Division I faculty athletics representatives have been frustrated recently with what they believe is a diminished role in the federated governance structure, and now some Division I faculty representatives are concerned that the disenfranchisement is creeping into their own organization.

At the Faculty Athletics Representatives Association (FARA) Fall Forum November 14-16 in Long Beach, California, some Division I FARs wondered aloud whether their involvement in FARA is as important as it used to be.

FARA's Fall Forum once was geared heavily toward developing positions on legislation in preparation for the January Convention. While Divisions II and III FARs still do that to a large degree, the complicated legislative cycle in Division I has made that job less clear for Division I FARs. That has led to Division I FARs wondering if their NCAA lives are too different from their Divisions II and III peers to make their fall gathering as meaningful as it once was.

Though Division I attendance at the annual forum was as high as it has been since the NCAA restructured its governance in 1997, Division I-A attendance waned, which FARA President David Goldfield believes reflects the problem.

"Looking at attendance," Goldfield said, "we had more Division I representation than since the new structure took effect, but a closer look shows that representation was light from the BCS schools. That may be a reflection of the fact that BCS folks see themselves as different, and FARA, because of the legislative system, no longer holds as much interest to them. That's something we need to address."

Though there was some talk in the hallways about Division I-A FARs forming their own group, Goldfield, FAR at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, said he does not believe that is likely to happen. What the FARA president hopes happens instead is that Division I will return to a single annual legislative cycle, which might re-engage Division I FARs and athletics administrators with the legislative process and return the FARA Fall Forum to its legislative-based roots.

"I did hear some say that if we went to a single cycle, that would bring FARA back into the picture for Division I," said University of Michigan FAR Percy Bates, who chairs the Division I Management Council. "I would tend to agree with that assessment, but we're a long way from having that happen."

Though there is momentum from Division I FARs and athletics directors to adopt a single legislative cycle, the outcome probably will not be determined for some time. In the meantime, FARA representatives talked about establishing a Division I legislative entity within FARA, but as Goldfield said, such a group would face unusual challenges because "tracking Division I legislation, let alone developing positions on it, is a full-time job."

Structure frustration

Faculty frustration with the Division I structure was a topic of discussion during the forum. Many Division I FARs believe FARA as an organization is weaker under the new structure because it cannot and does not function as a legislative review body for Division I.

"With two cycles and the absence of one-institution/one-vote, these activities have been taken over essentially by conference offices," Goldfield noted. "It's not that we need more FARs on the Management Council or on the AEC Cabinet, but the fact that the conference offices have assumed inordinate power under the new system is a concern because conferences have different priorities -- not necessarily worse or better, but just different -- from academic institutions.

"We all support the rationale for the new governance structure, which concentrates power in the hands of the CEOs, but many CEOs because of their responsibilities in other areas have deferred to conference commissioners in legislative matters."

Goldfield also stressed structure issues in his presidential address to forum participants.

"We need to modify the current governance structure to ensure a greater participation by FARs in the governance process, but also a better awareness of the issues and legislation among athletics department personnel and CEOs," he told forum attendees. "The abandonment of the one-institution/one-vote format in Division I has left these important on-campus individuals less connected to the legislative process than at any time in the past 30 years.

"In these circumstances, two things can occur, both of them not good for intercollegiate athletics. First, the sense of disfranchisement could lead to a feeling that we no longer have a stake in the NCAA or, worse, in the legislation that emerges through some complicated process over which we have little control or voice. Second, less informed, or uninformed, CEOs defer to conference commissioners who hold inordinate power in the current governance arrangement for Division I.

"The idea behind the new structure was to increase the power and control of the CEOs. For some CEOs this has been the case; but for many others, the opposite has occurred. And this is not a good thing because only under the leadership of the CEO can we hope to improve our enterprise. We would do well to follow our colleagues in Divisions II and III in this regard."

Other business

The keynote speaker at the forum was Linda Bensel-Meyers of The Drake Group, who discussed the need for disclosure in academic/athletics issues. Bensel-Meyers, who was involved in a highly publicized investigation of alleged academic fraud at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, told forum attendees that there should be more disclosure in academic/athletics support services, in terms of transcripts of student-athletes, their majors and in the nature of the relationship between tutors and student-athletes. She also stressed the importance of keeping academic/athletics support services under academic affairs and the provost's office rather than as part of the athletics department.

Phil Moses, president of the National Association of Academic Advisors for Athletics, also emphasized the need for this distinction to the group.

The forum also featured breakout sessions by division. Division I FARs discussed the academic enhancement proposals in addition to the governance structure issues. Division I FARs were pleased that the Division I Board of Directors adopted the first part of the package, though Goldfield said there was some concern that faculty members might feel more pressure to keep student-athletes eligible under the stricter guidelines.

"We're pleased with the new reforms in Division I, but we're not naïve enough to think that everything is going to be perfect -- now the stakes are going to be higher," Goldfield said. "Once the incentives/disincentives package gets through, even though we don't know the specifics, that will put even more stress on the academic/athletics support services and there will be greater pressure to maintain eligibility of student-athletes."

In Division II, FARs discussed Bylaw 14 deregulation proposals and reviewed camp-employment issues for prospective student-athletes. Division III FARs talked about proposed legislation for the 2003 Convention, as well as the discussion about the future of Division III that will be going on within the structure this coming year.

FARA also elected a successor to Goldfield, whose term as president ends in January. The organization appointed Rowan University FAR Edward Streb to serve as FARA president for the 2003 term. Streb will be the first Division III FAR to serve in that capacity.

Some Division I FARs were concerned that Division I interests might not be best addressed with Division III leadership, but Michigan's Bates didn't think such reaction was widespread.

He said many have perceived there to be an unwritten rule that the leadership in FARA would always come from Division I, but that has been challenged recently.

"The perception has been that it's probably easier for Division I to give leadership for II and III but perhaps not the other way around," Bates said. "Obviously, that's not the case."

Diane Husic from Division II East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania presided over the association in 2001. President-elect Streb also indicated to the group his intention to ensure that Division I interests and needs would be addressed during his tenure.