National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Division I nears finish line on revised structure
|
By Michelle Brutlag Hosick
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
After gathering feedback from the current Division I governance bodies and the membership as a whole, the Management Council’s governance subcommittee has revised and updated concepts for remodeling the Division I structure, including changes in the way diversity requirements would be met.
The Board of Directors charged the subcommittee with reviewing the structure nearly two years ago and recommending changes that would better position the presidents to move the Division I agenda. Ten meetings and multiple conference calls later, subcommittee members believe they have assembled a plan that works for all constituencies — and one that can be implemented within 18 months.
The latest idea calls for the current 49-member Management Council to be replaced with two 31-member groups called the Leadership Council and Legislative Council. In addition, the current Championships/Competition and the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinets would be replaced by a 31-member Championships/Sports Management Cabinet and five 21-member cabinets covering the following areas:
Administrative
Academics
Recruiting, Athletics Personnel Issues and Pre-Enrollment Issues
Student-Athlete Benefits
Amateurism
The governance subcommittee’s latest version of the plan also includes a significant change in the way diversity requirements would be satisfied in the structure. Originally, diversity minimums of 20 percent ethnic minorities and 35 percent of either gender were to be fulfilled in the aggregate of the structure. But under the new model, the requirements would be applied in two aggregate pools — the three 31-member groups (the Legislative and Leadership Councils and the Championships/ Sports Management Cabinet) and the five smaller cabinets. In other words, the requirements would apply separately to each of the two structural “tiers.”
Subcommittee members thought the original concept of satisfying the requirements in one large pool would provide conferences the flexibility they desired in the appointment process. They proposed the idea after conferences noted that, currently, a league filling a vacancy may be responsible for meeting the governing body’s diversity requirement if that position makes or breaks the minimum. Some conferences have been put in that position more than once.
But several groups criticized the idea of satisfying diversity requirements in the aggregate of the structure. In particular, groups charged with overseeing gender and minority development within the Association — the Committee on Women’s Athletics and the Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee — thought the new structure could lack diversity at key levels under the original plan.
While he acknowledged the concern, governance subcommittee member Michael Moore said that probably wouldn’t happen. The athletics director at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis said the subcommittee’s original concept never intended for any group to lack diversity. He said in fact that the Association has been operating diligently under a diversity mind-set for so long now that the new structure shouldn’t have to be regulated as far as diversity is concerned.
“We’re at a time when even those people who would want to have a non-diverse anything — if those people even exist — those days have passed,” he said. “I’m not sure people would allow it even if there weren’t stated criteria.”
Other people, though, believe clearly stated minimums are necessary to hold the structure accountable.
Balancing act
Governance subcommittee members believe the new proposal satisfies both concerns. They think the two-aggregate method still allows conferences flexibility in the appointment process and at the same time enhances the level of diversity in the governance structure. Since the proposed plan offers more service opportunities overall (an expansion from 147 members to 198), the new structure will logically offer more opportunities for women and minorities to participate in governance.
Moore said the alternative of applying the diversity requirements to each of the eight individual governing bodies under the new proposal would likely prove cumbersome for conferences nominating and appointing new members — perhaps not with the initial membership, but as people began to rotate off the bodies.
“As you get further down the line, are you boxing yourself into certain requirements? That was the main concern,” he said. “The subcommittee felt there needed to be the greatest amount of flexibility (in the appointment process).”
Richard Ensor, commissioner of the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference and chair of the governance subcommittee, said the membership had indicated a strong desire for that flexibility in any revised structure. The question is whether the new proposal balances the desire for flexibility with the desire for increased diversity.
“It’s a good-faith effort to address those concerns,” Ensor said. “Whether it will fully meet expectations is yet to be seen.”
Carolyn Campbell-McGovern, associate commissioner of the Ivy Group, said as the leadership within the Division I membership becomes more diverse, so will leadership positions within the governance structure.
“People understand that our intent is to ensure that the governance structure maintains at least the level of diversity it has now,” she said. “Because there is more diversity throughout the country, hopefully that diversity will be reflected in the new governance structure, too.”
Championships issues
The proposal to expand the Championships/Sports Management Cabinet is in response to membership feedback regarding the important role championships play in conferences’ interaction with their membership. Increasing that group’s composition to 31 members (rather than the 21-member roster for the other five cabinets) will allow each multi-sport conference to be represented, a move subcommittee members believe is necessary to allow all conferences to have input on events that affect them.
