The Division I-A Athletic Directors Association has called the effectiveness of the current Division I governance structure into question.

The organization has announced it will appoint a subgroup composed of Division I-A athletics directors and faculty athletics representatives to examine the feasibility of a single annual legislative cycle, as well as a change in the voting process.

When the NCAA restructured in 1997, the Association abandoned its longstanding one-school, one-vote form of governance and adopted a federated system that gave each division more autonomy. Division I established a representative form of governance that funneled legislation though cabinets, a Management Council and a Board of Directors composed of conference-appointed representatives who ruled on legislation periodically throughout the year.

The new system was thought to be more efficient at first, particularly when it came to moving the more mundane legislation through the system more quickly, but a byproduct of the new structure apparently is that fewer athletics administrators on each campus feel as connected to the process as they did under the one-school, one-vote system.

In a March 4 release, the Division I-A Athletic Directors Association said that it and a group of Division I-A faculty athletics representatives believe the current structure "falls short of promoting institutional involvement."

And in a letter mailed to Division I-A athletics directors and institutional CEOs, the athletics directors association indicated that in the current structure, "decisions are made and legislation is crafted that does not fully reflect the obligations of the Division I-A director of athletics such as competitiveness and cost management."

University of Iowa Athletics Director Bob Bowlsby, who is president of the Division I-A Athletic Directors Assoiation, said athletics directors have two primary concerns with the new structure. One is that many athletics directors who are not directly tied to the structure feel "disengaged" from the legislative process. The other is that the selection process for membership on the legislative bodies has led to fewer Division I-A athletics directors serving on those boards.

"Whether it was intentional or some sort of byproduct of the structure, we're less engaged than we were before," he said. "Also, as the second, third and fourth generations of the new structure evolve, the sense is that when major decisions are being made, there aren't enough athletics directors at the table."

Bowlsby, who was the first Management Council chair in the new structure, said the sense of disengagement is to some degree the fault of athletics directors who "let themselves be disengaged." At the same time, he said, it is more challenging to be fully conversant on the issues in the new structure, which adds to the problem.

"When there's that level of disengagement -- and it probably isn't too strong to say dissatisfaction -- from an organization the new structure was designed to accommodate, then I think it's worth reviewing," he said.

The athletics directors association subcommittee will examine such options as (1) a single annual legislative cycle (legislation currently is acted on in April and October); (2) discussion of legislative proposals and voting at the annual NCAA Convention by the school representatives of each Division I institution (votes to be counted by subdivision when requested); and (3) use of those votes by the Division I Board of Directors in its decision-making process.

The athletics directors association believes those changes can be implemented without compromising the presidents' leadership authority through the Board of Directors.

"While no one has ever challenged presidential control or authority -- it's as it should be," Bowlsby said, "but with the representative form of governance, maybe even presidents aren't quite as informed as they were over the last decade."

The athletics directors association's announcement comes at a time when an ad hoc group of the NCAA Executive Committee is completing its own review of the structure and is planning to make a preliminary report to the Executive Committee in April.

Bowlsby said his group is not intended to usurp the authority or prerogatives of any other group, "but just as other groups are looking at it, I think we want to look at it, too, and make it just as good as it can be for everyone in Division I."

The current structure also was scrutinized at the recent NCAA Convention in January, as both the Management Council and Board of Directors discussed ideas to get Division I members more involved. One idea bandied about was a one-school, one-vote system that retained the current weighted-voting scale that gives Division I-A a majority.

Bowlsby said athletics directors have discussed similar options, though there is no consensus yet on a solution.

"We all know what the difficulties are with one institution, one vote," Bowlsby said. "There are those advocates who would like to go back to one institution, one vote, but I wouldn't say that is a majority position at this point.

"There may be a variety of other options that would better meet our needs."