When I began stressing the importance of developing a strategic plan for the Association shortly after I took office in 2003, a few of my colleagues received the suggestion with raised brows and, while they attempted to hide it, even a roll of the eyes.
Their reaction was understandable. Almost all of us in intercollegiate athletics — and in many other walks of life, for that matter — have been involved with (some would say subjected to) a strategic-planning exercise at some point in our careers.
As we know, a strategic plan is only as good as its implementation. Most of us could search our shelves and cabinets and find a strategic-planning document from long ago that is now forgotten. That is the risk with developing any strategic plan — it does absolutely no good on the shelf.
That is in part why I was adamant four years ago about including as many stakeholders in intercollegiate athletics as possible to contribute to — and eventually own — the NCAA strategic plan. To be sure, ours was a monumental task. We are a large organization overseeing a complex enterprise. And because we are such a diverse association in every sense of the word — from large research universities to small liberal arts colleges, from multimillion-dollar athletics programs to budgets of a few hundred thousand, from urban multicultural populations to rural communities — our varied opinions about how we engage in the century-old activity we call college sports often challenges us to put the common good ahead of our personal agendas.
While other organizations might balk at the prospect of providing strategic direction to such a tradition-rich and complicated enterprise, I am happy to report that the members of our Association have done so in just a short time. Working together, we have made genuine progress on the NCAA strategic plan.
We have affirmed our belief in the collegiate model — the cornerstone of the core ideology identified in the plan — and we have taken steps to ensure the supporting role intercollegiate athletics plays in higher education by nurturing an inclusive culture; respecting individual institutional autonomy; and relying on presidential leadership, sound research and a commitment to integrity in decision-making.
Each of the five-year outcome-oriented goals identified in the plan in fact already have outcomes, or at least structures in place to achieve them.
Goal No. 1
Student-athletes will be better educated and prepared for increased and life-long achievement and success.
While there have been several iterations of academic reform over the last two decades, none has been more comprehensive or aggressive than the one being implemented now.
Division I has increased core-course requirements, enhanced initial-eligibility standards and strengthened progress-toward-degree benchmarks that increase the likelihood of graduation. Also in place are more accurate data-based measurements (the Academic Progress Rate and the Graduation Success Rate) that hold teams and institutions accountable for student-athlete academic success. An incentives structure places a premium on improvement for under-performing teams, and the public element of the APR ranking plays to the competitive desire of programs to excel.
Already in the three short years since the system was developed, athletics departments are using their teams’ academic success and graduation rates to lure prospective student-athletes. Athletics directors and coaches know what the APR is and are committing resources necessary to meet the new standards. As stated in the strategic plan, they are increasing their advocacy for academic achievement — and for what intercollegiate athletics contributes to that end.
Goal No. 2
Student-athletes will be enriched by a collegiate athletics experience based on fair, safe and reasonable standards, and a commitment to sportsmanship.
I devoted much of my recent Convention speech to this topic. Fairness has been central to the Association since its formation, and in no time more than the present have we given this goal its due. Our “student-athlete-first” approach that gives student-athletes the benefit of the doubt when adjudicating waivers or reinstatement requests has led to more appropriate outcomes. Our attention to Title IX has prompted more fairness in participation opportunities for women. Our office for diversity and inclusion has emphasized fairness in leadership. We have best practices for institutions to raise the level of sportsmanship surrounding their competitions.
By no means have we achieved closure on these goals, however. As I told Convention attendees in January, we need to further our efforts in sportsmanship, be more cognizant of diversity in our hiring practices and continue to defeat efforts from outsiders to undermine Title IX. The student-athlete experience is an ongoing concern that cannot be addressed merely by reform legislation or national mandate. Rather, this is a case in which institutional leadership must consistently push for progress.
Goal No. 3
Member institutions and conferences will have access to data, research and best practices that assist governance and management of intercollegiate athletics.
Attention to this goal is no more apparent than in the report of the Presidential Task Force for Division I, which addresses the future agenda for intercollegiate athletics. As research led to academic reform, so, too, will data drive the fiscal responsibility the Task Force urges. More uniform and transparent financial data will give chancellors and presidents tools for more informed decision-making on athletics budgets.
Few disagree that financial matters are the next horizon for the NCAA to conquer, though all agree that success cannot be achieved legislatively as with academic reform. The good news is that the Task Force has sought to build collaboration among presidents, faculty groups and administrators to bring the rate of growth in athletics budgets more in line with that of university spending. While that is a daunting challenge, the Task Force has responsibly stated the need for collective attention.
Goal No. 4
The national office will be operated in an accountable, effective and efficient manner.
Perhaps the greatest evidence of advancing Goal No. 4 is the success the national office staff already has achieved with Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. To do that has in many respects required the efficiencies and innovations called for in the strategic plan. We have increased partnerships with the membership — our outreach to coaches associations, faculty groups and athletics directors have paid dividends. We retained a nationally renowned consultant to enhance our procedures to ensure fair play. We employed technology to advance and streamline communication.
All of that has helped facilitate progress in the rest of the strategic plan. The national office has retained its core service element while strategically positioning the membership to advance its agenda.
Goal No. 5
The public will gain a greater understanding of and confidence in the integrity of intercollegiate athletics and will more readily support its values.
As is the case with Goal No. 2, there is no point regarding Goal No. 5 at which we can say “mission accomplished,” but we already have data indicating that we have moved the needle.
As recently as 1998, for example, studies showed that the general public linked the NCAA more with big money and commercialism than with higher education. But the latest research in 2005 points to a sharp increase in the public’s understanding and acceptance of the NCAA mission to conduct athletics as an enhancement to — not a substitute for — higher education. Most respondents in fact listed the term “student-athlete” as being “top of mind” when they think of the NCAA. To me, that is a direct result of NCAA members aligning their behaviors with the strategic plan.
Though we are not that far removed from the Executive Committee formally adopting the plan in April 2004, enough time has passed for it to serve as a time capsule that makes for interesting comparisons about what we agreed to do and what we have in fact done. If you have not revisited the plan lately, I think you will be pleasantly surprised at how closely our agendas today match what we wanted them to be.
To be sure, the work is not over. We knew when we developed the plan that our strategy would have to be both short- and long-term, and that the plan would have to be dynamic enough to reshape as time demands. Perhaps its success so far is that we are familiar enough with the core ideology and envisioned future that we don’t need to refer back to the document when we make decisions. On the contrary, the values we agreed upon four years ago are ingrained in our decision-making.
We know what the collegiate model is; we realize we need presidential leadership; we understand what it means to be an inclusive organization; and we value athletics participation as part of the educational experience. Period.It’s all there in the strategic plan. You will find it online at www.ncaa.org (click “About the NCAA,” then “Overview,” then “Strategic Plan”). It will be like visiting an old friend, one with whom you still have much in common.
Myles Brand is president of the NCAA.
