ANAHEIM, California -- The voice of the athletics practitioners has been heard.

After more than a year of listening to Division I athletics directors, faculty representatives and senior woman administrators say they are confused and disenfranchised by the current governance structure, the Division I Management Council has taken steps to clear up a cloudy legislative landscape.

Beginning this summer, Division I will return to an annual legislative cycle. And while that may feel like a pair of comfortable old shoes to veteran Division I administrators, the new system is designed to be different enough to keep the division from walking into the same kinds of problems that prompted restructuring in 1997.

The Council, which met January 11 in conjunction with the NCAA Convention, decided to implement a single legislative rotation that spans from July through April. The cycle features the return of the July 15 deadline for conferences to submit proposals (the same date that existed in the pre-1997 structure). Once proposals are submitted, the Management Council Administrative Committee will refer them to the appropriate Division I cabinet, which will take positions on the proposals during their September meetings. The Council, then, will conduct its initial review in October, and proposals that are passed will be distributed for a 90-day comment period that includes discussion forums at the NCAA Convention. That would set up a final review from the Council and possible adoption by the Board of Directors in April. Legislative proposals still would carry an August 1 effective date (unless otherwise noted).

Council members believe the single cycle will alleviate concerns from administrators who have complained about not being able to track the status of various proposals. Now, instead of two adoption periods (October and April), the Council and Board would use the April window to close out legislation. But the Management Council's new single cycle also features a policy allowing the group to adopt emergency and/or noncontroversial legislation during the interim period if the proposals pass with a significant majority (a policy in keeping with current practice). The plan includes establishing a Management Council subcommittee charged with reviewing all pending legislative proposals to provide the Council with a recommended course of action during initial consideration. That group also would help the Council identify which proposals might be considered as noncontroversial or emergency legislation.

Additionally, an "official notice" will be published after the October Management Council meeting in order to help members track legislation.

The Council's governance subcommittee will spend the next few months attending to some of the details involved in implementing the new structure and will report back to the Council in April.

The move to a single cycle was predicated on membership comment. A survey of Division I members this fall revealed that 82 percent of the 164 Division I institutions responding either supported or strongly supported the annual cycle over the current system. By subdivision, the percentages were 87 in Division I-A, 83 in I-AA and 74 in I-AAA. In addition, the Division I-A Athletics Directors Association and Division I members of the Faculty Athletics Representatives Association indicated earlier their desire for a single cycle.

The Convention factor

While the new annual cycle provides much-needed clarity in many respects, what remains unclear is how the NCAA Convention factors into the process. Many administrators have claimed that not only does the current legislative cycle contribute to the feeling of disenfranchisement, the new representative nature of voting also has members not directly tied to the structure feeling left out. Declining Division I attendance figures at the Convention support that notion.

In addition to discussions during the Management Council meeting, the issue of the Convention also was addressed at the January 13 Division I issues forum.

The membership survey results were presented, and forum participants saw that just 5 percent of respondents favored the current Convention format, a theory supported by the light forum attendance. As for alternatives, the survey indicated support for a "hot topics" issues forum to kick off the Convention, followed by conference meetings, where "directed" votes would be cast that would guide decisions made at the Management Council meeting. However, neither the conference votes nor Management Council decisions would be binding on the Board of Directors.

There also was support for a return in some form to the old Convention format, where Division I institutions would convene and cast either votes of equal weight or votes weighted by subdivision. Again, neither scenario would impact the Board's ultimate authority, but members see the voting alternatives perhaps as a salve for the disenfranchisement. But when those alternatives were presented for further discussion at the Division I forum, reaction was minimal.

The issue received more vigorous attention during a joint luncheon with Council and Board members. Several presidents were opposed to the notion of a voting Convention, even though the votes would not be binding. One president, in fact, noted that the goals of increasing attendance at the Convention and incorporating the Convention into the legislative process may be conflicting. In other words, Division I needs to decide the purpose of the Convention before it worries about attendance.

Other presidents, along with NCAA President Myles Brand, support the idea of a thematically based Convention that would feature an intensive focus on one topic, such as Title IX, funding issues or student-athlete time demands. Such an approach might be successful in attracting participation and educating the membership on important Association issues, thus enhancing the Convention without compromising the governance process.

The governance subcommittee will review the role of the Convention further during the upcoming year, and may be in position to make recommendations to the Management Council by April 2004. The Council noted that the single legislative cycle could have a positive effect on the Convention, but members agreed that the exact impact of the modification won't be known until after the 2004 Convention.

Student-athlete benefits

The Management Council also authorized the drafting of legislation regarding uses for the recently created Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund. The fund, which was established following the bundled-rights agreement with CBS Sports and which is separate from the Special Assistance Fund, begins with a $17 million allocation in August 2003 and escalates to a $57 million allocation in 2013. The fund will be allocated to conferences on the basis of institutional sports sponsorship and grants-in-aid numbers.

Examples of permissible uses may include:

The fund provides conferences maximum flexibility to pay expenses that arise in conjunction with a student-athlete's participation in intercollegiate athletics or that recognize or support the student-athlete's academic achievement. As proposed, the fund may not be used for salaries, scholarships (except summer school), capital improvements or stipends for student-athletes.

Other highlights

Division I Management Council
January 11/Anaheim, California