If athletics administrators could turn the tables on certification and grade the program rather than be reviewed by it, some would certify the self-study system -- but only with conditions -- and others wouldn't even be that forgiving.

The program was approved at the 1993 NCAA Convention after the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics clamored for more presidential oversight of intercollegiate athletics. The program has put every Division I school through its paces, and some members are ready for a change. The Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference in fact has legislation on the table (Proposal No. 2003-69) that would eliminate the decade-old program.

Yet, even staunch opponents of the certification program agree that the mandatory campus-wide review has given more university constituents -- from boosters to faculty to community leaders -- a better understanding and a more favorable opinion of athletics. They also value the link certification creates between the athletics department and the university CEO. They even talk openly about the improvements that certification has brought about in their athletics operations.

But many administrators have grown weary of the time it takes to complete the process and the costs involved. Moreover, they suspect that more and more peer-review teams are imposing their own agendas without understanding the mission of the institution they're scrutinizing.

One athletics director whose program recently was certified said one of his peer reviewers didn't think the equity programs his institution had taken pains to implement meshed with what he called "the review team's agenda." He said the cookie-cutter approach peer-review teams use to judge conformity is inappropriate. "That's trying to make 327 Division I institutions the same, and we're not," he said.

Others complain that the certification program has grown too broadly in scope. Pacific-10 Conference Commissioner Tom Hansen in fact compared certification to a Christmas tree. "People keep hanging ornaments on it," he said. "A lot of special interests in the Association have been able to add their special area to the program and take it far beyond its original scope."

"I don't think it's wrong to certify," said University of North Carolina, Greensboro, Athletics Director Nelson Bobb, "but I do think it's wrong to impose."

"Certification should be continued, but the way we do it needs to change," said Indiana State University Athletics Director Andrea Myers.

Members of the Division I Committee on Athletics Certification are heeding those calls by considering several modifications to the program that would reduce its scope and increase efficiency. Included are proposals to reduce the number of operating principles and more clearly communicate what is expected for institutions to satisfy the remaining standards.

For example, among operating principles under the knife is the very first one, which deals with the athletics program's mission statement. Since the certification committee values how athletics programs live their mission more than the substance of the statement, having an operating principle scrutinize wordsmithing may be unnecessary. Fiscal integrity principles also are under review. Committee members believe financial practices are covered so thoroughly elsewhere in the Division I Manual that to include them as part of certification is duplicative. Even the sportsmanship and ethical conduct principle -- the most recent to be added -- may be removed. Members believe matters in that area should be left to the Association-wide Committee on Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct and conferences to administer.

The group also is considering eliminating the interim report and reducing the size of peer-review teams and the time they spend on campus.

More immediate modifications include a Web-based self-study system to be rolled out this fall that will reduce the size of self-study reports and streamline the process. And all operating principles now feature "measurable standards of conformity," or a checklist that provides institutions, peer reviewers and the certification committee with the same expectations for conformity. The thinking here is the more uniform the committee can make the review, the more consistent peer-review teams will be.

Is all that enough to satisfy the critics?

The jury is out, according to Marist College President Dennis J. Murray, who currently presides over the MAAC. He said most presidents would favor any move that would make certification less costly and cumbersome, but his peers in the MAAC still believe it might be best to start over.

The stated rationale in the MAAC proposal claims certification "has produced few tangible benefits to the institutions that fund this time-consuming effort" and encourages "development of alternative systems" to meet certification's stated goal of validating the fundamental integrity of member institutions' athletics programs.

"While our presidents support that fundamental goal, we question the effectiveness and the efficiency of the current process," Murray said. "However, I don't want our proposal to suggest we are opposed to a process of self-improvement."

As to what an alternative might be, MAAC Commissioner Rich Ensor, who recently was appointed to the certification committee, said a more localized approach might work.

"Our league would prefer something more topic-specific and conference-administered and done over a number of years," Ensor said. "Maybe do student-athlete welfare one year and then compliance three years later."

Ensor said such topical reviews could be administered by the conference and still verify institutional integrity with respect to Division I operating principles. He refuted the notion that a conference-based model could lead to inconsistent application of any measurable standards, noting that conferences already administer any number of NCAA programs.

However, Paul Risser, who chairs the certification committee, worries about handing over any certification reins to leagues that are competitive by nature.

"We've had a chance to look at a lot of institutions across the country and a lot of conferences, and there are a lot of differences among them," said Risser, who is the chancellor of the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education. "Consistency at the certification level and similar expectations across conferences is a pretty huge advantage in my mind."

Principle of contention

Beyond the time and costs involved, many opponents of certification cite operating principles regarding equity, welfare and sportsmanship as sticking points, thinking that they are too often subjected to subjective review. Indeed, those principles frequently are where institutions certified with conditions fall short.

"There is a concern that some peer-review teams come in with agendas without understanding the institutional perspective of the school they are visiting," Murray said. "This is common for self-governing accrediting teams, and it's probably part of human nature, but it's something you hear presidents, athletics directors and others complain about."

North Carolina-Greensboro's Bobb has heard his peers complain about it. "What I hear from other athletics directors is that everyone has problems with the fourth section (equity/diversity) because peer teams have set agendas," he said. "Therein lies a good deal of the problem."

What may be unclear, though, is whether administrators are perceiving peer reviewers as having set agendas, or whether they simply are bothered by a second opinion. Conference USA Deputy Commissioner Brenda Weare, who just completed a term on the certification committee, said there may be a disconnect between what the peer reviewer says and what the administrator hears.

"There may be peer reviewers who come in with their own experiences and try to provide feedback based on those experiences," Weare said. "But everyone needs to understand that an institution is not held to more standards than any other institution regardless of the peer reviewer. When peer reviewers make suggestions that fall outside of the operating principles, those are merely suggestions. The committee ensures that each institution is held accountable only to the operating principle."

Risser said it's the second opinion that some administrators find hard to swallow, particularly since that opinion is required and not necessarily solicited.

"It's human nature," he said. "Nobody likes to have some outside group come in and tell them how to do their program or that their program is deficient in some way. But the curious thing to me is that every successful business and every other successful program I know desires outside input in terms of making suggestions for improvement. There's a benefit from having a second opinion, but there's also a human-nature response of not liking to be told what to do."

Self-study a valid tool

Risser said that establishing measurable standards of conformity will help alleviate the tension that can be created from peer review. Those expectations give institutions a clearer picture of what peer reviewers -- and the certification committee -- consider as conforming.

"In the past it really was up to the peer-review team to decide for itself whether the institution was conforming," Risser said. "Now we're being very clear about what evidence is required so that institutions aren't guessing what it means to conform. The peer-review teams also have that same set of standards. A lot of the variability among peer-review teams will rapidly go away since we're all looking at the same specifications."

The new measurable standards implemented last year give more guidance as to what the committee is looking for in each area. For example, some of the measurable standards for operating principle 2.1 (academic standards) include:

* Student-athletes must be governed by the admissions policies that apply to students generally. If any deviation exists, the institution must develop a plan for improvement to address the issue.

* Institutions must analyze, explain and address all deficiencies between the three-class average graduation rate of student-athletes as a whole and the three-class average general student graduation rate.

* Academic standards and policies for student-athletes must be consistent with standards for the student body in general. If any deviation exists, the institution must develop a plan for improvement to address the issue.

For operating principle 4.1 (gender issues), measurable standards include:

* The institution must demonstrate that it has implemented its first-cycle gender-equity plan or the institution must provide an explanation for partial completion of the plan.

* The institution must analyze its EADA report for the three most recent academic years and explain and address any significant discrepancies and comment on trends.

The Pac-10's Hansen supports any uniformity the committee can bring to what he says is certification's most consistent complaint: inconsistency among peer-review teams. "If you get an unusually strong advocate for a particular area," he said, "an institution might be held accountable to a different standard than another institution. That inconsistency is what most frustrates our members."

While Hansen said Pac-10 administrators will be willing to see how the certification committee's modifications play out, he suspects they would still favor eliminating the program. The league's council, in fact, which is composed of athletics directors, senior woman administrators and faculty athletics representatives, has supported elimination for two years, but each time, Pac-10 presidents decided not to submit a proposal.

Hansen doesn't doubt presidents' support of institutional self-study. In fact, he said that's why it would be safe to eliminate the national-based program as the self-study vehicle. Absent certification, he said, Division I would not slip into an unregulated morass -- university presidents wouldn't allow it.

"CEOs would be looking for that part of certification (self-study) to continue even absent an NCAA program," he said. "Plus, at least at the I-A level, we operate very much under public scrutiny (which adds pressure to comply). There are just so many reporting functions now from the conferences to the NCAA that many leagues feel like certification is just piling on."

"I believe in self-study, and some level of certification is important," Murray confirmed. "How that is accomplished is what needs to be reviewed."

The certification committee certainly is being sensitive to that review. Members plan to discuss in more detail the proposed modifications at their October meeting. Then the Management Council will get a crack at the changes later this year. If all goes well, the certification program could soon look a lot different.

"Much of the feedback we've received so far is that people who've been through certification think it has value," Weare said. "That feedback is not across the board, and there may be a difference between how institutions that had a significant amount of work to do view it as opposed to those that didn't have much to do. But even some that did said it was the most valuable thing they've done.

"Does it take time and money? Yes. But is there value to it? Yes."

Proposed modifications

* Reducing number of operating principles from 13 to seven.

* Eliminating interim reports.

* Using technology to increase efficiency and reduce costs.

* Implementing measurable standards of conformity.

* Implementing more focused peer-review visits.

* Reducing the time peer-review teams spend on campus.

Committee chair says schools should value 'second opinion'

Comments from Paul Risser, chair of the Division I Committee on Athletics Certification and chancellor of the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education:

On the benefits of certification to the institution:

"There are many. One is obtaining a second opinion. Having served as a president at two universities, it gives great comfort to realize that a process as thorough as certification says your program is well- organized. Also, it helps the campus to understand intercollegiate athletics much better. We hear this on virtually every case. Faculty members go away with a better understanding of athletics, and donors and supporters also become stronger advocates for the program. Also, when it's done right, good ideas are shared, ideas that have worked well at other institutions."

* * *

On efforts to streamline the process:

"What we've tried to do in the last 18 months is to make sure we focus on the health of the institution and to do that as cost-effectively as we can. The fact that we have uniform performance standards right now has solved lots of problems with consistency among peer-review teams. In the past, institutions weren't quite sure what it would take to satisfy the committee, so they just provided lots of information. Now, having performance standards, institutions know what they need to provide and they don't have to go through the guessing game."

* * *

On cost concerns:

"I know the cost issue is raised occasionally and I know that the actual cost of certification is hard to quantify because different institutions involve a different number of individuals on their various committees. But it probably costs no more than $5,000 to $7,000 to do this, and when you realize that's once in 10 years, the cost is really pretty minimal. If you could pay $500 a year for an outside group to give you advice, you'd probably jump at the opportunity. I don't think that cost is a thoughtful argument."

* * *

On the perceived overlap with institutional accreditation:

"Some institutions have asked to have their certification occur coincidentally with accreditation because they believe some of the information gathering is similar for both. We've allowed that. We've also had institutions that want to separate them. To me, accreditation is institution-wide, while certification is focused solely on athletics. While institutions have been allowed to make their own choice, the focused attention on athletics is not something you'd get from accreditation."

Certification backers see overlap with enforcement as misconstrued

Many people believe athletics certification and the enforcement process have a symbiotic relationship, and that since major infractions cases continue to occur in Division I, athletics certification must not be working.

In fact, certification's perceived lack of effect on the frequency of infractions is among reasons the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference is proposing that certification be eliminated.

"I'm not sure any central bureaucracy can address something like certification," said MAAC Commissioner Rich Ensor. "It needs to be addressed by campuses. If the institutional control isn't there, the certification process is not going to make it happen. If it could, we wouldn't be having all these violations."

But proponents of the program designed to lay the groundwork for institutional control say certification -- while it might be a seal of approval -- can't be expected to seal off violations.

"People wonder how an institution can experience a major infraction after they've completed the certification process," Indiana State University Athletics Director Andrea Myers said. "People misunderstand that when you go through certification, the committee is not saying (through its final report) that University X will never break a rule. What they're saying is that the school has a compliance process in place and should be able to execute its plans."

"We're trying to ensure that the NCAA and external communities understand that certification and enforcement are separate," said Conference USA Deputy Commissioner Brenda Weare, who recently completed a term on the certification committee. "Even if you have systems in place, there could be a renegade administrator or coach who gets an institution in trouble."

Still, the certification program loses credibility when recently certified programs are put on probation. The certification committee in fact has suggested having the enforcement staff notify the group if schools going through athletics certification have been issued a letter of inquiry. Keith Gill, NCAA director of membership services, said that information would improve the timing of the press release so that the certification committee is not certifying schools just before the school is placed on probation. "This change will not eliminate the issue of the certification committee certifying an institution that the infractions committee is placing on probation, but it will certainly reduce the chances of occurrence," Gill said.

Marist College President Dennis J. Murray said he understands that the two functions are separate, but that if an infractions case involves the same personnel who participated in the certification process, then certification ought to be called into question.

"If a program goes through its certification with flying colors and then the next year is involved in a major scandal, and if it's discovered that the people involved in the self-study were the same people involved in the activities that got the institution in trouble -- I think the whole question of what benefits you get from certification can legitimately be raised," Murray said.

-- Gary T. Brown