National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Ensuring a PROPer process
NCAA playing-rules panel offers beneficial checkpoint for committee structure
NCAA playing-rules panel offers beneficial checkpoint for committee structure
|
By Greg Johnson
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
With all the committees in the NCAA governance structure, it’s not easy to convince the membership that another group should be added.
But when the directive came from the NCAA Executive Committee five years ago to form a body that has the final say in sports playing rules, the Playing Rules Oversight Panel was born.
Since then, PROP has embraced its role and provided consistency to each of the NCAA’s 18 playing-rules committees. The panel of athletics administrators is a more effective approval stamp than PROP’s predecessor, the Executive Committee, which as a collection of presidents was not equipped to make in-the-trenches decisions about whether playing-rules proposals were sound.
It’s also more efficient, since PROP serves as an additional step for controversial measures that without such oversight may end up being rescinded the following year.
A good example would be the new timing changes in football for the 2007 season. Last February, the Football Rules Committee recommended changes that included limiting the play clock to 15 seconds coming out of television timeouts and reducing charged team timeouts to 30 seconds. Those recommendations, among others, were designed to pare down games that were exceeding four hours.
On the surface the changes made sense, but during the comment period before PROP’s final approval, the Collegiate Commissioners Association voiced concern about how the changes could affect conferences’ existing television contracts.
The feedback caused PROP to assemble representatives from the Football Rules Committee, the CCA and the American Football Coaches Association to discuss how best to implement the rules. In other words, PROP became the bridge that linked stakeholders and managed an acceptable outcome.
“The CCA had several comments concerning the mechanics of the timing and how it might affect television agreements,” said PROP Chair and Big West Conference Senior Associate Commissioner Rob Halvaks. “A lot of the timing issues, like marking the ball ready for play, concerned logistics and how much time it would take to get in and out of commercials. On that issue, some mechanical things needed to be discussed among constituency groups about how the rule was going to be applied.”
In that case, PROP members did not question the merits of the proposals from the rules committee, but they did address the feasibility of the rules and their implementation. Eventually, all parties agreed that the timing changes were workable within the parameters of the television contracts.
PROP also heard from Divisions II and III football stakeholders to ensure the rules were applicable across the board.
PROP member Steve Murray had some personal doubts about the rules changes, but the communication among all the key stakeholders helped engineer a consensus.
“We had to slow down and make sure we were doing what was in the best interests of football,” said Murray, the commissioner of the Division II Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference. “The effect of these types of changes is sometimes different for Division I than it is for Divisions II and III.”
How PROP began
The football timing rules are an example of PROP weighing feedback from a broader constituency than a playing-rules committee would reach. Rules committees, while they include experts in a given sport, are ground-level groups in the governance structure that, before PROP, lacked a check-and-balance stage for proposals. Most every other committee in the governance structure reports to at least one approval body. Before PROP, playing-rules committee decisions were law unless someone raised a concern to the Executive Committee.
That approval process became complicated when the Association federated its governance structure in 1997. Playing-rules committees always had been Association-wide entities, which fit the nature of playing rules for sports having to be common among all three divisions, but the approval process became more complex when rules had to be approved by each division’s governance structure (usually the division championships committees).
If the divisions did not agree on a proposal, it went to the Executive Committee, but presidents on that group quickly realized they didn’t have the expertise to decide whether a certain rule was in the best interests of a particular sport, much as the rules committees do not have expertise in determining initial eligibility, for example.
The process also could be cumbersome, with some proposals delayed for a year or more as they worked their way through the structure.
PROP was the practical solution. It currently is composed of two Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet members and three members each from Divisions II and III. PROP also is the only NCAA committee with direct CCA representation (three members).
“Having commissioners on the group is effective because you can get a broader base of feedback in a short time,” said John Cochrane, an original member of PROP and a former chair of the panel. “They speak with their colleagues, and it was easy to get a sense of whether a proposal would have national significance.”
Growing pains
Creating another layer in the governance structure was bound to generate some growing pains with the playing-rules committees that more or less had been accustomed to having the final say. With PROP in place, rules committees had to get used to the idea of administrators and other non-coaches deciding in some cases what was best for their sport.
“Rules committees were essentially the groups making the changes,” said Cochrane, the commissioner of the Iowa Intercollegiate Athletic Conference. “It was an educational process to explain and inform the membership of what PROP was and why it was in place. We had to make sure the rules committees understood our role.”
To be sure, playing-rules committees still are regarded as the experts. While PROP oversees all playing-rules proposals, the panel deliberates most on those that affect student-athlete safety and well-being, finances, and the image of the game. Those might seem like broad parameters, but PROP agendas aren’t typically overloaded with those types of items.
For example, PROP wouldn’t fret about a proposal to change the yardline from which kickoffs were taken in football, but members would pause on a measure to change the width of the goal posts.
“The safety, financial and image parameters allowed PROP to become much more effective in its work,” Cochrane said.
To make the process even more efficient, PROP members are assigned to work with various rules committees. While they are not intended to replace rules-committee members as the experts of a particular sport, they can help gather information and explain to other constituencies why a rules committee deems a change necessary.
A good example is the recent decision to move the three-point line to 20 feet, nine inches in men’s basketball for the 2008-09 season. That particular change qualified for PROP oversight because it met the “image of the game” benchmark. It also affected institutional budgets since it would require remarking the court.
At first glace it might appear that the rule was intended to regulate the number of three-point attempts, but the more important nuance is that it helps clean up post play by providing more space between players.
PROP Chair Halvaks said a sports-radio station in Seattle wanted him to talk about how the rule would affect the game, but he said those questions are best answered by a representative of the Men’s Basketball Rules Committee.
Now if the station wanted to talk about the process of PROP approving the rule, Halvaks would gladly talk about that.
“But I’m not the Xs and Os person, and I can’t tell you how it is going to change defenses or offenses,” Halvaks said. “Our role was looking at it on the three basic principles.”
Though the panel is five years old, Havlaks said people still need to be reminded of its purpose. When rules committees make their recommendations, reports from those groups have to indicate that PROP has the final say.
“Everyone needs to understand that rules committees propose recommendations, but they are not final until they go through PROP,” Halvaks said. “People shouldn’t start making facility changes until the final approval. The good news is that every time we go through the process, there is better communication among PROP, the rules committees and the various constituency groups.”
Joe Baker, Athletics director, University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, 2005-09
Thomas E. Burnett, Commissioner, Southland Conference, 2005-TBA
Rick Chryst, Commissioner, Mid-American Conference, 2005-TBA
Eddie Griffin, Athletics director, Northeastern State University, 2005-11
Robert L. Halvaks, chair, Senior associate commissioner, Big West Conference, 2005-09
Jeffrey Martinez#, Athletics director, University of Redlands, 2007-10
Steve Murray, Commissioner, Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference, 2005-08
Patrick Nero, Commissioner, America East Conference, 2005-TBA
Joseph R. Polak*, Athletics director, Southern New Hampshire University, 2003-08
Donald E. Tencher, Athletics director, Rhode Island College, 2005-10
*Division II Championships Committee representative
#Division III Championships Committee representative
Former members, Affiliation, Term
Cheryl Bailey, Associate director of athletics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 2003-05
Linda Bruno, Commissioner, Atlantic 10 Conference, 2003-05
John Cochrane, Commissioner, Iowa Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, 2003-07
Joan Cronan, Director of women’s athletics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 2003-07
Nora Lynn Finch, Senior associate athletics director, North Carolina State University, 2004-05
Joan McDermott, Athletics director, Metropolitan State College of Denver, 2003-05
Bernard Muir, Associate athletics director, Notre Dame University, 2003-05
Andrew Noel, Director of athletics, Cornell University, 2003-06
David Riggins, Athletics director, Mars Hill College, 2003-05
Julie Ruppert, Associate commissioner, America East Conference, 2003-05
Steve Wallo, Director of athletics, Lewis & Clark College, 2003-06
Jill Willson, Director of athletics, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, 2003-06
But when the directive came from the NCAA Executive Committee five years ago to form a body that has the final say in sports playing rules, the Playing Rules Oversight Panel was born.
