The NCAA has embarked on a long-range-planning initiative that will be integrated throughout the enterprise. The process will be grounded in four planning horizons. The approach involves crafting a comprehensive strategic direction based on the balance between the timeless principles of the Association's core purpose and core values and what the Association seeks to become within 10 to 30 years. That vision is characterized by the articulation of an "audacious goal" and a vivid description -- what it will be like to achieve the goal.

This will guide the Association as it considers the factors that will affect its ability to achieve its goals. Building foresight about a five- to 10-year horizon -- assumptions, opportunities and critical uncertainties in the likely relevant future as well as emerging strategic "mega-issues" -- suggests critical choices about the potential barriers the Association will face. This foresight also suggests the responses the Association will need to consider in navigating its way toward achievement of its 10- to 30-year goal, or audacious goal.

The linkage continues into the three- to five-year horizon through the development of a formal long-range strategic plan, in which the Association articulates the outcomes it seeks to achieve for its stakeholders. How will the world be different as a result of what the Association does? Who will benefit, and what will the likely results be? Further, the articulation of strategies will bring focus to the NCAA's annual operational allocation of discretionary resources. Action plans, checkpoints and milestones will be developed through operational planning, indicating the NCAA's progress toward each goal in every planning year.

A strategic long-range plan is not intended as a substitute for an annual program or operating plan. It does not detail all the initiatives, programs, and activities the Association will undertake in the course of serving its membership and the industry, nor can it foresee changes to the underlying assumptions on which key strategic choices were based. Instead, the strategic plan will articulate what the NCAA is not doing today but must be doing in the future to be successful.

To gather broad input and encourage dialogue about the Association's future, a series of strategic thinking sessions involving key stakeholder groups will occur this spring and summer. The first of those meetings in each division are summarized as follows. These "emerging themes" documents reflect discussion only. Statements do not necessarily indicate consensus or the position of the overall division.

* Division II Strategic-Planning

March 23/Atlanta

Process Step 2.1

Attending: Nancy Belck, chancellor, University of Nebraska at Omaha; Frank Brown, president, Columbus State University; Tom Brown, commissioner, Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference; Tony Capon, faculty athletics representative, University of Pittsburgh, Johnstown; George Haggerty, president, Franklin Pierce College; John Keating, chancellor, University of Wisconsin, Parkside; Joan McDermott, director of athletics, Metropolitan State College of Denver; Clinton Pettus, president, Cheyney University of Pennsylvania; Kay Schallenkamp president, Emporia State University; Sue Willey, senior woman administrator, University of Indianapolis. Facilitator: Jean Frankel, Tecker Consultants.

Core ideology discussion points: In their dialogue about core ideology, Division II participants noted the following points:

The core ideology of an organization needs to sustain identity but allow for evolution. It should reach out beyond the organization itself to describe the role it plays in the greater world it serves.

Core purpose often articulates the role of the organization...such as:

Foster protecting/preserving an environment for...

Providing a structure for...

Regulating and organizing...

Advancing intercollegiate athletics...

There also is the sense that as some sports have been dropped at the collegiate level and have gone to either intramurals or even to external clubs, the NCAA might have a role in a more broadly defined community of athletics competition. This also could extend to precollegiate athletics and a broader role in the community and society.

Emerging core purpose themes: In their dialogue about core purpose, these themes emerged from Division II participants:

Athletics as an integral part of the educational experience.

Helping student-athletes reach their full potential.

Fostering intercollegiate athletics in an atmosphere of amateurism, integrity and commitment to the development of the student-athlete.

Advancing intercollegiate athletics as an integral and sustaining part of a superior undergraduate education.

Emerging core values themes: In their dialogue about core values, these themes emerged from Division II participants:

Commitment to academic success

Commitment to welfare of student-athlete

Unwavering integrity, honesty and fairness of athletics programs

Unrelenting service to members

Amateurism protection

Honesty and integrity (and consistency) in the application of rules

Respect for every member institution

NCAA as a creative, visionary leader

Envisioned future

Envisioned future key discussion points: In their dialogue about an envisioned future, these themes emerged from Division II participants:

The ultimate decision about an envisioned future will require the NCAA to make strategic choices regarding whether the audacious goal should focus on the NCAA organization, its value to higher education or its value to the student-athlete.

