In the past year or so we have addressed audiences on maintaining institutional control of athletics and on their respective roles in the process. This article both builds on those presentations and integrates the two perspectives into what we hope is a synergistic whole. We have structured this article so that each of us speaks separately, not because we disagree but so that we might focus more easily on the particulars of each role, where they dovetail and some pitfalls of each.

Introduction

From the chancellor

When I was teaching at the University of Virginia and considering returning to Nebraska as an administrator, my then Dean Monrad Paulsen cautioned me that if I were to be a successful administrator I had to be comfortable with the image of being tied to a railroad track with a train coming and knowing there was nothing I could do about it. For many of our presidential colleagues, that train looks like an athletics department.

First, because my message will be that context counts, let me describe my own context at Nebraska. Obviously, we have had a very successful athletics program, particularly in football, for a very long time. Our athletics department is entirely self-supporting -- it pays its own salaries, maintains and builds its own facilities, and pays the university cash for its scholarships. In addition, the department pays about $1.5 million per year to the general university academic budget. We have had a relatively clean program and one that has been committed to supporting the academic success of its student-athletes.

Nonetheless, four years ago we had a major infraction in two Olympic sports and last year we fired a head football coach after a 9-3 season, a coach who had been with the university for many years, as a player and as an assistant coach who had been designated by Tom Osborne as his successor. I have thus seen both the positives and negatives of the passion of our fans for football. I am a fan of college athletics, certainly including football, and I know how important athletics success is to the psyche of the people of Nebraska. Yet in many ways I regret the distraction athletics causes to my primary responsibility of enhancing the academic programs of the university.

From the FAR

Athletics and academic units on campus sometimes seem to live in different worlds and to speak different languages. The FAR must attempt to act as bridge between them. Yet in so doing she must retain her faculty voice and be a strong advocate for the academic mission. She also must have the confidence of the chancellor that she can act in his stead in representing the institution in outside fora. Sometimes I think juggling lessons would be in order.

I, too, am a fan of college athletics, and I enjoy attending competitive events across all our sports. I like doing the work of the FAR because it plays to my background and experience and gives me the opportunity to help ensure that our athletics program is rules-compliant and administered with a prime focus on the fair treatment and academic success of our student-athletes. Nonetheless, the normal everyday time commitment of an FAR certainly distracts from my prime roles of teaching and scholarship. I have moved to a half-time teaching load to have the time to do what I am expected to do as an FAR. Harvey mentioned the major infractions case we had a few years ago. I had a lead role in investigating that case and wrote the report that was submitted to the NCAA.

Athletics as part of the greater world

From the chancellor and the FAR

Everyone seems to have a diagnosis of what is wrong with intercollegiate athletics, and everyone seems to have a prescription for a cure. We count ourselves largely as skeptics of many of the proposals that seem to be leading the agenda. We doubt that one could or would want to return to the supposed idyllic days when young men (and only young men) competed on bare grass fields before a few of their classmates for the glory of their alma mater. Athletics remains an important social and economic element of major universities, and it also is big-time commercial entertainment. It probably will continue to perform both roles into the future.

So, how is a president to manage this enterprise? And how is an FAR to help?

Presidential control: NCAA and conferences

From the chancellor

Presidential control really has multiple components. First, there is the question of presidential control over the rules that regulate athletics, that is, the NCAA process. My sense is that university presidents have been relatively successful in this arena. Consider as examples the current management structure in the NCAA and conferences, both emphasizing presidential participation and control; the success of presidents of the "Big Six" athletics conferences to push the recent academic reforms; and the success of the BCS presidents in resisting a postseason playoff for football.

As Jo suggests below, there currently is considerable free riding as I rely on other presidential colleagues to assert a presidential perspective in various fora. In doing so, I run the risk that these colleagues may not share my perspective or the perspective of my institution. At least in the Big 12, our presidents have been pretty good about sharing issues with each other and seeking common consensus. I also have to acknowledge that any president in these positions is a part-timer with a variety of other responsibilities. In such situations the full-timers -- athletics directors, conference commissioners, NCAA staff, etc. -- will always wield considerable influence. Outsiders trying to control insiders always poses problems. Thus we have to be realistic about the practical limitations on "presidential control" as a cure-all for intercollegiate athletics.

From the FAR

I agree with Harvey regarding the success of the presidents in shaping and pushing national policy, but I am not quite as sanguine as he about the processes in place. Certainly, presidential control of athletics is critical as ultimately only the presidents and faculty can set fundamental academic policy and only the presidents can resolve disagreements between the athletics department and those tending to the academic concerns central to the administration of a university. But presidents typically maintain administrative control of a university not by individually handling all aspects of their responsibility but by delegating a fair amount to vice-chancellors or others. Presidential control of athletics is no different.

One model of presidential control is for each campus president to rely on the NCAA Division I Board of Directors to manage the enterprise, in conjunction with the presidents on executive committees at the conference level and, for presidents in the "Big Six" conferences, to rely on their representatives on the Big Six committee.

The other model is for presidents to rely on a designated individual on their own campuses -- the FAR, I would argue. There are benefits and disadvantages to each model. From a systemic perspective, a decided benefit to the first model is that presidents clearly can move the national agenda quickly, and brook no interference. In the nature of things they are less hamstrung in advancing a good proposal -- or an optimally balanced proposal -- by the fact that it is not, and cannot be, a perfect proposal. They also are freer to undertake a policy initiative in quick time, with the expectation that it likely will need tweaking as it is implemented. From the perspective of each individual president, moreover, a benefit of the first model is that it provides each individual president both the confidence that other presidents are looking closely at matters for which (s)he may not have the time and also the security that moving in conjunction with other presidents avoids too much criticism being aimed in any one individual direction.

Adoption of any legislation runs the risk of producing unforeseen consequences, however, no matter how well-vetted by individuals with time and expertise. The NCAA regulatory process is complex and the meaning, scope, and ancillary effects of legislative proposals are not always self-evident. Even the most engaged presidents may not have adequate time to fully consider all ramifications of a proposal. There are two potential consequences: First, there may be increased risk that a bad proposal may be adopted, as even the most innocuous-looking proposal often has hidden consequences best uncovered and understood by those who are involved daily with the NCAA regulatory system on a campus operational level. Second, the first model tends toward reliance on conference or NCAA administrators and staff, people of great good judgment, experience and good will but the most removed from campus life and active involvement with students. In addition, there is great diversity between and among institutions, even institutions within a particular NCAA division and subdivision. What may make most sense to presidents at other institutions may not be what is the best approach for a particular institution.

Presidential control: On campus

From the chancellor

For our individual campuses the issues of presidential control are more complex and more dangerous for our survival. In some institutions, trustees, major alumni or donors or others external to the institution may seek to wield influence over athletics decision-making. More than once this has gotten institutions into trouble and more than once it has cost a president his or her job. Fortunately, for the most part, I have not had to deal with that issue. But I would observe that we are foolish to think that this phenomenon occurs only in athletics. Large donors or persons of influence or boards of trustees from time to time seek to influence academic decisions as well, with often perverse results. My sense is that each context demands its own approach and it is ultimately driven by how much control an individual president is prepared to concede to remain as president.

There are, of course, signals of when this is a problem in athletics, and they require presidential attention. Are your coaches or athletics director getting too close to certain alumni or members of the board? Do alumni or donors appear on the sidelines? Do they expect special treatment? Do they call to advocate on behalf of a coach or particular decision? Do particular members of your board seem to have an unusual interest in athletics decisions? On issues of importance, do they go directly to the athletics director or through you as president? Do they take public positions contrary to your views? Does your athletics department have clear authority over funds donated to athletics programs or are there separate support organizations? Are you late to learn of athletics initiatives regarding major fund-raising projects or do you hear of them only after decisions are made, announced or implemented?