Since then, PROP has embraced its role and provided consistency to each of the NCAA’s 18 playing-rules committees. The panel of athletics administrators is a more effective approval stamp than PROP’s predecessor, the Executive Committee, which as a collection of presidents was not equipped to make in-the-trenches decisions about whether playing-rules proposals were sound.
It’s also more efficient, since PROP serves as an additional step for controversial measures that without such oversight may end up being rescinded the following year.
A good example would be the new timing changes in football for the 2007 season. Last February, the Football Rules Committee recommended changes that included limiting the play clock to 15 seconds coming out of television timeouts and reducing charged team timeouts to 30 seconds. Those recommendations, among others, were designed to pare down games that were exceeding four hours.
On the surface the changes made sense, but during the comment period before PROP’s final approval, the Collegiate Commissioners Association voiced concern about how the changes could affect conferences’ existing television contracts.
The feedback caused PROP to assemble representatives from the Football Rules Committee, the CCA and the American Football Coaches Association to discuss how best to implement the rules. In other words, PROP became the bridge that linked stakeholders and managed an acceptable outcome.
“The CCA had several comments concerning the mechanics of the timing and how it might affect television agreements,” said PROP Chair and Big West Conference Senior Associate Commissioner Rob Halvaks. “A lot of the timing issues, like marking the ball ready for play, concerned logistics and how much time it would take to get in and out of commercials. On that issue, some mechanical things needed to be discussed among constituency groups about how the rule was going to be applied.”
In that case, PROP members did not question the merits of the proposals from the rules committee, but they did address the feasibility of the rules and their implementation. Eventually, all parties agreed that the timing changes were workable within the parameters of the television contracts.
PROP also heard from Divisions II and III football stakeholders to ensure the rules were applicable across the board.
PROP member Steve Murray had some personal doubts about the rules changes, but the communication among all the key stakeholders helped engineer a consensus.
“We had to slow down and make sure we were doing what was in the best interests of football,” said Murray, the commissioner of the Division II Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference. “The effect of these types of changes is sometimes different for Division I than it is for Divisions II and III.”
How PROP began
The football timing rules are an example of PROP weighing feedback from a broader constituency than a playing-rules committee would reach. Rules committees, while they include experts in a given sport, are ground-level groups in the governance structure that, before PROP, lacked a check-and-balance stage for proposals. Most every other committee in the governance structure reports to at least one approval body. Before PROP, playing-rules committee decisions were law unless someone raised a concern to the Executive Committee.
That approval process became complicated when the Association federated its governance structure in 1997. Playing-rules committees always had been Association-wide entities, which fit the nature of playing rules for sports having to be common among all three divisions, but the approval process became more complex when rules had to be approved by each division’s governance structure (usually the division championships committees).
If the divisions did not agree on a proposal, it went to the Executive Committee, but presidents on that group quickly realized they didn’t have the expertise to decide whether a certain rule was in the best interests of a particular sport, much as the rules committees do not have expertise in determining initial eligibility, for example.
The process also could be cumbersome, with some proposals delayed for a year or more as they worked their way through the structure.
PROP was the practical solution. It currently is composed of two Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet members and three members each from Divisions II and III. PROP also is the only NCAA committee with direct CCA representation (three members).
“Having commissioners on the group is effective because you can get a broader base of feedback in a short time,” said John Cochrane, an original member of PROP and a former chair of the panel. “They speak with their colleagues, and it was easy to get a sense of whether a proposal would have national significance.”
Growing pains
Creating another layer in the governance structure was bound to generate some growing pains with the playing-rules committees that more or less had been accustomed to having the final say. With PROP in place, rules committees had to get used to the idea of administrators and other non-coaches deciding in some cases what was best for their sport.
