The NCAA News - News and Features

January 12, 1998

New Division I system brings new challenges

BY DAVID PICKLE
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, THE NCAA NEWS

Division I has successfully completed Phase I of restructuring by implementing a new -- and dramatically different -- representative system of governance.

Now, attention has moved to Phase II: the equally large challenge of making the new system work as effectively as possible.

The new structure has been in place for five months. During that time, the division has taken a conservative approach on legislation, if not in quantity then at least in the magnitude of what has been considered. The most significant modification of legislation made so far -- a change in the criteria for Division I-A bowl game eligibility -- is not a landmark action.

Despite the cautious approach, however, there is sentiment that the new system is cumbersome and that opportunities for improvement are abundant.

The new Division I approach still is not universally understood. Media reports continue to describe possible changes "that will be voted on at the NCAA Convention," even though Division I no longer legislates in a one-school, one-vote manner. But the confusion is not restricted to the media. One Division I institution has dutifully filed votes on all the pieces of legislation that have been distributed to the membership for comment. Cabinet, Management Council and Board of Directors meetings all have had moments when members have puzzled over what they are expected to do.

"This is a new system, and it's going to take a while to get used to it," said Britton Banowsky, associate commissioner of the Big 12 Conference. "But the first six months have been a difficult start at best."

In some ways, the new system is quite simple. For instance, if legislation were proposed and adopted or defeated without modification from the Management Council or the Board, the process could hardly be more straightforward. It is nothing more than proposing legislation, acquiring comment and then having a group of representatives vote it up or down.

But the Management Council and Board each meet four times annually. Four cabinets also are feeding the legislative machine. Proposals are modified, which requires additional examination from the membership. The membership has the right to override, which creates a major wrinkle in the process. Add it all up, and some of the membership believes it is being called upon to achieve a difficult juggling act.

David Thompson, assistant commissioner of the Atlantic Coast Conference, said he believes that Division I needs to gain the discipline to legislate less than in the past because the new system does not avail itself to an easy understanding of how the rules have changed.

In the early going, however, he said the division has headed in a different direction, "hyperlegislating rather than deregulating," potentially compromising the ability of the membership to know what the rules are at a given moment.

Pacific-10 Conference Commissioner Thomas C. Hansen agrees that the system would benefit from a slower legislative pace. "If it settles down to where I think it will," he said, "then we won't be addressing 20 or 30 issues at a meeting. We will be able to concentrate on just a few."

Feeling pressure

That isn't the way it is now, though, and administrators in conference offices -- where much of the communication responsibility rests -- are feeling the pressure.

"It's hard for me to keep track of this," Thompson said, "and this is what I do eight hours a day, five days a week. It's almost impossible for a coach to keep up with these kinds of changes."

The NCAA has made one major move to ease the confusion by creating a Division I legislative tracking mechanism that appears on the Association's World Wide Web site (www.ncaa.org). Banowsky said that creation of the tracking mechanism is a welcome step in the right direction, but that it is only a step.

He says the NCAA needs to post all governance information on the Web site so that the membership can see what is available and access what it needs. Hansen agrees, saying, "This is one area where the NCAA needs to do a good job."

For the moment, though, those who are significantly involved in the legislative process face a high degree of paper work and a willingness to work hard to familiarize themselves with the issues. The current system relies heavily on Federal Express to deliver vast amounts of paper. The agenda for the December meeting of the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet, which was 2.5 inches thick, has taken on almost legendary status for its enormity.

Wallace I. Renfro, NCAA director of public relations and administrator of NCAA Online, said the NCAA is examining how to provide such online governance information to Division I.

"We are moving in that direction," he said, "but there are computer compatability and manpower issues that have to be addressed. A fundamental question is how to provide an assortment of documents produced at various locations in a format that is accessible by everyone."

The membership also has looked at the Web site as a means for aiding Division I's legislative comment process. Some members have expressed a desire for comments to be posted on NCAA Online, but such an approach would require development of an Intranet for the membership. Otherwise, the general public would have the ability to comment and almost certainly would overwhelm the system. The membership is continuing to consider what degree of computer involvement is appropriate, but no decisions have been made.

In theory, the comments are meant to take the place of Convention debate. They are meant to provide every institution with an opportunity to raise questions or voice objections or support for prospective legislation.

In practice, the comment process has become more of a forum for individuals who object to legislation under consideration. In some ways, that is not different from the old Convention process, but what is different is that the system provides no way for the majority to respond to the concerns of the minority. At the Convention, verbose dissent often was met not only with direct response but also with signs of impatience, such as loud background chatter. Now, decision-makers must operate in a more sterile environment, with only pieces of paper to assist them in reaching conclusions.

Good and bad

Thompson said that, as is the case with many elements of restructuring, there is good and bad in the new comment process.

"It used to be that the comment period was on the floor of the Convention," he said. "You could say, 'This is a bad proposal' because of whatever the reason was. It was quicker. If it was better, I don't know. It would seem to be better the new way, because you have the comments in front of you for review. But it takes a lot of time, and I don't know many people are willing to devote that kind of time."

Beyond communication matters, the division faces the obvious conflict that will be encountered by any multi-level legislative process. The cabinets, the Management Council and the Board will not always agree.

Indeed, a few episodes of disagreement have arisen in the early days of the new system. For example, the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet and the Management Council wanted to reinstitute championships mementos for Division I student-athletes after the Executive Committee had imposed an Association-wide moratorium on them pending a review of whether they should be considered an Association-wide expense. The matter went to the Board of Directors, which chose to stick with the moratorium.

On a more significant matter, the Management Council passed a legislative proposal that would have eliminated virtually all restrictions on the basketball restricted-earnings coaching position. The Board, however, voted down the legislation because it felt that it would effectively create a third assistant basketball coach and would stray from the original purpose of the legislation, which was to provide entry-level coaching opportunities for individuals just entering the profession.

It was the only proposal that the Board voted down in its first opportunity to adopt legislation.

"This is an example of how the system may not have worked," said Banowsky, whose conference submitted an override request.

He noted that the Management Council discussed the matter at length and voted decisively for the change because it didn't believe individuals who have reached the five-year limit for a restricted-earnings coach should be required to leave the position, as current legislation requires. The Board considered that argument but was not persuaded.

Raising questions

While nobody believes that the Board should rubber-stamp Management Council actions, the action on the restricted-earnings coach proposal (along an earlier Board action in which it initiated a plan to modify the core-course certification process for initial eligibility) did raise questions among some athletics administrators about how the Board will choose to apply its power.

Moreover, the restricted-earnings legislation called attention to one of those interesting questions that didn't come up when the new process was approved: If the Board's action were suspended by a vote of 100 Division I members, what would the action mean? Would it mean the existing restrictions of restricted-earnings coaches are removed?

It was not an easy question. On the one hand, said Division I Chief of Staff Stephen R. Morgan, the 100 members that voted to suspend and override clearly would be saying they wanted to adopt the Management Council position. However, if only 100 members voted that way, the division would have rule by minority. The Board will consider the issue at its January meeting.

Other concerns exist. At its October meeting, the Board addressed whether too many committees are being created and if the membership on those committees is growing too large. Some question why the annual Convention should involve Division I, given its new way of doing business. Some are concerned with the lack of experience of some members being called upon to serve on cabinets and on the Management Council.

So, there are bumps in the road.

Still, even critics say it is far too early to conclude that the system is hopelessly flawed. And Hansen, a member of the task force that designed the new structure, said he is pleased with the early returns, giving it a score of 8.5 on a scale of 10.

Technological relief

There appears to be something of a consensus that technology may eventually provide relief. The Association has explored development of a "Virtually Private Network" (VPN) that would be a virtual godsend for doing Association business. Daniel T. Dutcher, Division III chief of staff and head of a staff project team on technology issues, said the VPN could provide a secure environment that could do everything from simplifying the legislative comment process to providing for an easier method of submitting initial-eligibility waiver appeals to providing a means for transferring large amounts of money, such as payments from the basketball fund.

But the heavenly results come with a hellish price, Dutcher said. At the moment, the cost of the VPN would be at least seven figures and probably well into eight.

It is possible, he said, that the high cost of security will diminish in time, making something like the VPN acceptable. In the meantime, the Association will continue to focus on what is doable. Videoconferencing, for example, appears achievable in the foreseeable future, he said. The membership will get an opportunity to discuss how it might benefit from technological advances during one of the Division I Convention forums January 12.

Ultimately, learning how to benefit from technology is a learning process, just like many other elements of the new Division I approach.

Hansen is upbeat. He said both the staff and the leadership of the membership are providing high-quality work that will pay large dividends in the future.

And even those who have reservations about how the first several months have evolved are keeping the faith, if somewhat cautiously.

"I'm not discouraged," Thompson said. "These are all growth things. This is a huge learning period for all of us. We all have to be patient and accept that errors will be made by all of us."