This year's Division I forum may go a long way toward determining the nature of next year's Division I forum, as well as subsequent gatherings. That's because Division I members are scheduled to discuss their involvement with future NCAA Conventions at the Monday, January 13, session in Anaheim, California.

The forum, which has become a popular venue for debate on significant Division I matters at recent Conventions, will have the Division I governance process as its topic de jour, and that discussion figures to include how the Convention -- and Division I's involvement in it -- fits into the picture.

The session will examine the state of the governance process five years after it was implemented and feature a panel-led discussion about ways to address the perceived weaknesses of the structure. Group discussion also will focus on ways to resolve the notion of athletics administrators feeling "disenfranchised" from the legislative process.

The structure has been criticized recently by athletics directors, faculty athletics representatives and senior woman administrators who don't feel as engaged with the legislative process as they did in the days of the single annual legislative cycle and the one-school, one-vote system at the Convention. Athletics administrators also worry that the current two-cycle system is too complicated to effectively track the status of legislative proposals.

Earlier this year, the Division I-A Athletics Directors Association called for a return to a single legislative cycle and for finding a way to give Division I members a meaningful vote at the Convention, while still retaining decision-making authority for the Division I Board of Directors. Division I faculty athletics representatives have voiced similar desires.

The proposed single legislative cycle calls for conferences to submit legislative proposals by July 15, and for the Management Council to refer those proposals to the two Division I cabinets by August 15. The cabinets would review the proposals in September, then the Council would consider whether to initially approve them in October. Approved proposals would undergo a 90-day membership comment period, then return to the Council and Board of Directors for final approval in April. A 60-day override opportunity would follow before the proposals become effective August 1.

Proponents of the single cycle say it will allow athletics administrators to better track and comment on proposals. They also say that forums about pending legislation might be implemented at the Convention, which might in turn boost Division I members' interest in the Convention.

A single cycle, however, would counter a primary reason for restructuring in the first place, which was to allow Division I to move legislation -- particularly noncontroversial proposals -- through the system much quicker. Opponents say another weakness of an annual cycle is that it might create an "artificial" state of emergency resulting in many legislative proposals being adopted at nonlegislative meetings, and that the increase in emergency legislation also may result in an increased sense of disenfranchisement.

Desire for a vote

The legislative process and the NCAA Convention may not be mutually exclusive when it comes to the issue of athletics administrators feeling disenfranchised. Whatever legislative cycle is in place may not spur Division I interest in the Association's annual gathering unless there is the lure of a vote.

Though there does not seem to be any momentum to return to the one-school, one-vote system and thus change the authority presidents enjoy through the Board of Directors, some constituents have searched for ways to implement at least a non-binding vote that might give the Management Council and Board some guidance or at least indicate the pulse of the membership on legislative proposals before a final decision is rendered.

In October, the Management Council approved a survey of the membership, via the conferences, to ascertain interest in incorporating a vote into the current legislative process and to determine whether such a change would enhance both interest and participation in the Convention.

The survey includes nine models that range from a "hot topics" issues forum during which non-binding institutional voting would occur, to reverting to the original Convention format (one-school, one-vote). Other models include non-binding votes or issues forums on proposals that do not receive at least a 75 percent majority during the Council's initial consideration.

The results of the survey, which also includes questions about the legislative cycle, will be ready for review at the forum and should provide some direction for the Management Council to consider in April.

Other forum topics

In addition to the legislative process and Convention issues, Division I forum attendees will discuss the work of the Championships/Competition Cabinet's bracket/format subcommittee, which has proposed the following guidelines for sports committees to use when seeding their championships brackets:

Seed a maximum of 25 percent of the bracket, except for those brackets where 25 percent does not make sense (for example, allowing a 48-team bracket to seed the top 16 rather than the top 12).

First-round conference match-ups should be avoided (first round is defined as first contest).

Higher-seeded teams should be given consideration in hosting (taking into account other factors such as missed class time, quality and availability of the facility and other necessary accommodations, attendance history, financial considerations, geography, quality of the student-athlete experience, championship atmosphere and accessibility of fans, etc.).

After seeding the approved number of teams, teams should be placed in brackets per Bylaw 31.1.3.2.6 (that is, geographically) with consideration given to missed class time, the quality of the student-athlete experience, championship atmosphere and accessibility of fans.

The cabinet has asked sports committees for feedback on the formula and will use that, along with the forum discussion, to frame its deliberations on the issue during its February meeting. (For an in-depth review of the bracket/format issue, see the Division I Spotlight on the front page of the December 23 edition of The NCAA News.)

Also at the Division I forum, a report will be given on the incentives/disincentives initiative relating to academic enhancements.

The Board in October approved enhanced initial- and continuing-eligibility requirements for student-athletes enrolling on or after August 1, 2003.

The next step in the Board's academic reform package is to develop a standard of academic progress for teams to meet at a given time, then determine penalties for teams that fail to meet that standard.

The Board has charged a committee composed largely of Management Council members with looking at whether an incentives/disincentives package that might include postseason restrictions, scholarship reductions or revenue distribution would fortify academic performance.

That group has convened twice via conference call and is on target to develop preliminary recommendations for the Board to discuss in April.