus serves the largest number of student-athletes and provides for the most accountability.

"You need to take it out of the hands of campuses sometimes to do the things that need to be done," he said.

Whitcomb pointed to the NCAA's Division I conference grant program, which specifically targets gender and ethnic diversity efforts.

Despite that clearly stated mission, Whitcomb's group has heard anecdotal evidence that some conferences may fudge on their commitment.

"Some conferences depend on the grant money pegged for diversity to in fact do other things," Whitcomb said.

Diversity programming is a prime example of whether an Association-wide approach is the best way to benefit student-athletes.

"If you've got centralized programming with the backing and the support of the Association that can impact not just a few but many, then I'd rather see those things centralized," Whitcomb said.

"Centralized programming assures student-athletes that the money will go toward that effort," Dillon said.

But schools with big-time programs and the experience to run them disagree.

"At a school like ours, we have hundreds of student-athletes and a lot of experience with administering our own programs, and our preference would be to see more of the increase back in our hands," said Pennsylvania State University President Graham B. Spanier.

Spanier, who chairs the Division I Board of Directors, also is sensitive to the need for Association-wide programming, particularly in funding internships and postgraduate scholarships earmarked for women and ethnic minorities. But he said that finding a balance between centralized and campus programs is a challenge.

"Student-athlete welfare has been a major priority for the NCAA for the last several years," Spanier said. "But among Division I universities there is some variable thinking about how extensive an increment there should be in the centralized Association fund. Do we increase it a few percent a year or do we have massive increase? The preference of conferences like the one I represent would be to direct that money to the conferences and then in turn to the universities."

Rawlins said if the Association focused more on that accountability up front, the trust gap with how universities spend the money might narrow.

"We need some strict guidelines as an Association and we have to make sure that student-athlete welfare is served," he said. "It's more effective to enforce those guidelines and let people find their own way to do them than it is to mount programs that are national in scope."

Wethington said that all member schools must address issues such as gender and ethnic diversity at the institutional level.

"Those are institutional issues that must be addressed by each school," he said, "but clearly, the central organization through its priority-setting and its initiatives can help schools with what is ultimately their responsibility."

'Heightened accountability'

Although there is no movement to reduce or eliminate centralized student-athlete programs (there can't be since one of the constitutional guarantees set forth when the NCAA restructured in 1997 required the Association to at least maintain the level of student-athlete welfare programming that existed in 1996), there is a sense that Division I members have a heightened expectation that new or expanded Association-wide programs must serve their stated purposes. The result is that new expenses now are scrutinized in ever-growing detail.

Yow attributed that increased accountability to tougher financial times.

"There is a renewed enthusiasm, if not a zeal, for ensuring that specific bottom-line goals are met regarding programming, whether it's on our own campuses or Association-wide," she said. "We're all either resigned to or embracing a heightened level of accountability for how we spend money."

Spanier said he has heard occasionally that the NCAA has too much central programming. "But I think it's overstated because as chair of the Board I've seen the good things that happen centrally through NCAA programs," he said. "Nevertheless, there is a sentiment that we should avoid increasing the staffing and the scope of centralized programs and leave more of that to the universities."

As the Executive Committee carries out its plan for the new television contract, it is seeking to better define an appropriate balance for its decision-making. "We wanted to determine that the three divisions were on the same page in terms of the direction for the NCAA," Wethington said. "Having set those makes it easier for the Executive Committee and the three divisions to make their decisions how to use those funds."

With the NCAA's direction identified, he said the question of central-versus-local ultimately may become less important.

"The challenge regarding the use of any funds available to the NCAA is to help carry out the priorities of the Association," he said. "Whether those are addressed through some central source or through the funds appropriated by the various divisions is not the issue, so far as I'm concerned."

Division I distribution based on formulas

Revenue distribution in Division I is accomplished primarily through funds that help offset grants-in-aid and sports-sponsorship expenses while at the same time rewarding long-term performance in the Division I Men's Basketball Championship.

The sport-sponsorship fund is paid according to the number of varsity sports sponsored. Schools receive a unit for each sport sponsored beginning with the 14th sport (the minimum requirement for Division I membership). In the 1998-99 distribution, for sports sponsored beginning with the 14th, an institution received $11,303 per sport (for example, an institution sponsoring 16 total sports received $33,908; an institution sponsoring 24 sports received $124,330).

The grants-in-aid fund is based on the number of athletics grants awarded by each institution (based on full-time equivalencies), beginning with one grant and progressing in value in increments of 50. Grants awarded above 150 are valued at the same amount.

The basketball fund is distributed to Division I conferences based on their performance in the Division I Men's Basketball Championship over a six-year rolling period (for the period 1994-99 for the 1999-00 distribution). One unit is awarded to each institution participating in each game, except the championship game. In 1998-99, each basketball unit was approximately $73,925 for a total $55 million distribution.

In addition to those distributions, the Association also allocates $50,000 annually to each Division I school for enhancement of academic-support programs for student-athletes. There are no specific guidelines for the use of those dollars. Also, a total of $5.27 million is allocated for grants to Division I men's and women's basketball-playing conferences to maintain, enhance or implement programs and services in the areas of basketball officiating; compliance and enforcement; drug education; gender and ethnic diversity; and anti-gambling education.

Finally a $10 million special assistance fund is distributed among conferences to assist Division I student-athletes with financial needs.