“Rules committees were essentially the groups making the changes,” said Cochrane, the commissioner of the Iowa Intercollegiate Athletic Conference. “It was an educational process to explain and inform the membership of what PROP was and why it was in place. We had to make sure the rules committees understood our role.”
To be sure, playing-rules committees still are regarded as the experts. While PROP oversees all playing-rules proposals, the panel deliberates most on those that affect student-athlete safety and well-being, finances, and the image of the game. Those might seem like broad parameters, but PROP agendas aren’t typically overloaded with those types of items.
For example, PROP wouldn’t fret about a proposal to change the yardline from which kickoffs were taken in football, but members would pause on a measure to change the width of the goal posts.
“The safety, financial and image parameters allowed PROP to become much more effective in its work,” Cochrane said.
To make the process even more efficient, PROP members are assigned to work with various rules committees. While they are not intended to replace rules-committee members as the experts of a particular sport, they can help gather information and explain to other constituencies why a rules committee deems a change necessary.
A good example is the recent decision to move the three-point line to 20 feet, nine inches in men’s basketball for the 2008-09 season. That particular change qualified for PROP oversight because it met the “image of the game” benchmark. It also affected institutional budgets since it would require remarking the court.
At first glace it might appear that the rule was intended to regulate the number of three-point attempts, but the more important nuance is that it helps clean up post play by providing more space between players.
PROP Chair Halvaks said a sports-radio station in Seattle wanted him to talk about how the rule would affect the game, but he said those questions are best answered by a representative of the Men’s Basketball Rules Committee.
Now if the station wanted to talk about the process of PROP approving the rule, Halvaks would gladly talk about that.
“But I’m not the Xs and Os person, and I can’t tell you how it is going to change defenses or offenses,” Halvaks said. “Our role was looking at it on the three basic principles.”
Though the panel is five years old, Havlaks said people still need to be reminded of its purpose. When rules committees make their recommendations, reports from those groups have to indicate that PROP has the final say.
“Everyone needs to understand that rules committees propose recommendations, but they are not final until they go through PROP,” Halvaks said. “People shouldn’t start making facility changes until the final approval. The good news is that every time we go through the process, there is better communication among PROP, the rules committees and the various constituency groups.”
PROP roster
Current members, Affiliation, TermJoe Baker, Athletics director, University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, 2005-09
Thomas E. Burnett, Commissioner, Southland Conference, 2005-TBA
Rick Chryst, Commissioner, Mid-American Conference, 2005-TBA
Eddie Griffin, Athletics director, Northeastern State University, 2005-11
Robert L. Halvaks, chair, Senior associate commissioner, Big West Conference, 2005-09
Jeffrey Martinez#, Athletics director, University of Redlands, 2007-10
Steve Murray, Commissioner, Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference, 2005-08
Patrick Nero, Commissioner, America East Conference, 2005-TBA
Joseph R. Polak*, Athletics director, Southern New Hampshire University, 2003-08
Donald E. Tencher, Athletics director, Rhode Island College, 2005-10
*Division II Championships Committee representative
#Division III Championships Committee representative
Former members, Affiliation, Term
Cheryl Bailey, Associate director of athletics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 2003-05
Linda Bruno, Commissioner, Atlantic 10 Conference, 2003-05
John Cochrane, Commissioner, Iowa Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, 2003-07
Joan Cronan, Director of women’s athletics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 2003-07
Nora Lynn Finch, Senior associate athletics director, North Carolina State University, 2004-05
Joan McDermott, Athletics director, Metropolitan State College of Denver, 2003-05
Bernard Muir, Associate athletics director, Notre Dame University, 2003-05
Andrew Noel, Director of athletics, Cornell University, 2003-06
David Riggins, Athletics director, Mars Hill College, 2003-05
Julie Ruppert, Associate commissioner, America East Conference, 2003-05
Steve Wallo, Director of athletics, Lewis & Clark College, 2003-06
Jill Willson, Director of athletics, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, 2003-06
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy