Participants at the fifth annual Division II Faculty Athletics Representatives Fellows Institute urged each other at their October 23-25 meeting to take an athletics leadership role rather than a managerial one.

Faculty reps at schools from nearly all Division II conferences talked through issues ranging from faculty involvement to networking, but the leadership role emerged as the dominant theme.

“A primary focus of the institute this year is developing the faculty athletics representative as more of a leader than a manager,” said Mount Olive faculty representative Brenda Cates, who served this year on the institute steering committee. “Managers deal with complexities in an organization – they plan and report. Leaders set a direction for the future and develop strategies to produce change that serves the interests of the organization. Most of our focus here in terms of the leadership role is how to align constituents to see value in that change on campuses or at the conference and national levels.”

Cates said it doesn’t have to be sweeping change but something that makes the function perform better on campus, conference or national levels.

How to strengthen the leadership role also fed into a panel discussion on how various constituents in the Division II structure view the contributions of the campus faculty athletics representative.

Panelists Jim Johnson, commissioner of the Mid-American Intercollegiate Athletics Association; Jill Willson, former AD at Texas A&M-Kingsville and current consultant for Division II strategic initiatives; and Division II Vice President Mike Racy encouraged faculty representatives to adopt the “Triple A” model as advocate, advisor and auditor.

Be a campus advocate for intercollegiate athletics.

• Understand the Division II strategic-positioning platform and communicate it to key campus groups (faculty, student body, staff)
• Understand the value of the university investing in athletics (the partial-scholarship model as contributing to enrollment)
• Be a champion for student-athlete success in the classroom (graduation rates), in competition (athletics achievement, academic all-Americans) and in the community (service, Make-A-Wish fund-raising).
• Explain the benefits of the regional nature of Division II competition (less missed class time, more efficient travel)

Be a strong advisor to the institution’s president/chancellor and the athletics management team.

• Understand and communicate the benefits of Division II membership (be able to explain the true costs of operating Divisions I, II and III programs)
• Remember the well-being of student-athletes (coach/player relationships, being able to make up exams, studying on road trips)
• Respond to feedback within the campus community (student body, faculty)

Be an independent auditor of systems and policy.

• Play a key role in verification of or signing off on important issues
• Be a key party for investigations and reviews
• Become a key resource for staff and student guidance/consultation

The “Triple A” approach, panelists said, would more naturally position faculty athletics representatives to be involved more at the decision-making level in athletics and integrate themselves into the athletics structure on campus.

In addition to leadership, the Fellows also discussed finances. With the economic slump affecting all of higher education, the Fellows learned how the partial-scholarship model in Division II athletics can actually help support the institution financially.

“In this model, the scholarship is covering a small part of the tuition, with the remainder being funded by the student or other sources of income, and that actually supports our departments,” Cates said.

She noted one faculty athletics representative who said his school’s decision to drop ice hockey triggered a reciprocal decline in the school of business enrollment.

Faculty representatives at the institute said the Division II partial-scholarship model can counter the perception that athletics is a money drain.

John Mayer from Cal State Stanislaus said that will be important as the economic effects on higher education – and athletics – continue to hit hard over the next few years.

“Schools in our system are not only having discussions about dropping sports but also cutting back on academic programs,” he said. “When you’re dealing with faculty and trying to win them over as advocates for athletics – if they’re having to weigh the philosophy department against athletics, where might that discussion go?

“You’re going to see these kinds of questions more and more, and until we can justify the existence of sports on campus, our athletics programs will be at risk.”

Cates said Division II institutions would be wise to “sell” the partial-scholarship model to other faculty and to their institution’s presidents. Division II already has pushed a study of the model and a simulation of how it can boost enrollment. Those materials are on the Division II homepage online.

“The message is that the partial-scholarship model is a very viable model in this economic situation,” Cates said. “If we as institutions consider reducing sports, then we should expect to see a reciprocal decline in our enrollment, particularly at some of our smaller institutions where student-athletes represent a significant part of the overall enrollment. The Division II model is a fiscally responsible model.”

In that regard, faculty representatives noted Division II’s Life in the Balance project that will be considered at the January Convention. Division II presidents already see that effort – which streamlines seasons and reduces the maximum number of contests in 10 sports – as a strategic effort to avoid more drastic cuts.

Overall, Cates was pleased with how this year’s Fellows engaged the agenda. She also noted the growing importance of the institute, not only for the Fellows themselves but also the presidents to which they report. She said at least two of the Fellows came to Indianapolis with specific charges from their presidents to return with ideas that would improve the functionality on those campuses, from tighter compliance to increased faculty involvement.

Cates also noted the networking benefits of the Institute (funded by a Division II enhancement grant), which occurs about a month before the annual Faculty Athletics Representatives Association Fall Forum. She said in fact that the institute has helped increase attendance at the Forum.

“Much of the dialogue that begins at the Fellows Institute carries on at the Division II sessions at FARA,” she said. “As a result, we have been able to disseminate a lot of useful information to the membership.”

2009 Faculty Athletics Representative Institute Fellows

• Julia Beeman, Belmont Abbey*
• Jeffrey Borgeld, Humboldt State
• Lynn Brandsma, Chestnut Hill
• Brenda Cates, Mount Olive*
• Jeffrey Cawlfield, Missouri S&T
• Trey Cone, Central Oklahoma
• William Costa, Franklin Pierce
• Jim Crawley, Dominican (New York)
• Duane Dove, Sonoma State
• Andrew Dyer, South Carolina Aiken
• Ken Farr, Georgia College*
• Timothy Ladd, Palm Beach Atlantic
• Bryan Man, Chaminade
• John Mayer, Cal State Stanislaus*
• Allen Mesinger, Minnesota Duluth
• Patricia Roden, North Alabama
• Charles Pinckney, Livingstone
• Margaret Poitevint, North Georgia
• Brad Prince, West Georgia
• Robert Rustic, Findlay
• Craig Stevens, West Chester
• Spencer Thompson, Texas Permian Basin

* served on the institute steering committee