At the national office August 1, 1997, NCAA President Cedric W. Dempsey proudly announced over the intercom that the Association was now operating under its new, federated structure.

The staff paused, but went on with its business. The event didn't make the evening news. And across the country, college and university administrators didn't observe a moment of silence to pass the governance torch.

At the time, it was like most any other day for the NCAA.

But after three years of the new structure being in place, the ink on the August 1, 1997, entry in NCAA annals has become more and more indelible.

There was reason for Dempsey's pride on that date. He and scores of others had worked for months to craft a proposal for a governance system that allowed the divisions more autonomy and more authority over issues particular to them. The Convention legislation structure for Division I seemed too antiquated and inefficient to bear the increasing weight of contemporary matters. A more streamlined process was needed -- one that identified issues and produced decisions in a timely fashion, one that put presidents in control, one that was representative, yet inclusive.

"There was some frustration with the legislative process and the fact that we had a Convention only once a year where legislation could be adopted," said David Berst, the NCAA's chief of staff for Division I. "Second -- and just as important -- was the issue of presidential influence and control of intercollegiate athletics programs."

Also a factor was the growing separation of philosophies by division. In particular, there was a concern on the part of some major football and basketball powers that a group of institutions that didn't have like interests and philosophies could carry the day on legislative change that the so-called powers didn't want -- or wanted and couldn't get. Conversely, Divisions II and III weren't always philosophically comfortable with legislation that seemed right for Division I.

"Whether all that was real or imagined, it certainly was an influence in all of this," Berst said.

So much so that the 1996 Convention approved a federated structure that eliminated the old NCAA Council and Presidents Commission and replaced them with Management Councils and Presidents Councils in Divisions II and III and a Management Council and Board of Directors in Division I. The Executive Committee was reconstituted and retained as an overarching group composed primarily of presidents.

The committee structure also changed, particularly in Division I where conferences became responsible for the appointment process.

The new day won overwhelming support from the 1996 Convention delegates, passing 777-79-1. Yet, debate lingered in the Convention halls, and athletics administrators worried aloud about what they were passing.

"I clearly remember the discussions about reform and I clearly remember the remarks about the proposed legislation to restructure, and we all realized that we were voting on a process that in and of itself was imperfect but was the best model that we had at that point in time," said Joseph Castiglione, athletics director at the University of Oklahoma. "But we knew then that we needed a more streamlined form of governance."

Many in Division I believe that's what they got. Some in fact believe it is so streamlined that they feel left out. For those who are not directly involved in the structure, the legislative cycle can be confusing and exclusive. Attendance for Division I delegates at the Convention has dwindled because many believe there aren't enough action items to convene about.

At the same time, others agree that complex issues such as new recruiting calendars in Division I football and basketball and the movement toward amateurism deregulation never would have been possible in the old structure, and that issues demanding intense scrutiny get just that in the new system.

And most agree that the primary goal -- that of presidential control -- has been realized, perhaps not completely, but at least where it's needed.

"The presidents on the Board are definitely assuming the involvement," said Kenneth A. Shaw, chancellor at Syracuse University and the first chair of the Board of Directors. "Whether (all of the) presidents are any more involved, my guess is they're no more or no less involved than they've ever been, the exception being the couple of years when there were major reforms pushed through and the Presidents Commission was behind it.

"But I don't think you can expect a sustained, careful effort on the part of all the presidents. I think what you can expect, though, is that the presidents through their conferences pick a Board of Directors that will take the responsibility for being very well-informed, and I think they have."

Presidential control is something the Association has not been shy about trumpeting. The Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics asked for it a decade ago. The Association believes the new structure provides it, so much so, in fact, that the new structure was one of the primary accomplishments noted when NCAA President Cedric W. Dempsey testified before the reconvened Knight Commission in August.

"The structure employs presidential involvement certainly at the decision-making level, and it's been good to see the commitment from the Board members and other presidents who are tied to the system," Dempsey said. "What we need in turn is that same type of presidential involvement at the campus level."

Graham B. Spanier, current Board chair and president at Pennsylvania State University, agrees, noting that since fewer presidents are directly involved at the table in the new structure, there's more of a need for them to be involved at other levels.

"There's more responsibility on presidents who are not on the Board to speak through their conferences, to be in touch with their representatives on the Management Council and Board, and to communicate internally within their institutions," Spanier said.

A division divided?

"I remember when the new structure was voted in, somebody went to the floor mike and said we had just handed over the reins of the NCAA to corporate influences of the big schools and away from education."

-- Ted Leland

While federating accomplished what it was supposed to in the big picture of restructuring -- it provided each division with more control over matching its rules with its philosophy -- it actually may not have gone far enough in Division I, which also is divided by the I-A,
I-AA and I-AAA classifications. Philosophies don't always mesh among the three Division I subsets, and the voting lines in the new structure gave I-A a majority it did not enjoy in the one-school, one-vote structure.

"If the new structure was designed to put the power in the hands of those who 'have,' it's doing that," said Marilyn A. McNeil, athletics director at Division I-AA Monmouth University.

As it started out, not all Divisions I-AA and I-AAA conferences were represented at the Council or cabinet level. Those who weren't had "rotating representation." That changed in 1999 when the Council and Championships/Competition Cabinet expanded from 34 to 49 members, but Division I-A's simple majority was retained because of the way the votes were weighted in the larger group (I-A conferences have full votes while the rest have half votes).

But Leland, current chair of the Management Council and director of athletics at Stanford University, said voting rarely splits along subdivision lines.

"You hear about the shrill nature of political debates at the national level, and we don't have that at the Council level," he said. "When the Council has addressed issues that are 'balance of power' in nature, we've been able to form small representative subcommittees that have worked out compromises."

Sometimes those compromises aren't what everyone wants. Some in the so-called "equity" conferences in Division I-A would prefer to see the majority rule more often.

"We don't see as much consistency within
I-A as we'd like to see on certain matters," said Big Ten Conference Commissioner Jim Delany. "That's not in all cases, but there's an uneasiness that there are votes in I-A that appear to be very dissimilar to the majority of the I-A group."

Delany said there are "issues of fundamental importance to the equity conferences" that need the control the simple majority affords, but he contends that the rest of Division I-A isn't always on the same page when the votes are counted.

"There are many instances where the votes by people representing I-A conferences don't necessarily line up with (the equity conferences)," Delany said. "That may be because at the lower part of I-A, the competitive or cost concerns are not the same concerns we have. And it's not always the least funded or least competitive conferences, but many times it is."

Delany said the simple majority for Division I-A is important, but that it shouldn't be abused. "And I don't think it is abused," he said. Still, he said, "I don't think there's been enough discipline in the critical issues within I-A."

Oklahoma's Castiglione also said that some conferences end up splitting votes among their representatives, which further dilutes Division I-A power. Most representatives come to the Management Council table with directed votes from their conference, but debate on the Council floor -- though not the same as it was at the old NCAA Convention -- still can persuade individuals to abandon their directed votes.

"They often end up canceling each other out," Castiglione said.

The issue of directed votes (that is, votes that representatives have been instructed to make on behalf of their conferences) on certain issues had been an area of concern when the new structure was implemented. Some thought that directed votes would simply mean decisions would be made at the conference table and thus render whatever debate that occurred at the Council table meaningless.

But Leland thinks the debate at the Council level is just as spirited -- and just as meaningful -- as Convention debate.

"We've had very few debates that were territorial or self-serving," Leland said. "Most of the Management Council members when they enter the room take off their conference hat and put on their 'what's good for college athletics and for students' hat. People 90 percent of the time vote their conscience."

The higher education structure

"Faculty athletics representatives at the time restructuring was approved certainly were worried that this would become a governance of commissioners and athletics directors, but that hasn't happened."

-- Percy Bates

Given that the goal of the new structure was to put presidents in positions of power, it follows that the structure would solidify the Association's link with higher education and protect the mission of maintaining college athletics as an integral part of the educational experience.

Aside from presidents, then, the people perhaps most responsible for carrying that message are faculty representatives. A prominent group in the NCAA structure in the 1960s and 70s, faculty reps have since watched college athletics issues shift toward financial and marketing concerns that more frequently fall into the decision-making hands of athletics directors and conference commissioners.

"There are those who think we have lost our way and that the structure is not of the people, for the people and by the people anymore. Some even view it as of and for a few people, who seem to have left the crowd," said Bates, who is a member of the Management Council and the faculty athletics representative at the University of Michigan.

"But the faculty is well-represented in the new structure."

Bates said conferences so far have been good about diversifying their representation among conference staff, athletics directors, senior woman administrators and faculty reps. That to a degree has calmed what had been a concern that the Association might drift from the goals of higher education.

"If there's any rub," Bates said, "it leaves some expectation on the part of the faculty in general that the faculty reps on the Council and cabinets represent faculty views instead of conference views."

Bates said that goes for constituent and advocacy groups as well. How do those groups get their voices heard without it being couched as a conference position?

Some worry that conferences have too much authority in the new system and can override the views of a constituency group.

Monmouth's McNeil, a member of the NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics, shares that view.

"Conferences have the voice, and that just moves us away from campus-based decision-making. I don't think that's healthy," she said. "We're going toward this corporate CEO environment and that whole sense that ADs and athletics programs are part of educational institutions is leaving us."

Leland said if that's the case, then presidents need to reassert their control to right the ship.

"The Board is very concerned about athletics as it relates to education," he said. "For those of us who are concerned about the balance between athletics and education, the Board will play a very powerful positive role."

Narrowing the trust gap

"What the Council and cabinets have done is to give people from different subdivisions who might not have worked together very closely a chance to work on common problems that transcend the political land mines and inspire a sense of community and respect."

-- Jeff Orleans

Perhaps the most dramatic change the new structure introduced was the move from inclusive to representational governance. There may have been more of a sense of family with the use of the Convention as a legislative system, but many believe the new structure is faster and more efficient, which by itself makes it worthwhile.

The flip side is the disenfranchisement that those no longer tied to the structure say they feel.

"In the wake of being involved in the front line, I have a whole new appreciation of how difficult it is to keep up with the issues if you're not in it all the time," said University of Iowa athletics director Robert A. Bowlsby, who was the first chair of the Management Council when restructuring was phased in. "We always heard the comments about being disenfranchised from the legislative process, and I think it is very difficult to keep up on a day-to-day basis with all that's going on."

To some extent, the confusion to which Bowlsby refers was reduced when the Council approved a legislative calendar that allowed the Council to act on legislation just twice annually rather than quarterly. Now, legislative proposals go out for comment after the Council's October and April meetings, giving the membership a better chance of keeping up. Still, keeping abreast is a challenge.

"There's a big difference between a representative form of governance and a one-school, one-vote system," Bowlsby said. "I've had an opportunity to feel those differences after having intimately been involved with it. Now to be on the outside, I have to depend on our Big Ten representatives to know what I'm thinking and to take forward my sentiments. I've tried to stay abreast, but to some extent, but I have to trust my representatives to stay more abreast than me."

University of Maryland, College Park, athletics director Deborah A. Yow contends that some conferences do a better job than others of keeping their members abreast. She said there's no reason for athletics personnel who were part of the old structure to feel disenfranchised with the new unless conferences aren't doing their jobs.

"The key for athletics directors and faculty athletics representatives feeling secure and positive about the new structure is what occurs within the scope of their respective conferences," Yow said.

Yow, a Management Council member and first vice-president of the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics, said when she hears from athletics directors and faculty reps about feeling left out of the new structure, she probes the conference connection.

"I always ask them what level of communication they have from their conference about pending legislation, and almost invariably there's no consistent or significant dialogue," she said.

Bates said that could lead to a trust gap if left untreated.

"When you agree to a representational form of governance, one assumes that the person chosen to represent you will work on your behalf," he said.

For the most part, Orleans, executive director of the Ivy Group, said that has happened in good faith. Orleans was a member of the project team assigned to study the idea of restructuring years ago and was part of the transitional Management Council in addition to being a member of the current Council.

He said there hasn't been as much "intradivisional bickering" as perhaps people had expected and that the Council as a group has been "extraordinarily professional and cordial" during even the most contentious of debates.

In fact, most people do seem to believe that the new structure in general is as effective as it was designed to be. Does that mean all is well in the land of restructuring? Certainly, it depends on who is asked, but for the most part, the 777-79-1 vote in 1996 seems to hold true today.

Some still call it a work in progress -- recent tweaks to the size of the governance groups, the elimination of two original cabinets and the changes in the legislative cycle lend credence to that thought -- but more and more people seem to be growing comfortable with the new system and making it work.

"Time is to be given some credit," McNeil said. "As we go along, the more we understand how to get information to and from the conference schools and back to the representatives, the better we'll be."

As for a final judgment, perhaps it's still too early to tell. The big issues receive the attention they deserve; the little issues are moved through perhaps more expeditiously than before. Regardless, however, it's still one body trying to reach a consensus in the best way it can.

"It's like governance in general," said Bates. "We have a structure that allows us to move efficiently and effectively if we are of a single mind. In that case, it's a better structure. But if we cannot be of a single mind, then it's just as cumbersome as before."

Coming in the October 9 issue of The NCAA News: A review of the Division II governance structure.