That topic has been scrutinized since the Association adopted its federated structure in 1997. Division I institutions supported federation at the time because it provided autonomy on division-specific issues, and members favored a new legislative process that could move proposals more quickly and efficiently throughout the year rather than annually wade through an enormous legislative agenda -- which typically included many arcane proposals -- all in one setting. A byproduct of that, however, was that the Convention no longer was a legislative focal point.

Division I has been creative in finding ways to attract its membership back to the Convention setting by introducing sessions such as the Division I forum, and encouraging Division I conferences to conduct meetings at the Convention site. But it's becoming more apparent that for Division I members, being able to vote issues up or down in person perhaps meant more than was initially thought.

The right to vote

The Management Council's governance subcommittee has been assigned the task of discussing ways to further reconnect the Division I membership with the Convention, but part of the challenge is determining whether the current method of governance would foster such a marriage. A frequently heard complaint is that individuals not directly involved in the governance structure feel "disenfranchised" because they no longer have an institutional vote and they find it difficult to keep track of the process when they're not directly involved.

Since the current legislative process is primarily conference driven, many campus administrators who aren't at the cabinet or Council table feel their opinions on legislative matters don't carry the weight they used to. And without the one-school, one-vote system, members outside the structure do not feel compelled to attend the Convention.

The challenge, then, is simple to determine but difficult to solve: How do you reconnect the Division I membership with the legislative process and return the Convention as a focal point?

Somehow giving Division I members their "vote" back might help, but nobody is sure how to do that without disrupting the division's current legislative balance. As one Management Council member put it, "How do we get schools to feel allegiance to the system? It's with one school, one vote. We went away from that because we felt it was inefficient, and for a desire on the part of various conferences to have voting control. That's not easily reconciled with a one-school, one-vote system."

Management Council members discussed several possible reconciliations, perhaps the most interesting of which would be to re-establish the Convention as the lone legislative meeting and let all Division I delegates vote on the issues using the weighted-voting system that exists now for the Council, Board and cabinets. That might seem eerily close to what existed before restructuring, but the weighted tally would at least give voting rights back to the membership while maintaining the current majority that Division I-A enjoys.

If membership-wide voting could not be arranged, another idea the Council discussed would be to reschedule the Division I forum at the front end of the Convention, which would provide an opportunity for division-wide debate on important legislation, followed by conference meetings and then a Management Council meeting during which conference representatives would carry the day with a vote. Some Council members thought that membership-wide debate up front would at least approximate a vote and be enough to attract Division I delegates to the Convention setting.

Those are just two ideas the Council discussed, and others will be forthcoming now that the Council charged its governance subcommittee to develop more for review in April.

Council Chair Charles Harris, who is the commissioner of the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference, asked the subcommittee to develop "various models that propose more thoughtful ways to engage the entire membership but retain the purpose of the Council and control of the Board."

"The goal," Harris said, "is to figure out how to address the issue of 'alienation,' which is an apparent byproduct of the system, without simply discarding the system."

Presidential involvement

NCAA President Cedric W. Dempsey took his concerns about the lack of Division I participation at the Convention to the Board of Directors, and several CEOs on that group said that in order to gain presidents' attention in January, it would take a presidential agenda. In other words, unless issues were brewing on topics of presidential interest such as academic reform, budgetary matters or coaches' salaries, institutional CEOs would be reluctant to devote time away from their campuses to attend the Convention.

But Dempsey warned that a lack of presidential involvement at the Convention might lead to a lack of overall presidential control, a foundation upon which the NCAA governance structure was built.

"I have serious concerns about the effectiveness of the NCAA unless we get presidents beyond those on the Board of Directors more engaged," Dempsey said.

Some thoughts the Board offered included the concept of "working conferences," during which presidents could convene on high-profile matters, or the idea of a "presidents day" at the Convention.

Also, in order to increase presidential involvement year-round, the Board discussed the idea of establishing a "presidents academy" that would in effect teach new college and university presidents about the NCAA and its governance structure, as well as provide a level of expectation for presidents to meet or a continuing-education opportunity regarding their involvement with intercollegiate athletics administration.