National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Presidents begin work on Task Force concepts
|
By Gary T. Brown
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
Six months after a 50-member Presidential Task Force published the “what” of athletics reform, a 12-member group is taking care of the “how.”
University of Memphis President Shirley Raines is chairing a Division I Oversight and Monitoring Group that will facilitate consideration of recommendations from the Presidential Task Force on the Future of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics.
Raines is one of six chancellors and presidents on the group the Division I Board of Directors appointed to shepherd Presidential Task Force recommendations into the Division I governance structure and provide status reports back to the Board. She is joined by Robert Caret of Towson University; Walter Harrison from the University of Hartford; James Moeser of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Nancy Zimpher from the University of Cincinnati; and Peter Likins, president emeritus at the University of Arizona.
They were among 50 chancellors and presidents who contributed to the Presidential Task Force report published in October 2006 that included dozens of recommendations regarding fiscal responsibility, integrating athletics into campus life, strengthening presidential relationships with governing boards and enhancing student-athlete well-being.
“The 50 members of the Presidential Task Force did a superb job of aggressively addressing reform issues,” said NCAA President Myles Brand. “That group did the heavy lifting of reform by setting the future agenda. The charge of this smaller group is not simply to review those Task Force recommendations, but to prioritize them and determine implementation strategies.”
Meeting for the first time May 21 in Indianapolis, Raines’ group picked up where the Task Force left off on Priority No. 1, shaping a newly codified financial reporting process to arm presidents with the data upon which to make informed decisions about athletics expenditures. The first step is to send presidents institutional financial data from 2004, 2005 and 2006 along with a set of “dashboard indicators,” or aggregate comparisons that allow institutions to see how they rank among peer groups in various athletics budget allocations.
The data are the first collected under uniform reporting procedures developed in conjunction with the National Association of College and University Business Officers.
Those procedures separate allocated and generated revenues, and they include indirect and direct expenses and more detailed information on compensation issues and capital expenses. Because the new reports are generally not comparable to prior data, the 2004 and 2005 fiscal years are “benchmark” years for future financial reporting.
Member institutions will be asked to verify the pilot data by August 1. The goal is to have an accurate three-year trend analysis available by this fall, with the 2008 financial reports and dashboard indicators ready by April 2008.
“As the Presidential Task Force recommended, our goal is to provide presidents with clear, concise and comparable financial data upon which to make informed decisions about athletics,” said Raines. “These reports, along with the dashboard indicators, will be a critical tool that has not been available to presidents before.”
The Presidential Task Force sought development of dashboard indicators to provide comparisons with national, division, conference and self-selected peer groups. Those indicators include institutional descriptors (for example, sponsored sports, graduation rates, APR) and core financial indicators, such as athletics revenues and expenses, proportion of athletics expense to university expense and reliance on allocated revenue.
Raines said that will allow presidents to compare their institution’s athletics budget with those of their current peers, as well as aspirational ones. Group members acknowledged that the flipside is that the data may also fuel the competitive fire in athletics spending, but Raines said most presidents will relish the opportunity to consult research when considering future long-term investments in athletics.
“These dashboard indicators are long overdue,” she said. “They allow decisions to be based on facts, not anecdotal evidence.”
The Task Force’s primary goal in building reliable fiscal data was to advocate moderation in the rate of growth in athletics budgets. While intercollegiate athletics is not in financial crisis, Task Force members said the rate of growth in athletics spending — triple the rate of growth in higher-education spending in recent years — cannot be sustained.
Raines’ group noted the challenge in a non-crisis environment, since many presidents with high-profile Division I athletics programs will not see the need to change. But the most recent NCAA data on revenues and expenses show a dwindling pool of schools with athletics budgets in the black — just 21 in the last reporting period. Worse yet, only six have managed profits in each of the last 10 years.
Raines said while the NCAA can’t mandate fiscal restraints, the data may in fact cool the heated competition to “keep up with the Joneses.”
“Our job may not be to change the minds of presidents in the most successful programs as much as it is to influence others who are pushing beyond their means,” she said. “Each institution has to determine how much it can afford and what is best for the school. Many institutions are being pushed into bad decisions because of external pressures and lack of good data. Our trend analysis and dashboard indicators will shed some much-needed light on reasonable boundaries.”
Integration effort
Besides discussion about fiscal matters, the Oversight and Monitoring Group also talked about ways to implement Task Force recommendations on integrating athletics into the educational mission. Much of the discussion centered on ensuring integration is a two-way street. In other words, while integration is a standing item on NCAA agendas, presidents said it rarely appears on other higher-education agendas.
Cincinnati President Zimpher noted efforts from organizations such as the Association of State Colleges and Universities and the National Association of State Land Grant Universities and Colleges that call for a “voluntary system of accountability” in seeking evidence of an integrated academic experience. “But those groups don’t address athletics, so maybe they do in fact consider athletics as ancillary, which is the very mindset we’re trying to change.”
Raines said the NCAA would seek more collaboration with other organizations “to ensure that our agenda appears on those groups’ agendas.”
Group members also had a spirited discussion about regulating “special admits” in ways that support the integration campaign. The debate began during a review of Task Force recommendations on student-athlete well-being that include legislation to ensure a data-based and institution-specific definition of “at risk” to evaluate prospects’ academic records.
Some group members were surprised during discussion revealing the frequency with which those at-risk prospects are admitted in athletics, and they urged more data collection on academic outcomes for those student-athletes on an institutional basis.
Raines said the group understands the desire to spread access to higher education to prospects who — with adequate academic support — have an opportunity to succeed, but that institutions are expected to allocate resources that lead to the right outcomes.
“We don’t necessarily want to change who’s coming in to our institutions, but rather support them once they’re there,” she said. “We still have too many failures and not enough teeth in measuring the academic support these special admits receive.”
Realizing the complexities of the issue, the group charged the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet with recommending best practices governing special admits.
The Oversight and Monitoring Group also:
University of Memphis President Shirley Raines is chairing a Division I Oversight and Monitoring Group that will facilitate consideration of recommendations from the Presidential Task Force on the Future of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics.
Raines is one of six chancellors and presidents on the group the Division I Board of Directors appointed to shepherd Presidential Task Force recommendations into the Division I governance structure and provide status reports back to the Board. She is joined by Robert Caret of Towson University; Walter Harrison from the University of Hartford; James Moeser of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Nancy Zimpher from the University of Cincinnati; and Peter Likins, president emeritus at the University of Arizona.
They were among 50 chancellors and presidents who contributed to the Presidential Task Force report published in October 2006 that included dozens of recommendations regarding fiscal responsibility, integrating athletics into campus life, strengthening presidential relationships with governing boards and enhancing student-athlete well-being.
“The 50 members of the Presidential Task Force did a superb job of aggressively addressing reform issues,” said NCAA President Myles Brand. “That group did the heavy lifting of reform by setting the future agenda. The charge of this smaller group is not simply to review those Task Force recommendations, but to prioritize them and determine implementation strategies.”
Meeting for the first time May 21 in Indianapolis, Raines’ group picked up where the Task Force left off on Priority No. 1, shaping a newly codified financial reporting process to arm presidents with the data upon which to make informed decisions about athletics expenditures. The first step is to send presidents institutional financial data from 2004, 2005 and 2006 along with a set of “dashboard indicators,” or aggregate comparisons that allow institutions to see how they rank among peer groups in various athletics budget allocations.
The data are the first collected under uniform reporting procedures developed in conjunction with the National Association of College and University Business Officers.
Those procedures separate allocated and generated revenues, and they include indirect and direct expenses and more detailed information on compensation issues and capital expenses. Because the new reports are generally not comparable to prior data, the 2004 and 2005 fiscal years are “benchmark” years for future financial reporting.
Member institutions will be asked to verify the pilot data by August 1. The goal is to have an accurate three-year trend analysis available by this fall, with the 2008 financial reports and dashboard indicators ready by April 2008.
“As the Presidential Task Force recommended, our goal is to provide presidents with clear, concise and comparable financial data upon which to make informed decisions about athletics,” said Raines. “These reports, along with the dashboard indicators, will be a critical tool that has not been available to presidents before.”
The Presidential Task Force sought development of dashboard indicators to provide comparisons with national, division, conference and self-selected peer groups. Those indicators include institutional descriptors (for example, sponsored sports, graduation rates, APR) and core financial indicators, such as athletics revenues and expenses, proportion of athletics expense to university expense and reliance on allocated revenue.
Raines said that will allow presidents to compare their institution’s athletics budget with those of their current peers, as well as aspirational ones. Group members acknowledged that the flipside is that the data may also fuel the competitive fire in athletics spending, but Raines said most presidents will relish the opportunity to consult research when considering future long-term investments in athletics.
“These dashboard indicators are long overdue,” she said. “They allow decisions to be based on facts, not anecdotal evidence.”
The Task Force’s primary goal in building reliable fiscal data was to advocate moderation in the rate of growth in athletics budgets. While intercollegiate athletics is not in financial crisis, Task Force members said the rate of growth in athletics spending — triple the rate of growth in higher-education spending in recent years — cannot be sustained.
Raines’ group noted the challenge in a non-crisis environment, since many presidents with high-profile Division I athletics programs will not see the need to change. But the most recent NCAA data on revenues and expenses show a dwindling pool of schools with athletics budgets in the black — just 21 in the last reporting period. Worse yet, only six have managed profits in each of the last 10 years.
Raines said while the NCAA can’t mandate fiscal restraints, the data may in fact cool the heated competition to “keep up with the Joneses.”
“Our job may not be to change the minds of presidents in the most successful programs as much as it is to influence others who are pushing beyond their means,” she said. “Each institution has to determine how much it can afford and what is best for the school. Many institutions are being pushed into bad decisions because of external pressures and lack of good data. Our trend analysis and dashboard indicators will shed some much-needed light on reasonable boundaries.”
Integration effort
Besides discussion about fiscal matters, the Oversight and Monitoring Group also talked about ways to implement Task Force recommendations on integrating athletics into the educational mission. Much of the discussion centered on ensuring integration is a two-way street. In other words, while integration is a standing item on NCAA agendas, presidents said it rarely appears on other higher-education agendas.
Cincinnati President Zimpher noted efforts from organizations such as the Association of State Colleges and Universities and the National Association of State Land Grant Universities and Colleges that call for a “voluntary system of accountability” in seeking evidence of an integrated academic experience. “But those groups don’t address athletics, so maybe they do in fact consider athletics as ancillary, which is the very mindset we’re trying to change.”
Raines said the NCAA would seek more collaboration with other organizations “to ensure that our agenda appears on those groups’ agendas.”
Group members also had a spirited discussion about regulating “special admits” in ways that support the integration campaign. The debate began during a review of Task Force recommendations on student-athlete well-being that include legislation to ensure a data-based and institution-specific definition of “at risk” to evaluate prospects’ academic records.
Some group members were surprised during discussion revealing the frequency with which those at-risk prospects are admitted in athletics, and they urged more data collection on academic outcomes for those student-athletes on an institutional basis.
Raines said the group understands the desire to spread access to higher education to prospects who — with adequate academic support — have an opportunity to succeed, but that institutions are expected to allocate resources that lead to the right outcomes.
“We don’t necessarily want to change who’s coming in to our institutions, but rather support them once they’re there,” she said. “We still have too many failures and not enough teeth in measuring the academic support these special admits receive.”
Realizing the complexities of the issue, the group charged the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet with recommending best practices governing special admits.
The Oversight and Monitoring Group also:
- Discussed how the athletics certification program might strengthen relationships between presidents and governing boards.
- Pledged alliances with faculty groups, business administrators and governing board members in advancing Task Force recommendations.
- Agreed to work through conferences to communicate more broadly with chancellors and presidents about Task Force concerns.
- Noted legislation in the upcoming cycle proposing the elimination of the self-sufficiency clause in the Division I philosophy statement.
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy