Now that the NCAA Football Study Oversight Committee has determined what it believes Division I-A football-playing institutions should look like, the group has determined what it thinks Division I-A conferences should resemble.

At its February 1 meeting in Indianapolis, the committee recommended that the Division I Board of Directors endorse legislation that clarifies and strengthens Division
I-A conference criteria. The action comes about six months after the oversight committee endorsed proposals that enhance classification criteria for Division I-A football-playing institutions.

Under the conference proposal, leagues can be classified as Division
I-A if they have at least eight members that meet all Division I-A standards. To be counted as one of the eight members, an institution must participate in a conference schedule in at least six men's and eight women's conference-sponsored sports (men's basketball and football and three women's team sports must be included). Conference-sponsored sports also must provide regular-season and/or conference championship opportunities; consistent with minimum standards identified by NCAA sports committees for automatic qualification.

The issue of conference criteria has heightened in the wake of recent conference realignments that have prompted Division I legislators to seek clarity on what should constitute a Division I-A conference for the purpose of governance votes. In endorsing the new standards, the oversight committee believes the new criteria group similar conferences in a manner that does not significantly disturb the current voting ratio between Divisions I-A and I-AA/I-AAA. That balance of power, in fact, is an issue that the oversight committee considered during a panel discussion that questioned whether the current structure widens or reduces the gap between
I-A and I-AA/I-AAA.

The committee heard from panelists Rick Bay, the athletics director at San Diego State University, and Kevin Weiberg, the commissioner of the Big 12 Conference, who spoke about the amount of power conferences have in the current structure. Bay claimed that the current structure has granted too much authority to conferences and has contributed to Division I becoming "a federation of competing classifications, rather than an assembly of conferences acting for the good of Division I as a whole."

Weiberg, however, said whatever status the so-called "equity" conferences and the BCS have garnered is market-driven and that "no amount of gerrymandering will rectify those market forces that have led us to this point."

The "gerrymandering" is a reference to possible alternatives to the current structure that could, among other things, re-engage the Division I membership in the legislative process and re-establish the NCAA Convention as a legislative focal point. The committee considered such alternative governance models and their impact on the structure in its review of conference criteria, but while committee members did not engage in whether to endorse those alternatives, the consensus of the group was that whatever was broken could be fixed without starting over.

"The current structure is infinitely better in getting the larger issues on the table for discussion," said committee member and Washington State University President V. Lane Rawlins. "It would be a mistake to turn back the progress we've made since restructuring. Tensions were high just before we changed. We couldn't have stayed where we were."

The committee's discussion was important given that an Executive Committee ad hoc group is conducting a review of the Association's governance structure. That group has been soliciting feedback for about six months and is scheduled to report to the Executive Committee in April. The oversight committee figures to keep the issue on future agendas since football would play an important role in any discussion of governance modification.

Division I-AA enhancements

In light of the proposed Division
I-A conference criteria -- and the proposed classification criteria for Division I-A football-playing institutions that already are out for comment in the Division I legislative pipeline -- the committee endorsed several measures designed to enhance Division I-AA football. The prevailing theory is that strengthening Division I-A requirements should also come with an enhancement of Division I-AA to provide an incentive for current Division I-A programs that may reclassify because of the new Division I-A membership criteria. The enhancements also are meant to provide an environment in I-AA that reduces the temptation of I-AA schools to take unnecessary financial risks by making the leap to I-A in hopes of obtaining more money or prestige.

Thus, the enhancements developed by the Division I-AA Football Committee and the Division I-AA Football Governance Committee include recommending a modification to the Division I-A bowl eligibility requirements so that a Division I-A institution may count one victory over a qualified Division I-AA institution every year instead of once every four years. The thinking is that eliminating the "once-in-four-year" requirement would provide opportunities for current Division I-AA institutions to generate additional revenues while continuing their regional rivalries with Division I-A schools.

Another important enhancement the committee endorsed is to televise preliminary-round games in the Division I-AA championship. That would come at a cost of more than $300,000, but the committees making the recommendations believe that accompanying changes in bracketing may recoup most of those costs. The idea is to seed only the top four teams in the bracket and pair them with teams by geographic proximity. The remaining eight teams would be paired by geographic proximity, and sites would be determined by quality of facility and revenue potential, among other considerations.

The committee also supported playing the Division I-AA championship game on the third Friday in December. That proposal is compatible with the NCAA's philosophy of discouraging institutions from scheduling football contests on Friday nights since most state high-school football playoffs have concluded by the third Friday in December. Also, the week before Christmas has become a part of the Division I-A football bowl season.

Postseason bowl games

In other action, the committee continued its review of postseason bowl game issues, including proposals from the Division I Football Certification Subcommittee that would strengthen certification criteria. The oversight committee endorsed several certification "guidelines" for the subcommittee to use when reviewing applications submitted by prospective sponsoring agencies for postseason bowls, including stadium capacity and previous attendance history, value of the title sponsor, the television network and value of the television agreement, and the level of community involvement.

The committee also recommended maintaining the current moratorium limiting the number of bowls to no more than 26 through the 2003-04 bowl season. However, the Football Certification Subcommittee expects as many as 28 applications for 2002 and possibly 30 for 2003. The subcommittee has expressed interest in establishing additional guidelines, including revised ticket-sales policies and/or stricter net revenue requirements to evaluate bowls, but the group has requested more time to review the impact of those measures. The Football Issues Committee also will be asked for feedback on certification concerns.

In a related matter, the committee endorsed a recommendation that, on a one-year trial basis, teams with a 6-6 record in 2002 would be bowl eligible.

In addition, the committee also discussed the issue of excessive commercialism in postseason football. It agreed with the Division I Board of Directors that the issue merits further discussion by presidents and that perhaps presidents should have more overall control of the bowl system. The committee also endorsed the concept of the NCAA becoming more assertive in its certification of and control over non-BCS bowls in matters such as television rights negotiations and community involvement.

Athlete welfare issues next for review

With proposals for Division I-A institutional and conference classification requirements behind it, the Football Study Oversight Committee is turning its attention to the next topic for broad-based review: student-athlete welfare.

A panel composed of Bryan Smith, team physician for the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Purdue University football coach Joe Tiller; Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee Chair Michael Aguirre; and Josephine Potuto, faculty athletics representative at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, spoke about student-athlete issues as they relate to football, including off-season voluntary workouts.

Whether voluntary workouts are indeed voluntary has been an issue for several years -- so much so in fact that the Division I SAAC established definitions for the term "voluntary" that now appear in the Division I Manual. But the issue transcends terminology. What's more at stake is whether student-athletes who participate in these sessions are afforded the protection they receive during regular practice sessions despite the head coach being prohibited from overseeing the workouts.

"Let's not sugarcoat this, if you're going to compete in that first game, you're going to have to prepare during the summer," said Tiller, referring to college football's uniqueness in that a reduced schedule doesn't afford many early season losses.

Tiller said the issue is compounded if student-athletes do not participate in voluntary workouts and are then forced to "catch up" in an already compacted lead-in practice period, which is just three days without pads. "To suggest that three days is a break-in period is not practical," Tiller acknowledged.

Aguirre agreed, saying that student-athletes probably would choose to participate in the voluntary workouts simply because most athletes are highly competitive and want to do whatever they can to gain an advantage on their opponent. "But if we're going to call the sessions voluntary, then have them be voluntary," he said. "We're getting tired of hearing the rhetoric."

Aguirre maintained that the "voluntary" tag is important in that it gives student-athletes another option. He said if the sessions were to be mandatory, there might be some demands from student-athletes, such as extending their scholarship to cover the summer session.

As for solutions, the Football Study Oversight Committee discussed various alternatives that ranged from loosening the restrictions on coaches for the voluntary sessions to perhaps restructuring practice time to provide for more earlier in the summer and less in the spring. The elimination of spring football, in fact -- something that has been discussed in the past -- could re-emerge as an option. The committee also has asked the Football Issues Committee and the Division I SAAC for additional feedback.

The panel discussion also focused on emergency medical personnel assigned to voluntary workouts, insurance coverage for student-athletes who participate in them, and education efforts regarding nutritional supplements. The oversight committee will review recommendations related to these issues during its May meeting.

The group also discussed financial aid and benefits for student-athletes, including the concept of extending the grant-in-aid to the full cost of attendance.

-- Gary T. Brown