“Conferences in particular — not even just as it relates to basketball and football — are concerned that they have a voice when it comes to the array of championships the Association offers,” Ensor said. “In our case, we have a nationally ranked cross country program at Iona, so we want to have people involved in track and field as much as anything. Without being able to touch that on a regular basis, we would feel somewhat isolated.”
Moore said the increase was important to non-Bowl Championship Series conferences like the one he represents because championships touch every school, while some of the other topical cabinets might deal with issues that can be just as easily influenced without a seat at the table.
“While we are concerned with the other issues, those will be addressed no matter the size of the particular cabinet,” he said. “The championships go to the core of competition; the core component of the NCAA … there was a strong push that everyone needed to be at that table.”
The latest recommendations officially begin the vetting process and will be presented to several groups later this month, including the conference commissioners and administrators at spring meetings. Subcommittee members believe the timeline established several months ago remains realistic.
“There’s a strong desire to restructure the governance process, and if you’re not careful, it does become a plan to plan,” Ensor said. “We’re going to move forward with this. Otherwise, it just drags out for an eternity.”
The subcommittee plans to introduce final recommendations to the Management Council in October and ask the Board of Directors to adopt the proposal as emergency legislation at its November 1 meeting. Pending adoption, the new structure would take shape throughout the next year and be installed in August 2008.
That would be rewarding to Ensor, who said the subcommittee has dedicated much time and effort to the project, doing its due diligence in obtaining feedback from the membership and then responding to that feedback with changes.
“It’s been a significant process,” he said.
Part of the reason behind the recent examination of the structure was that many involved with the process, including some current Management Council members serving on the governance subcommittee, believed the current Management Council was too bogged down in legislative minutia to provide thoughtful counsel to the Board. The Management Council’s size and the way in which many conferences directed their representatives to vote also limited meaningful debate.
In response to those concerns, the governance subcommittee recommended that the Management Council’s functions be split between a Leadership Council and a Legislative Council.
“It’s envisioned that the Leadership Council will be a group that the Board can rely on to brainstorm on an array of issues that may come before the Association, somewhat like some of the task forces have done, but in a more structured and ongoing basis,” said subcommittee chair Rich Ensor, commissioner of the Metro Atlantic Athletics Conference.
Carolyn Campbell-McGovern, associate commissioner of the Ivy Group, said subcommittee members realized the Management Council’s tendency to get “bogged down” by legislative issues. They wanted to create a group that could instead focus on issues more holistically, with members who didn’t have to be policy wonks to make an impact.
“Right now, the conversations almost have to be dominated by the people who understand the legislation the best,” she said. “That might not be the people who are leaders in intercollegiate athletics otherwise. Athletics directors, for example, may not be all that familiar with the nitty-gritty of legislation.
“So it seemed like the appropriate choice to divide the work of the current Management Council into the legislative nitty-gritty part, which is very important and needs the attention of someone knowledgeable. But someone also needs to be looking out for the vision of Division I athletics and what the next steps are in anticipating what the challenges should be.”
However, just because the Leadership Council won’t be specifically charged with reviewing every piece of legislation entered into the cycle every year, that doesn’t mean that members won’t look at legislative issues. The Leadership Council, like the Board, will have the opportunity to review any legislation it wishes throughout the process with an eye toward providing advice to the Board about which proposals the presidents should review.
The subcommittee is recommending that the council have 31 members, with one representative from each conference.
Whether the creation of the Leadership Council will eliminate the need for working groups or task forces is unclear. But Mike Moore, a subcommittee member and athletics director at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, believes it will at least reduce their number.
“There will always be issues that jump up — like the diploma mills — that will require swift action, and it’s always the prerogative of the president of the Association to appoint such groups,” Moore said. “But our hope is that a Leadership Council will minimize the need for other groups, because we will have a diverse group of leaders who are going to provide advice and counsel to the Board.”
Those who have worked on the restructuring process also hope conferences perceive the Leadership Council as a prestigious service opportunity that attracts a range of experienced leaders in intercollegiate athletics.
Meanwhile, the new, smaller cabinets will provide experience opportunities for new leaders who will grow through their participation.
“As the substructure grows stronger and is more integral to the direction of the division, service opportunities will become more satisfying,” Ensor said.