From the FAR

Harvey said earlier that managing athletics on campus is like being tied to a railroad track with a train coming. If so, the FAR often is the one waving the semaphores.

Athletics as integrated

From the chancellor

Another aspect of presidential control on campus is whether you can in fact exercise control over the decision-making within the athletics department or whether it acts like an independent unit. I believe there is some self-selection of the types of persons going into athletics administration -- they are intense, competitive and impatient. They are not genetically collaborative and, in fairness to them, they are running a major enterprise that has a time frame for decisions that is shorter than those we customarily confront on the academic side of the institution. Regardless of the culture or structure of your institution, keeping "control" over athletics is a challenge. However, I can't help but point out that this is not unique to athletics and that there are times when a president encounters equal difficulties monitoring and controlling academic departments and faculty senates.

Advocates of presidential "control" also often ignore the fact that none of us has the personal time to control athletics in any realistic sense, that many of us have neither the training nor experience to understand the nuances of athletics administration, and that many of us would prefer to devote our time to addressing the challenges facing our academic programs. However, we also know that for many of our institutions athletics is the most visible of activities, and problems there can inflict much more serious and lasting damage on our institution than a controversy in our English departments.

From the FAR

Harvey's comments here underscore what I said earlier regarding the limits of presidential control within the NCAA and conference structures.

Mechanics of presidential control

From the chancellor

So how do we exercise control?

There has been a lot of talk about stronger "integration" of the athletics department into the structure of the larger university. Among the ideas being promoted are that athletics academic-support programs should report to the provost, that athletics medicine should be integrated with general student health centers, that financial activities should be managed by the university CFO, that athletics should fly under the same logos and marketing efforts as the general university, and that athletics fund-raising should be more closely integrated with overall university development. Some schools have gone further and have either quietly, or with great fanfare, reorganized the entire athletics department to be a component of university-wide student recreation or other such general functions. I've even been told I would have more control if I were subsidizing athletics rather than my current position of them subsidizing me. I fall back on the historical wisdom that "the power to tax is the power to destroy."

I am not prepared to say that any of the particular suggestions for integration are necessarily wrong-headed, depending on the particular context of the institution to which they are applied. But I think they have serious potential unintended consequences that at least ought to be considered in this wave of athletics reform.

For example, at Nebraska, integrating academic-support programs into our general advising program and having them report to the provost would be, in my view, a bad idea. We have a successful academic-support program. Our athletics department takes particular pride in its success and there is evidence throughout our stadium and athletics facilities that academic success is recognized and taken seriously.

The only position I know of in a modern university more overburdened than the president is the provost. What fractional share of that office's attention will be paid to athletics programs? And, more significantly, how can I hold my athletics director responsible for the academic success of his student-athletes if he does not have direct responsibility? Indeed, the more you "integrate" athletics functions into the general university, the less responsibility the athletics director has for anything other than winning on the field -- an unhealthy circumstance in my view.

From the FAR

I agree, and would add that the regulatory nature of the NCAA is foreign to most faculty and academic administrators. The typical approach of someone with little familiarity with NCAA regulations is to treat athletics matters and student-athletes in the same way that students and exclusively academic matters are treated. It is an approach that often leads academic administrators blithely to pass "go" and find themselves directly at a major infractions case.

Controlling athletics: The AD

From the chancellor

Without question, control of athletics requires oversight of athletics. But oversight does not depend on "organizational integration." It depends on having sensible structures in place that work. Here is what I've tried to do to give myself assurance that there is presidential control.

First, and foremost, I hired an athletics director who expresses the same values I do about the role of an athletics department in the context of a research university. The bonuses in his contract are related not only to winning but to accomplishing other elements of success, including financial management and the academic success of our student-athletes. He reports directly to me and I meet with him monthly. He serves on my cabinet. In the latter role, we work to find ways to exploit the power of our athletics program for the greater good of the university. Thus, our radio contract specifies a certain number of on-air promotional slots for academic use and we generally engage our high-profile players, our mascots and other athletics symbols in our student recruiting and outreach activities.

I would say that he comes up with as many good ideas for integrated marketing as we do. To think that I would have more control, or that our university would be better served by him reporting to some other official, is difficult for me to understand.

From the FAR

Having the "right" AD in place goes a long way to assure that the FAR will be able to perform her responsibilities. For that reason alone it is helpful for the FAR to have input into the hiring decision (as I did in the hiring of our current AD). It also is important because:

• It sets the right tone with the AD regarding the importance of the FAR in the oversight structure;

• It sends the right message to the campus at large and to other institutional publics regarding the importance of the academic mission;

• In a good working relationship the chancellor should want to know what the FAR thinks; and

• The FAR is a member of the faculty and faculty should participate in important decisions affecting athletics.

I am fortunate that both ADs with whom I have worked at Nebraska have had high on their agendas student-athlete well-being, student-athlete academic performance and rules integrity.

Presidential control: The FAR

From the chancellor

Second, and almost important as the first, I have a faculty athletics representative whom I trust, and I have structured her appointment so she has the time to be my eyes and ears within the department. She is a member of the law faculty who devotes half-time to the FAR position. She is paid by my office with athletics department funds, but I set the salary, her expenses, her travel schedule, etc.

The athletics department knows that I expect her to be regularly included on discussions of important matters, particularly any that involve student-athletes. She attends staff meetings in the athletics department. She interacts with student-athletes in all sports and often travels with them to establish closer relationships. She is a strong enough personality to avoid being co-opted by the department but politically savvy enough to work well with them.

If I had one piece of strong advice for any new president, it would be to appoint an FAR who has your respect, the respect of the faculty and the respect of the athletics department, and to give that person the authority and responsibility to oversee the department on your behalf. The FAR at Nebraska knows she has direct access to me and the department knows that as well. On numerous occasions she has sensed unintended consequences of departmental decisions that we have been able to correct before costs were incurred.

From the FAR

I am a sufficiently flawed human being to have loved this section. And I need here to emphasize the flip side of this coin. The FAR does not get to select the chancellor. But if selected, she need not serve -- and should not unless she is very sure she can work with the chancellor, that her voice will be heard and that her perspective will be considered. She also must be sure that she will get the support necessary to do the job. If the FAR and chancellor disagree on decisions on major matters, and particularly if they do so repeatedly, then the FAR should resign.

I have the good fortune to work with a chancellor whose integrity and judgment I trust, whose vision for college athletics is one I share, who is clear about the job he expects me to perform, who provides support sufficient to allow me to do that job, who is receptive to frank and candid discussions, and who, not incidentally, has both a delicate and fine sense of humor and an appreciation of the ridiculous.

To do her job well, the FAR not only must have the ear of the chancellor, but she must be visibly seen to have the ear of the chancellor. The AD does not appoint the FAR, obviously. In consequence, the relationship between FAR and AD is not necessarily a natural fit. The FAR must be both supportive of athletics and also provide oversight of athletics. The only way I know to perform both roles is to acknowledge the potential conflict and to work hard to attain and maintain the confidence of the AD and athletics staff and to persuade them that the FAR is not an agent provocateur but is there to provide a faculty voice and at times a different perspective.

It is critical that the FAR be open and honest with the AD about areas of disagreement, if and when they occur, and that she be open and honest about what she might report to the chancellor or to the faculty athletics committee. As with the chancellor, the FAR needs to have the ear of the AD and she needs to be visibly seen to have the ear of the AD.

From the chancellor

OK, so we laid it on each other a little thick. The point of course is that the FAR-president relationship can be a key one in helping to manage athletics. Certainly there are other structures that might work, but having a faculty voice intimately engaged in the issues of athletics is a healthy situation.

Oversight mechanisms

From the chancellor

A third way that I assure control of athletics is that I have oversight mechanisms that are independent of the athletics department that can be employed as needed. In addition to the FAR overseeing compliance operations, I have established the Athletics Review Committee, a four-person panel consisting of the FAR as chair, a representative of our general counsel's office, the vice-chancellor for student affairs and a fourth person to be appointed by me. At my request or the request of the FAR, this committee is authorized to investigate any issue of consequence involving the department and to report its findings to me.

We recently have engaged an athletics medicine audit. A team of experts from our medical center is conducting an extensive audit of the procedures and processes in athletics medicine and will make its report to the general counsel and to me. Let me hasten to add that there was no precipitating event for this audit, but both the athletics director and I thought such periodic reviews would be helpful.

The annual budgets of the athletics department are evaluated by the campus CFO and approved by me. The department's budget processes are on the same system as the campus generally and thus we can monitor their activities as we do for any campus unit. And we have tried to make the athletics budget more transparent by including all sources of funds and all expenditures in an integrated budget.

The university has an independent foundation that is responsible for all fund-raising for the university. Athletics department funds are held by this foundation and its fund-raisers report in a dual reporting relationship to both the foundation and the athletics department -- a system we also employ for academic colleges.

The Intercollegiate Athletics Committee, a majority of whose members are faculty appointed by the academic senate, also performs oversight. A subcommittee of this group engages in an annual academic audit of some aspect of student-athlete academic-support services. Its report is provided to me and to the academic senate.

From the FAR

Having a structure in place to manage a crisis is critical. You can hope and expect there never will be a crisis. But you don't want to start figuring out what to do only after a crisis arrives. Audits also are useful. But oversight happens day to day. And day-to-day oversight requires daily interaction and open channels of communication.

It is difficult in a large university for the FAR to keep informed of all matters relevant to her responsibilities. This is particularly the case when her academic department is not on the same campus with the AD and chancellor. At Nebraska, both the chancellor and AD recognize an affirmative obligation to keep me informed.

But when one is not physically present, things slip through the cracks. I try to compensate by meeting with the associate to the chancellor at least monthly, by frequent e-mail exchanges with the chancellor, by formal meetings with him three or four times each semester, by informal chats and meetings, and by relatively frequent phone exchanges. The AD and I have formal meetings monthly. I attend his executive staff meetings whenever my schedule permits and on average once weekly. I regularly meet with the full compliance staff and typically interact with the academic advisors and registrar (in person, by phone, by e-mail) several times weekly. I also try to check at least biweekly with our compliance director to learn if there are any matters, however small, that are percolating.

Clearly the right hand needs to know what all the left hands are doing. Equally clearly, this takes work when the right and left hands are all very busy.

Conclusion

From the chancellor and the FAR

As we said at the outset, we are skeptical of many of the proposals for reform of intercollegiate athletics. Universities are complex institutions and most of their problems require complex solutions. This is true of issues surrounding intercollegiate athletics. There is no question that the size of the budgets, the passion of fans and supporters, the visibility of the contests -- and the fact that athletics commands considerable media attention through its own television network and space on every television and radio news program and in every daily newspaper in the country -- makes controversies surrounding athletics more potent and more dangerous for an institution.

In our view, however, these issues cannot be solved by simplistic responses or responses that have more pow than potency. Instead, it takes the right people in place and hard work on a daily basis to achieve the positive values of intercollegiate athletics and to avoid the ever-present negative aspects.

We make no claim that we have the problem solved or that our current method of doing business is a perfect one. As with any ongoing activity, new issues are raised and new responses must be assessed and implemented. We both know that a runaway train may be around the next curve. And we both hope, fervently, that writing this article will not bring the equivalent of the Sports Illustrated curse down on our heads.

Harvey Perlman is the chancellor of the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Josephine Potuto is Nebraska's faculty athletics representative.