A common theme was that in an ideal world, the NCAA will be known as egalitarian, representing high standards, credible.

The NCAA envisioned future needs to be results-oriented (student achievement is the end result).

Another element of the discussion centered on the need to encourage NCAA's member organizations to feel a sense of "ownership" of the governance of intercollegiate sports (that "the NCAA" is us).

The group also discussed the need for building positive perception of the NCAA among the public, media, and membership (moving from a cold, structured, regulatory organization toward something more humanistic).

To ensure that we do not promise what we cannot deliver, there will be a need to align resources sufficient to deliver on the outcomes stated in the envisioned future.

The envisioned future of the NCAA should both place the organization in a position to function as the unified voice among all constituencies and be perceived as such.

There also was dialogue about the possibility of international (or universal) extension of the U.S. intercollegiate sports model and the NCAA's role in making that happen.

Emerging audacious goal themes: In their dialogue about audacious goals, these themes emerged from Division II participants:

Every student-athlete will be prepared to achieve his/her greatest potential in life after college.

The NCAA will enable championship and participation opportunities to be as widespread as possible.

The NCAA will be recognized as the nation's most effective higher education association, with its purpose clearly understood and supported by the public and its member institutions.

The NCAA will be recognized as leaders in building citizenship and fostering values of a diverse culture.

The NCAA's identity will be synonymous with academic integrity.

Five- to 10-year future

Key discussion points and emerging issues: Participants were asked to consider five dimensions of foresight: demographics (factors likely to affect the population, such as aging, health, work/family balance and similar issues); business/economic climate (factors affecting trade, economic issues, marketplaces, currencies, etc.); legislation/regulation (factors affecting regulation of the industry and its products, whether political or industry-driven, etc); technology/science (factors affecting innovation, discovery, advances in relevant scientific and technological areas); and politics/social values (factors likely to affect lifestyles, values, and consumer expectations). Following are key discussion points as group members shared their views:

As a voluntary organization, the NCAA has been able to successfully self-regulate in the past. But have the organization and its membership reached a "comfort level" that may eventually reduce its ability to self-regulate and therefore eventually have to deal with government and other external regulatory intrusion?

There is a fundamental lack of understanding about who and what the NCAA is -- among the media, the public, and even the NCAA's own institutional members and their communities. Some may not even regard it as a "voluntary" organization. With an ever-changing population of college presidents, faculty and student-athletes, the challenge for NCAA to communicate and sustain a core sense of identity and purpose will be critical. There is a culture of cynicism as it regards the NCAA, evident among both internal and external stakeholders. Some feel alienated from the organization -- others just don't connect. The NCAA will need to be able to communicate values that transcend and bind.

Competitive and financial pressures will continue for academic institutions. There will be an increasing number of mergers of programs and institutions, increased competition for academic institutions from nontraditional sources, such as "for profit" institutions, online courses, and other educational providers, with a resulting situation of decreased resources for athletics funding.

The relevant future business environment for academic institutions may include fewer institutions, fewer athletics programs, and fewer student-athletes participating, along with changing support and changing consumer interest in athletics events and programs

The legislative and regulatory environment is expected to include tighter controls and more scrutiny, along with expectations of increased accountability on the part of academic institutions. This may result in increased control beyond the NCAA and current accrediting groups.

The definition of full-time student will change. Changes in educational delivery systems will result in students who are no longer classroom- (or campus-) bound. Distance learning may fundamentally change the nature of the campus community, and campus life may be very different in the future. There may be a smaller population of students able to attend or participate in intercollegiate athletic activities.

The Internet is changing the nature of how people participate in all activities. Computer games, Web surfing and instant-message communication suggest that there will be a greater expectation of interactive activities -- and the "passive" participation of spectators in athletics events may be less attractive. Attendance and participation may decrease. There will be a need to integrate interactive activity in both learning and observing.

Social values continue to be more diverse, and there is increasing polarity based on race, ethnic and social class. More social issues are being played out through intercollegiate sports (including realignment with current organizations), and there is growth in groups dealing with sports ethics.

Five- to 10-year planning -- mega issues

Key questions identified by the group: In their dialogue about mega issues, these themes emerged from Division II participants:

What should be the role of intercollegiate athletics in the fast-changing environment of higher education? (This is a fundamental question on which many others are based.)

How can the NCAA educate its constituencies (campus, society, government) as to its purpose and operation?

What can be done to elevate the value of intercollegiate sports (for student-athletes and the public)?

How can we best prepare our student-athletes for life beyond college?

What should be done about the encroachment of professionalism (agents, pro leagues, salaries and other costs) into collegiate areas?

How will the interest in our major revenue sports shift with changing demographics/ethnicity/female participation?

How can the Association balance the need to increase focus on female sports while continuing to serve male sports?

How can the Association balance the need to increase the employment of people of color and females in coaching and athletics participation without disadvantaging majority groups?

One piece of advice

Participants were asked to provide one piece of advice for NCAA leadership as it embarks on planning strategically for the organization's future.

Avoid being bound by "what is."

Use every communication device possible to make the membership and public aware of this activity and to continuously update these constituencies on progress.

Ensure that people who often are not invited to the table when planning is done are invited to participate in this process.

Make sure we involve student-athletes in the process. While they may not have our global view, they do bring a valuable perspective.

March 28/Chicago

Process Step 2.2

Attending: Stephen P. Argo, commissioner, Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference; Susan Bassett, director of athletics, William Smith College; Richard Berman, president, Manhattanville College; Christopher Bledsoe, director of athletics, New York University; Jennifer Braaten, president, Ferrum College; H. David Brandt, president, George Fox University; Stanley Caine, president, Adrian College; Suzanne R. Coffey, director of athletics, Bates College; Joshua Espinosa, student-athlete, Buena Vista University; Dale T. Knobel, president, Denison University; Michael Miranda, faculty athletics representative, Plattsburgh State University of New York; Oscar C. Page, president, Austin College; Richard Torgerson, president, Luther College; John (Chad) Yowell, executive director of athletics, Wheaton College (Massachusetts). Facilitator: Bud Crouch, Tecker Consultants.

Core ideology discussion points: In their dialogue about core ideology, Division III participants noted the following points:

The core purpose of the NCAA originally was to regulate, to protect individuals, to provide the enforcement of rules, and to provide standards for health and safety in college sports.

There needs to be a focus on both the educational and the athletics experience. Athletics is a mainstream part of education; it is an educational experience.

In terms of defining the core ideology of the NCAA, there may be differing perspectives on purpose across the divisions. A single unifying core ideology for all of NCAA will be critical.

Emerging core purpose themes: In their dialogue about core purpose, these themes emerged from Division III participants:

To provide student-athletes with tools necessary to balance life as a student, athlete and individual; making sure their experiences on campus are meaningful.

To educate the future -- graduates prepared to make a positive difference in society.

To foster values and learning through the athletics experience at higher education institutions -- character, integrity, honesty through sports and education.

To challenge the spirit, mind and body within higher education.

To inspire achievement and encourage the pursuit of excellence.

To enhance/promote the educational experience for students through athleticism and intercollegiate competition.

To oversee and regulate fair and equitable opportunities for student-athletes to compete within an intercollegiate framework.

Core values emerging themes: In their dialogue about core values, these themes emerged from Division III participants:

Unwavering commitment to student-athletes; academic excellence within higher education; total education of the student-athlete. Respect for every student-athlete; every student-athlete is ascribed great worth.

Trust among members/divisions/conferences; respect for institutional autonomy; incorporation of every voice into governance; incorporation of all levels, students, student-athletes, faculty and governance into decision-making.

Respect for personal and professional ethics; honesty/integrity, sportsmanship (civility, respect, appropriate behavior), leadership (character) and education (mind, body, spirit), authenticity, civility, honesty in word and action.

Envisioned future

Envisioned future emerging themes: In their dialogue about core purpose, these themes emerged from Division III participants:

There will be a significant challenge in dealing with economic issues in the future, both in terms of institutions' commitment to athletics programs and in the NCAA's ability to amass sufficient resources.

There are significant issues of identity for the NCAA; there is a lack of clarity about who we are, even among our membership, as well as misperceptions on the part of many who are external to the organization.

The question of the entertainment issue in intercollegiate athletics will need to be addressed; issues such as relationship with the media and funding sources.

Audacious goal themes: In their dialogue about audacious goals, these themes emerged from Division III participants:

The reasons for athletics in a higher education context will be well-understood by the public; NCAA student-athletes will be recognized as students; student-athletes will graduate at rate significantly higher than general students. Athletics will be seen as a true component within higher education; achievement of the audacious goal will reinforce the notion that student-athletes are first and foremost students. It will have a ripple effect upon preparation for college, college admissions, balance between academic pursuits and athletics ones, de-emphasis of distinction between "major" and "minor" sports, and reintegration of student-athletes at all levels into the student body.

The NCAA will become a redefined organization with common (understanding of) values that promote educational experiences as the primary aspect of the athletics/learning activity at the campuses of higher education institutions. The NCAA membership will agree on a definition of the role of athletics in institutions of higher education, and member institutions will trust each other to do what is right in executing that role.

The NCAA will be the model for education through sportsmanship and athleticism. The organization will define a model of character and leadership that will be copied by all athletics organizations globally.

Students who are athletes will know they have an organization that represents their best interests. The NCAA will be recognized as assuring student-athletes a safe, strong, competitive sports experience in balance with their strong academic experience.

Intercollegiate athletics will be the preferred arena for sports: better than the professional arena, better than the Olympics. College sports will embody the ideals of the Olympic values played out every day on campuses worldwide. The NCAA will be the leader in international year-round athletics competition. Institutions from different countries will compete in regular competitions under the auspices of the NCAA.

Students have clearly defined access and opportunities in collegiate athletics at a variety of levels. The ethnic and gender diversity of athletics staffs will mirror that of student-athletes; student-athletes will mirror that of the general student population.

Higher education institutions will be more effectively shielded from the demands for entertainment. The commercial aspects of sports will be subordinated to the education purpose of institutions. Athletics will be taken out of the entertainment realm and funded by institutions within higher education.

Five- to 10-year future

Key discussion points and emerging issues: Participants were asked to consider five dimensions of foresight: demographics (factors likely to affect the population, such as aging, health, work/family balance, and similar issues); business/economic climate (factors affecting trade, economic issues, marketplaces, currencies, etc.); legislation/regulation (factors affecting regulation of the industry and its products, whether political or industry-driven, etc); technology/science (factors affecting innovation, discovery, advances in relevant scientific and technological areas); and politics/social values (factors likely to affect lifestyles, values, and consumer expectations). Following are key discussion points as the group shared their views:

Demographic trends will affect college education. The continued aging of the population will affect college enrollments. There will continue to be more women than men who are qualified and interested in a college education. There will be an increased diversity of students -- not only in an ethnic sense (with the growth of the Hispanic community, increasing awareness of cultures and lifestyles) but also in terms of the continued growth of nontraditional-age students and those with special needs. In the future, the minority population will increase, especially in major sports. And there will be fewer full-time students, affecting sports sponsorship and participation, and an increased number of part-time, nontraditional students due to work/family situations.

There will be an increasing stress on institutions for recruitment of qualified students and more competition among colleges for student-athletes. The traditional college age population will peak and then decline. Most students will tend to go with familiarity and tradition, so there will be a need to demonstrate excellence in academics and sports.

Supplements, eating disorders and alcohol abuse are all problems with young athletes and will continue to be so. There will be greater emphasis on health and wellness in the future, and the scrutiny of diet, drug and alcohol intake of athletes will lead to more testing. There will be increased usage of supplements and other ways to condition one's body that are not natural.

There may be fewer sports in the future because of economic issues. We may see the elimination of certain types of sports that are either too expensive (for example, football) or do not generate revenue (for example, field hockey). We may see the demise of football because of a lack of prospective players at the high-school level. We also may see the demise of more socio-economically sensitive sports such as rowing, skiing and lacrosse because of a decrease in access to these types of sports before entering college.

Federal regulations will increase. The government may threaten control over athletics as it already does in institutional accreditation. Governmental agencies/legislative bodies will increasingly intrude on issues such as gender equity and racial diversity.

Litigation in college sports will continue, if not increase. Students/consumers will increasingly seek legal remedies for conflicts.

Science/sports science/medicine will push athletics performance to new levels.

Technological advances will allow student-athletes to recover from injuries faster.

The communication revolution will bring spectating to one's living room on a 24/7 schedule. More "cocooning" will occur, possibly decreasing interest in spectators. Greater access to sports via the Internet will occur. All college athletics events will be available for broadcast at home and other remote locations.

Key questions identified by the group: In their dialogue about mega issues, these themes emerged from Division III participants:

What role will the NCAA play in future international marketplace?

What role should the media play in the arena of collegiate athletics?

What will be the inter-relationship among the divisions of the NCAA? Will the NCAA exist in 10 years or will the Association evolve into separate organizations of institutions with more compatible visions? How should we deal with widening values among members? How many divisions should there be? Is it time to have new organizations govern certain parts of this industry?

What are the most appropriate ways to fund intercollegiate athletics?

What role should NCAA play in legislative arena? What positions should it take?

How can the Association deal with state, national and international movement toward more scrutiny and accountability? Can the NCAA, a volunteer membership organization, successfully maintain control of collegiate athletics in the face of governmental intrusion?

Should the role of the NCAA be to provide funding and resources to empower NCAA schools and conferences to deal with key issues, or should the NCAA address those issues as an Association?

How can the NCAA create a greater understanding on the part of the general public and its member institutions about what it is the organization stands for, does and the actual process that is involved within intercollegiate sports?

How should the NCAA respond to (or control) the commercialization of collegiate athletics?

One piece of advice

Participants were asked to provide one piece of advice for NCAA leadership as it embarks on planning strategically for the organization's future.

Remember the beginning: Protect and serve the member institutions, maintain quality and fairness, have an open mind, facilitate, work together.

Find the common ground that unifies all members as institutions of higher education that elect to offer athletics. At present, that common ground is hard to find. Value all voices (divisions). Try to maintain the integrity/autonomy of the divisional governance structures in the ultimate Association-wide plan.

Listen to the membership and remember the immortal words of Pogo: "We have seen the enemy, and it is us."

Educate the general public and membership so that they have an understanding of what the NCAA is really all about. Having a plan and executing that plan are two different things. To be successful, you need everyone on the same page with same basic understanding. There needs to be a consistent message that everyone can buy into and believe in.

Understand the distinct differences among the three divisions of the NCAA. We must construct the planning process with the understanding the divisions have different core values and philosophies as to how intercollegiate athletics should be included in the overall educational experience. Chief executive officers must be a part of this process.

Listen to your own PSAs.

Practice authenticity throughout the planning process.

April 5/New Orleans

Process Step 2.3

Attending: Darlene Bailey, senior woman administrator, Southwest Missouri State University; Percy Bates, faculty athletics representative, University of Michigan; Donald Beggs, president, Wichita State University; Ron Eaglin, president, Morehead State University; Rich Ensor, commissioner, Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference; Carolyn Schlie Femovich, executive director, Patriot League; Milton Gordon, president, California State University, Fullerton; Bob Lawless, president, University of Tulsa; Cheryl Levick, director of athletics, Santa Clara University; Lee McElroy, director of athletics, State University of New York at Albany; Chris Monasch, commissioner, America East Conference; Mark Nordenberg, chancellor, University of Pittsburgh; Thomas O'
Connor, director of athletics, George Mason University; Jeff Orleans, commissioner, Ivy Group; John Parry, director of athletics, Butler University; Linwood Rose, president, James Madison University; Mike Slive, commissioner, Southeastern Conference; Betsy Stephenson, senior woman administrator, University of California, Los Angeles; Stan Wilcox, associate commissioner, Big East Conference; Nancy Zimpher, president, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Facilitator: Bud Crouch.

Core ideology discussion points: In their dialogue about core ideology, Division I participants noted the following points:

The NCAA's core purpose originally was to regulate intercollegiate athletics, primarily football, and to standardize the industry in terms of the legislative controls. The purpose now is:

To coordinate the rules, values, and activities of membership in an organized manner that gives meaning and purpose to what we do.