The Board of Directors charged the subcommittee with reviewing the structure nearly two years ago and recommending changes that would better position the presidents to move the Division I agenda. Ten meetings and multiple conference calls later, subcommittee members believe they have assembled a plan that works for all constituencies — and one that can be implemented within 18 months.
The latest idea calls for the current 49-member Management Council to be replaced with two 31-member groups called the Leadership Council and Legislative Council. In addition, the current Championships/Competition and the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinets would be replaced by a 31-member Championships/Sports Management Cabinet and five 21-member cabinets covering the following areas:
Administrative
Academics
Recruiting, Athletics Personnel Issues and Pre-Enrollment Issues
Student-Athlete Benefits
Amateurism
The governance subcommittee’s latest version of the plan also includes a significant change in the way diversity requirements would be satisfied in the structure. Originally, diversity minimums of 20 percent ethnic minorities and 35 percent of either gender were to be fulfilled in the aggregate of the structure. But under the new model, the requirements would be applied in two aggregate pools — the three 31-member groups (the Legislative and Leadership Councils and the Championships/ Sports Management Cabinet) and the five smaller cabinets. In other words, the requirements would apply separately to each of the two structural “tiers.”
Subcommittee members thought the original concept of satisfying the requirements in one large pool would provide conferences the flexibility they desired in the appointment process. They proposed the idea after conferences noted that, currently, a league filling a vacancy may be responsible for meeting the governing body’s diversity requirement if that position makes or breaks the minimum. Some conferences have been put in that position more than once.
But several groups criticized the idea of satisfying diversity requirements in the aggregate of the structure. In particular, groups charged with overseeing gender and minority development within the Association — the Committee on Women’s Athletics and the Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee — thought the new structure could lack diversity at key levels under the original plan.
While he acknowledged the concern, governance subcommittee member Michael Moore said that probably wouldn’t happen. The athletics director at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis said the subcommittee’s original concept never intended for any group to lack diversity. He said in fact that the Association has been operating diligently under a diversity mind-set for so long now that the new structure shouldn’t have to be regulated as far as diversity is concerned.
“We’re at a time when even those people who would want to have a non-diverse anything — if those people even exist — those days have passed,” he said. “I’m not sure people would allow it even if there weren’t stated criteria.”
Other people, though, believe clearly stated minimums are necessary to hold the structure accountable.
Balancing act
Governance subcommittee members believe the new proposal satisfies both concerns. They think the two-aggregate method still allows conferences flexibility in the appointment process and at the same time enhances the level of diversity in the governance structure. Since the proposed plan offers more service opportunities overall (an expansion from 147 members to 198), the new structure will logically offer more opportunities for women and minorities to participate in governance.
Moore said the alternative of applying the diversity requirements to each of the eight individual governing bodies under the new proposal would likely prove cumbersome for conferences nominating and appointing new members — perhaps not with the initial membership, but as people began to rotate off the bodies.
“As you get further down the line, are you boxing yourself into certain requirements? That was the main concern,” he said. “The subcommittee felt there needed to be the greatest amount of flexibility (in the appointment process).”
Richard Ensor, commissioner of the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference and chair of the governance subcommittee, said the membership had indicated a strong desire for that flexibility in any revised structure. The question is whether the new proposal balances the desire for flexibility with the desire for increased diversity.
“It’s a good-faith effort to address those concerns,” Ensor said. “Whether it will fully meet expectations is yet to be seen.”
Carolyn Campbell-McGovern, associate commissioner of the Ivy Group, said as the leadership within the Division I membership becomes more diverse, so will leadership positions within the governance structure.
“People understand that our intent is to ensure that the governance structure maintains at least the level of diversity it has now,” she said. “Because there is more diversity throughout the country, hopefully that diversity will be reflected in the new governance structure, too.”
Championships issues
The proposal to expand the Championships/Sports Management Cabinet is in response to membership feedback regarding the important role championships play in conferences’ interaction with their membership. Increasing that group’s composition to 31 members (rather than the 21-member roster for the other five cabinets) will allow each multi-sport conference to be represented, a move subcommittee members believe is necessary to allow all conferences to have input on events that affect them.
“Conferences in particular — not even just as it relates to basketball and football — are concerned that they have a voice when it comes to the array of championships the Association offers,” Ensor said. “In our case, we have a nationally ranked cross country program at Iona, so we want to have people involved in track and field as much as anything. Without being able to touch that on a regular basis, we would feel somewhat isolated.”
Moore said the increase was important to non-Bowl Championship Series conferences like the one he represents because championships touch every school, while some of the other topical cabinets might deal with issues that can be just as easily influenced without a seat at the table.
“While we are concerned with the other issues, those will be addressed no matter the size of the particular cabinet,” he said. “The championships go to the core of competition; the core component of the NCAA … there was a strong push that everyone needed to be at that table.”
The latest recommendations officially begin the vetting process and will be presented to several groups later this month, including the conference commissioners and administrators at spring meetings. Subcommittee members believe the timeline established several months ago remains realistic.
“There’s a strong desire to restructure the governance process, and if you’re not careful, it does become a plan to plan,” Ensor said. “We’re going to move forward with this. Otherwise, it just drags out for an eternity.”
The subcommittee plans to introduce final recommendations to the Management Council in October and ask the Board of Directors to adopt the proposal as emergency legislation at its November 1 meeting. Pending adoption, the new structure would take shape throughout the next year and be installed in August 2008.
That would be rewarding to Ensor, who said the subcommittee has dedicated much time and effort to the project, doing its due diligence in obtaining feedback from the membership and then responding to that feedback with changes.
“It’s been a significant process,” he said.
Leadership Council lives up to its name
One of the crucial elements of the proposed changes to the governance structure is the creation of a Leadership Council, a group that would be charged with being a reliable advisor to the Board of Directors on a variety of issues in intercollegiate athletics.Part of the reason behind the recent examination of the structure was that many involved with the process, including some current Management Council members serving on the governance subcommittee, believed the current Management Council was too bogged down in legislative minutia to provide thoughtful counsel to the Board. The Management Council’s size and the way in which many conferences directed their representatives to vote also limited meaningful debate.
In response to those concerns, the governance subcommittee recommended that the Management Council’s functions be split between a Leadership Council and a Legislative Council.
“It’s envisioned that the Leadership Council will be a group that the Board can rely on to brainstorm on an array of issues that may come before the Association, somewhat like some of the task forces have done, but in a more structured and ongoing basis,” said subcommittee chair Rich Ensor, commissioner of the Metro Atlantic Athletics Conference.
Carolyn Campbell-McGovern, associate commissioner of the Ivy Group, said subcommittee members realized the Management Council’s tendency to get “bogged down” by legislative issues. They wanted to create a group that could instead focus on issues more holistically, with members who didn’t have to be policy wonks to make an impact.
“Right now, the conversations almost have to be dominated by the people who understand the legislation the best,” she said. “That might not be the people who are leaders in intercollegiate athletics otherwise. Athletics directors, for example, may not be all that familiar with the nitty-gritty of legislation.
“So it seemed like the appropriate choice to divide the work of the current Management Council into the legislative nitty-gritty part, which is very important and needs the attention of someone knowledgeable. But someone also needs to be looking out for the vision of Division I athletics and what the next steps are in anticipating what the challenges should be.”
However, just because the Leadership Council won’t be specifically charged with reviewing every piece of legislation entered into the cycle every year, that doesn’t mean that members won’t look at legislative issues. The Leadership Council, like the Board, will have the opportunity to review any legislation it wishes throughout the process with an eye toward providing advice to the Board about which proposals the presidents should review.
The subcommittee is recommending that the council have 31 members, with one representative from each conference.
Whether the creation of the Leadership Council will eliminate the need for working groups or task forces is unclear. But Mike Moore, a subcommittee member and athletics director at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, believes it will at least reduce their number.
“There will always be issues that jump up — like the diploma mills — that will require swift action, and it’s always the prerogative of the president of the Association to appoint such groups,” Moore said. “But our hope is that a Leadership Council will minimize the need for other groups, because we will have a diverse group of leaders who are going to provide advice and counsel to the Board.”
Those who have worked on the restructuring process also hope conferences perceive the Leadership Council as a prestigious service opportunity that attracts a range of experienced leaders in intercollegiate athletics.
Meanwhile, the new, smaller cabinets will provide experience opportunities for new leaders who will grow through their participation.
“As the substructure grows stronger and is more integral to the direction of the division, service opportunities will become more satisfying,” Ensor said.
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy