In July 2002, the NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics (CWA) recommended that the Division I Management Council initiate a review of NCAA Division I financial aid legislation to determine whether the equivalency designations for women's sports were appropriate.

Three months later, an ad hoc group consisting of members of CWA, the Management Council and the financial aid committee began their review.

"The first part of the process was really looking at a lot of history and data," said Carol Iwaoka, an associate commissioner of the Big Ten Conference and a member of the ad hoc group. "We looked at gender-equity reports, sports-sponsorship trends and participation rates. We wanted to see what the relationship was between increased grants-in-aid and participation. We also looked at the average number of female student-athletes receiving aid."

In 1995-96, scholarship limits were increased in seven women's sports -- cross country/track, field hockey, gymnastics, lacrosse, soccer, softball and squash. Through its research, the ad hoc group determined that in the years that had passed since the initial increase, statistical data showed a strong correlation between an increase in scholarships and an increase in sport participation for cross country/track and gymnastics. There was a moderate relationship for soccer.

The ad hoc group determined that an appropriate course of action would be to increase grants-in-aid in soccer, cross country/track, gymnastics and volleyball. According to Iwaoka, volleyball made the list because of the sport's substitution rules and frequent position switches. In April 2004, the group forwarded its recommendations to the Management Council. The following April, the Division I Board of Directors adopted the legislative proposal.

The legislation was met with both support and criticism, and for the first time since Division I went to a representative governance structure in 1997, member institutions used their right to override the Board's decision.

While the merits of the proposal have spurred debate, there also has been a good deal of discussion about what it means to the NCAA governance process.

"I think the initial act of the override is a great thing," said Ian Gray, chair of the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. "It demonstrates that the conferences and the schools that make up the conferences are really interested in some of the core issues of the proposal. It's great to see them exercising this ability we haven't seen before."

While discussions on the Convention floor figure to be passionate, there are mixed feelings about the fact that the issue that caused the first override vote is about increasing opportunities for female student-athletes.

"This is definitely a benchmark moment in our modern governance structure," said Chris Plonsky, women's athletics director at the University of Texas at Austin. "There's a bit of irony that the first issue that reached this level is women's sports. There could be an interesting point of pride about that."

Lynda Tealer worries that athletics administrators are sending the wrong message by choosing this as the issue on which to take a stand.

"I don't have a problem with folks being able to say we had this representative system going forward, but it's a little discomforting that this is the one area people couldn't swallow," said Tealer, associate athletics director at the University of Florida. "We've dealt with a lot of significant issues like academic reform, and I was surprised this one got the override and brought the machinery to a halt. I think that's a bad headline."

Another concern is how the timing of the override affects recruiting. Coaches are waiting to find out if they will have more scholarships. They can recruit as if they have the extra scholarships, but if the override prevails, they could have a potential problem on their hands with too many grants-in-aid committed.

"This has put a lot of our programs in a bind with regard to recruiting. In a very short time, we could have scholarships available, but we all know that the recruiting process takes a long time," Tealer said. "Prospective student-athletes are looking for a commitment."

The logistical issues associated with this particular proposal may have revealed a potential problem with the override process in general.

"One of the things I thought we were going to accomplish when we went to a new system was to really speed up how legislation is reviewed, adopted and sent out to the membership," Tealer said. "I don't have a problem with there being a stop-gap measure if you don't like what came out of the representative system, but I would prefer if there were a more time-sensitive way to resolve the issue."

Iwaoka believes that the entire process is good for the NCAA governance structure and proves that the system is fair and effective.

"I think it's good for governance to go through this process. It will be very telling at a time when we're trying to see how engaged people are," Iwaoka said.

Some conferences have reinforced the importance of administrators attending the Convention to cast their vote in January. A marked increase in Convention participation is expected.

"The Convention will be a lot better attended. There's no question that when this new governance structure was set up, it was to accommodate exactly what we're about to face. Nobody should be surprised, disappointed or mad. It is what it is," Plonsky said.

-- Josh Centor