To provide a fair and equitable structure of governance for collegiate institutions that strive to offer a quality intercollegiate athletics experience as part of their overall educational mission.

To serve intercollegiate athletes.

To free all athletes to become productive members of society and achieve their goals.

To marry the educational mission with intercollegiate athletics.

To develop and allocate revenues that support intercollegiate athletics.

To provide college students with the lessons taught regarding the thrills of winning and the agony of defeat.

Core purpose emerging themes: In their dialogue about core purpose, Division I participants noted the following points:

To provide meaningful, fulfilling athletics and academic experiences to student-athletes.

To provide national championship competition within a regulated structure that attempts to attain the elusive concept of a level playing field.

To provide opportunities for people to be educated and participate in athletics in an environment that stresses integrity, honesty and fair competition.

To provide academic and athletics excellence through life-long learning experience.

To serve as the communications and regulatory body that ties the diverse membership together for the overall enhancement of the student-athlete competitive experience.

To govern and manage intercollegiate athletics competition in concert with the educational mission of each member institution.

To serve intercollegiate student-athletes ­-- structure, championships, funding.

Core values emerging themes: In their dialogue about core values, Division I participants noted the following points:

Integrity and honesty -- both academic and athletics integrity and honesty by all member schools, athletes, coaches and administrators.

Consistency -- members and student-athletes can depend on the NCAA; consistency in image and message.

Equity -- equitable and fair treatment for all.

Commitment and concern for the student-athlete experience.

Athletics competition is a valuable part of the educational mission; athletics and academics go hand in hand.

Diversity among and within the divisions.

Enough flexibility to talk about issues at the division level.

Student-athletes as representatives of the NCAA.

Amateurism.

Playing sports is part of being human.

Wholesome competition.

Fun.

Envisioned future

Envisioned future emerging themes: In their dialogue about the envisioned future, Division II participants noted the following points:

The entire membership will feel ownership for governance.

The NCAA becomes a model for sports management systems.

Play is fundamental to personal well-being. It is different from just work and rest. This can be seen as a generational issue/difference.

The academic success of students is paramount; they are supported as athletes.

We are reaching the point where we would not have to legislate university requirements.

Athletics competition would be for the athletes, not for external groups (not for the media, alumni, etc; focus on the intrinsic value of sports); too many young people listen to the media and what they think they are.

Audacious goal emerging themes: In their dialogue about audacious goals, Division I participants noted the following points:

The NCAA will be seen as the defining voice in the United States for the personal, developmental and health benefits of athletics participation (especially, but not only, competitive athletics participation) from birth through college.

The NCAA will be the pre-eminent association for providing the highest athletics and academic growth for our leaders in society.

The NCAA is the head of a system that provides unique growth experiences for thousands of athletes while being dominant in commercial markets.

The NCAA provides each of its divisional member institutions with athletics that satisfy their individual model/aspiration for athletics.

Student-athletes will recognize the value of the collegiate experience (pay for play is no longer an issue; participation is a privilege, not a right.)

The gender and ethnic makeup of presidents, coaches and administrators will reflect the same diversity of the student-athlete population.

Athletics competition will be for the athlete, not for external focus (alumni, television, sports commentators, etc.).

The NCAA will be known as the world's premier educational association.

The NCAA will become the model for amateur sports governance systems and simplified rules oversight.

Leadership with excellent public relations and business-like decisions that place the institution/community/individual within educational objectives.

The notion that "we are the NCAA" has caught on with the entire membership and each subgroup is positively engaged.

Regulations for specific sports governed by coaches.

Competition and graduation would be common goal of all athletes and institutions.

A cohesive organization whose members attain goals such as academic integrity, diversity and integrity through balanced athletics competition.

Student-athletes are involved in governance and provided appropriate benefits.

Student-athletes can achieve academically and athletically.

Constituent groups have meaningful input.

The NCAA will be known for:

Assisting young people develop athletics talent.

Building character in youth.

Treating all groups equally.

As a source of honest entertainment to the public.

Academic success for college athletes.

The NCAA becomes the model for amateur sports governance systems and simplified rules oversight.

* 100-page online Manual with Web interfaces for compliance forms and annual submissions.

* Clearly stated rules that require no interpretations.

* Elimination of all outside compliance firms.

* Membership believes it is engaged in governance and development of simplified rules.

* The academic success of student-athletes is paramount.

The NCAA will become a more efficient and effective organization that responds to global and internal trends and issues that reflect fiscal stability, student-athlete welfare, academic primacy and the sports marketplace.

* Greater engagement from all sectors in the governance process/ownership.

* Create a responsive model to address challenges.

In 15 years, the NCAA will be an association of more than 1,000 colleges that compete in intercollegiate athletics with student-athletes who represent all students on their respective campuses -- that is, their academic profile fits the profile of the entire student body and their progress toward a degree, and graduation rates are comparable to the entire student body.

The NCAA manages championships and the broadcast rights for championships that:

Provides a meaningful experience for the students.

Pays all the expenses of the Association.

Returns significant revenue to the schools.

Key discussion points and emerging issues: Participants were asked to consider five dimensions of foresight: demographics (factors likely to affect the population, such as aging, health, work/family balance, and similar issues); business/economic climate (factors affecting trade, economic issues, marketplaces, currencies, etc.); legislation/regulation (factors affecting regulation of the industry and its products, whether political or industry-driven, etc); technology/science (factors affecting innovation, discovery, advances in relevant scientific and technological areas); and politics/social values (factors likely to affect lifestyles, values, and consumer expectations). Following are key discussion points as the group shared their views:

Demographic factors such as a more ethnically and culturally diverse, less affluent potential student population who may be less prepared for college were identified. The changing demographics of college students are affecting the sports in which students are interested. An aging population will result in declining attendance at major college football and basketball games. In addition, the games are on TV. There is no need to attend games; ultimately, allegiance to athletics teams will lessen over time.

Business and economic trends suggest that schools will continue to have budgetary problems. Program operating costs could lead to downsizing the sports industry. The costs of intercollegiate athletics are affecting image (coaches' salaries, attendance costs, travel costs, support costs, etc.). The cost of professional sports could push the average fan out of the market. There is a growing gulf between haves and have-nots. Greater numbers of college students are working 30 to 40 hours per week. Hence, it requires more time to achieve a degree. It is now the major reason it takes longer to graduate. The pro sports influence on collegiate athletics will continue to soar. Institutions will need to consider how to keep students in college in the face of professional options.

In the area of legislative and regulatory issues, the impact of legislation on higher education will continue. Increased legislation/regulation will lead to a less-than-healthy focus on the student-athlete. Federal intervention in athletics will limit universities' abilities to manage their athletics departments (for example, Title IX, gambling, graduation rates, Pell Grants, federal research dollars, etc.). The courts will continue to affect NCAA operations -- largely in diversity and finance, but increasingly in health management of student-athletes. There will be greater legal involvement with coaches' contracts, players' (student-athletes') rights. Government regulation of the amateur sports industry will increase, and it is possible that tax policy changes could subject big-time athletics revenues to income/property taxation. Title IX changes could affect programs and the positive culture that has been created in the past 20 years.

Technology is actually providing more opportunities not to attend events. Many students prefer the many options available to them on TV and computers. The result is emptier stadiums and arenas, except at high entertainment venues (Division I-A). The experience of sitting at home watching a game may be seen as more desirable than attending in person. Will a computer game replace college athletics? Play at your own convenience. And the interactive nature of the culture that technology encourages also suggests that the next generation may not want to watch sports; they may want only to play sports, so there may be a decrease in the spectator population due in part to technology influences.

Another dynamic of technology relates to the delivery of education itself. Enabled by technology, classroom instruction will become much more individualized, which in turn will enable athletes to have a customized curriculum. Learning at home and outside or independent of a classroom will be increasingly common.

Political and social values suggest that the public has become concerned about integrity and the treatment of student-athletes. Expectations in Division I are set high by consumers, and there is a pull between the welfare of student-athletes and financial opportunities. Key sports participants are failing to see the benefits of education. There is a widening gap in trust between coaches and student-athletes due to pressure on coaches to win and pressure on student-athletes to maintain eligibility. There is a diminishing sense of sportsmanship. Out-of-control behavior is more common.

Five- to 10-year planning -- mega issues

Key questions identified by the group: In their dialogue about mega issues, these themes emerged from Division I participants:

Endangered male college student: We are seeing a tremendous increase in female students; how will this affect college sports? The increase in females and diversity will affect the NCAA; they have a different view and experience with working and studying than past traditional college students.

At the institutional level, we are all operating in a shrinking economic environment. What will be the NCAA's priorities and way to deal with it? How do we come up with a new financial model? There is concern about the Association's economic model -- one delivery system through media. What will we do when that fails us? How do we prepare for change? What would the NCAA look like without a significant revenue stream?

NCAA is seen as reactive, not active. We need to get in front of the new culture, not have it pull us. How can we be the leader of the changes instead of being pushed into regulating? We need to find a new model of leadership, more student involvement. How do we find the expertise needed to make substantial changes? We have made baby steps toward this, but need to stay on top of it (the involvement of college presidents is a help, but we can't just hand it over to them).

We can't be blind to the world condition; there is tremendous concern by parents and students about willingness to travel and safety concerns. Attendance at large venues, travel, safety (for the athletes and those who attend); we do not feel that this world condition will go away soon. The dangers and hostilities will remain for a while.

Can the NCAA legislate programs that including incentives and disincentives for NCAA and students?

Other key questions:

How can the NCAA be more effective in terms of revenue/expense that supports the competitive size of intercollegiate athletics?

How do we continue to increase funds to allow sports to grow and still keep it part of the overall institutional mission?

Is the Association's economic model too dependent on one sport and media delivery system and how should it diversify to plan for future changes in the broadcast market? Are we old dinosaurs waiting for the meteor to strike?

How will the NCAA accommodate the diverse membership in Division I over the next five to 10 years?

How will the Association get is membership to understand that the continuation of a lack of minority NCAA coaches in specific sports (for example, football) and the lack of diversity in upper management is critical to the future success of the Association?

How will institutions respond to current world events and safety concerns of parents about travel, large attendance venues?

What services should the NCAA provide to its membership? Which services are better left to conferences as or institutions?

How can we continue to offer meaningful experiences to large numbers of student-athletes (broad-based programs)?

How do we engage all constituents of the membership into planning and implementation of NCAA principles and policies?

Can the NCAA legislate academic integrity? True progress toward degree, graduation rates, real academic programs with real students who also happen to be talented athletes? Is the label "student-athlete" an oxymoron?

How will the NCAA help institutions reach their mission of providing a quality athletics/academic experience for the maximum number of student-athletes?

How do we reinforce emphasis on academic success of student-athletes?

What is the role of the NCAA with respect to international governance on regulation of athletics?

How does the Association simplify its regulatory system and prevent government regulation of its industry?

One piece of advice

Participants were asked to provide one piece of advice for NCAA leadership as it embarks on planning strategically for the organization's future.

Listen and be willing to adapt your thinking.

Be sensitive to the fact that the percentage of minorities participating in the revenue-generating sports for the Association is not reflected in the coaching (head) positions nor in athletics administrative positions. That is causing continued discomfort to the minority community as a whole.

Go into the trenches. Involve the membership.

Have the leadership look at the governance and championship structures; include emphasis on the financial pressures.

Lead, do not manage.

Stay the course.

Listen to members of NCAA.

Put your value base ahead of everything -- what matters most -- decide that and keep focused on it.

Continue to push for the integration of academics and athletics as opposed to the balance.

The planning process needs to be continuous and to involve all constituencies and not just presidents. Historically, "the NCAA" has shrunk from inclusive planning and from open-ended planning. There needs to be clear evidence that this is no longer the case.

Recognize the diversity within Division I and also appreciate that I-A has a loud voice in athletics that was not largely articulated at this meeting. Accordingly, there must be sensitivity to the fact that I-A cares about its revenue.

Keep in mind that the words "strategic planning" are not something those in the membership want to hear. The disengagement we are facing is growing worse each day -- at face value, some think this exercise is another attempt to perpetuate this notion. I am engaged because I am a part of this process.

Keep all decision-making processes open. The process at times is as helpful as the decision.