By the most conservative estimate, those 1,200 committee members spend more than 75,000 human hours annually proposing, evaluating, debating and voting on the policies, rules and regulations that govern intercollegiate athletics. The process represents a grass-roots-to-decision-making involvement that few associations can claim, and the result is a governance structure that is both the NCAA's greatest strength and often the source of its greatest Intercollegiate athletics has made a commitment to self-governing that is important and unique. Given the enormous diversity of the 977 institutions that are active members of the NCAA, the natural tendency of all colleges and universities to fiercely maintain autonomy over their programs, and the highly competitive nature of intercollegiate athletics in general, it is a tribute to the collegiality of those who work in higher education that an organization like the NCAA works at all.

Is it working? It depends on whom you ask. Clearly, it's working better for Divisions II and III than for Division I.

Until 1997, all legislative proposals were voted up or down in a town-hall setting at the annual Convention with every active member institution and conference getting a vote. For the general sessions, more than 2,400 delegates would crowd together to hear proposals advanced and discussed that might or might not apply to all of them in an atmosphere reminiscent of a political caucus, often confusing for the uninitiated and nearly always off-putting for college and university presidents more accustomed to the orderly agenda of a trustees' meeting. The one-school, one-vote process left those with the greatest need to be involved (campus CEOs) with diminishing interest in the process. Surely, there was a way to simplify the process and put CEOs truly in charge.

In 1997, a governance-restructuring endeavor fully federated the three divisions. Divisions II and III continued the one-school, one-vote system at an annual Convention where all legislation is debated and voted upon. Both divisions gained an increased level of autonomy and, with CEOs in control of the process over the last five years, have developed their own strategic plans, set legislative goals and pushed through changes that reflect their philosophical differences. Based on both anecdotal and survey results from the Ad Hoc Review Committee (established in January 2001 by the Executive Committee to assess the NCAA federated governance structure), both divisions are happy with the results of restructuring.

Division I replaced the one-vote approach in 1997 with a legislative system based on conference representation and a final vote by an 18-member Board of Directors made up exclusively of college and university presidents. The Board, along with the Division I Management Council, meets four times a year and votes on legislation at two of those meetings. Instead of debate at an annual Convention, the voice of the membership is heard by way of feedback from institutions through the conference offices to Management Council and Board representatives.

I continue to hear general agreement that restructuring in Division I has met the goals of greater autonomy and greater authority for CEOs. The Ad Hoc Committee survey confirms these opinions. The most significant rub in the Association's governance engine, however, is whether the new structure simplified or complicated the process for Division I. In my visits with the membership, the consensus appears to be that the new structure is more complicated and less membership-friendly than before. And the result is a lack of institutional buy-in that strains the confidence of those who must implement national policy at the campus level.

As one Division I administrator told me recently, "I used to say that we at the campus level are the NCAA. Whatever the rules were, whether I agreed with all of them or not, I knew I had had a voice is their adoption. But under the new structure, I feel less and less that I'm part of the NCAA."

Officially, both the Faculty Athletics Representatives Association and the Division I-A Athletics Directors Association have voiced their concern with a process that they believe fails to provide the level of national debate and institutional involvement that the old structure had. At the same time, it is clear that college CEOs are generally happy with the new structure. They know that they or their colleagues have a firm hand on the governance reins and their attendance at the Convention isn't required to assure their voice is heard.

Here is a modest proposal for Division I. Consider a system that accommodates the CEOs' need for orderly, time-efficient decision-making and also meets the need of institutional administrators to be a part of the decision-making process at a critical point.

Such a structure would keep the voting balance intact among all the Division I governance bodies, would maintain the final authority of college and university presidents, and would engage the membership in a way that returns confidence -- if not full consensus -- to the process.

But, there are two other areas that I would challenge CEOs in all divisions to consider as critical to making the NCAA governance process a success:

1. Inform yourself about issues in college sports by engaging your campus and conference athletics administrators. Use the "legislative season" noted previously in this article to trigger an annual review of proposals with your athletics director, faculty athletics representative and senior woman administrator. If you haven't already, involve yourself at the campus level that corresponds with the level of attention athletics brings to your campus.
   
2. Demand an efficient communications system between your office and the NCAA and your conference offices to keep you abreast of important policy discussions. Engage your conference representative on the NCAA Management Council and presidential bodies on at least a quarterly basis. Provide feedback and support of Board positions on key proposals.

The NCAA's heritage of dynamic and intelligent self-governance is as strong today as ever. The will to act now is to assure that the governance form follows the important functions of broad athletics input combined with presidential decision-making.