Divisions II and III commissioners
June 12/Indianapolis
Process Step 2.9.2

Attending: (Division II) Barry Blizzard, Tom Brown, David Brunk, Carmine Calzonetti, Mark Corino, Doug Echols, Woody Hahn, Richard Hannan, Robert Hiegert, Leon Kerry, Michael Lockrem, Michael Marcil, Ralph McFillen, Steve Murray, Jim Naumovich, Alan Patterson, Nathan Salant and Joel Smith. (Division III) Ken Andrews, Steve Argo, Steve Bamford, Brad Bankston, Tom Bohlsen, Tom Bonerbo, Amy Carlton, Carlyle Carter, Victoria Chun, John Cochrane, Dennis Collins, Richard Cook, Patrick Damore, Tim Downes, Tim Gleason, Chris Graham, Zak Ivkovic, Gary Karner, G. Steven Larson, Donna Ledwin, Chuck Lindemenn, Chris Martin, Rich Meckfessel, Chuck Mitrano, Linda Moulton, David Neilson, Scott Nichols, Dick Rasmussen, Scot Reisinger, Andrea Savage, Ralph Shively, Terence Small, Richard Strockbine, Steve Ulrich and Stephen Washkevich. Facilitator: Jean Frankel, Tecker Consultants.

Key discussion points/emerging themes

Core purpose discussion points: In their dialogue about core purpose, Division II and III commissioners noted the following points:

That the NCAA should be focused on providing the opportunity to play for recognition and championships in an organized, regulated manner; that it should provide regulations for the conduct of collegiate athletics; that it should regulate competition in a fair and safe environment within the setting of higher education; and that it should provide opportunity to play for national championships in a regulated manner.

Some comments focused on the "level playing field" idea: to provide a competitively equal championship experience for intercollegiate athletics; to provide equitable athletics opportunities and the educational benefits that derive from them.

Other ideas focused on the value of the athletics experience within higher education as a value-driven leadership path, such as: to provide high-quality experiences that student-athletes will remember for a lifetime; to provide guidance, leadership and opportunity for amateur athletics while fostering integrity and sportsmanship within the educational process; to create an atmosphere of integrity for amateur athletics; to foster successful academic and athletics achievement; to conduct intercollegiate athletics in a context of amateurism, higher education, health, competition, integrity and life goals.

Others focused on a core purpose in the context of higher education and the academic experience: to maintain a collegiate athletics system as a part of the of the educational system; to foster successful academic and athletics achievement; to provide a framework for intercollegiate athletics that promotes safe, fair, equitable and quality competition that remains consistent and integral to the educational mission of its member institutions; to recognize intercollegiate athletics as a privilege and not a purpose within the higher education setting.

Another thought related to the relationship between academics and athletics: to provide a means to design an effective financial framework that places the proper emphasis on sports within an academic institution and to ensure student-athletes are competing with those who are truly representative of higher education and the standards established on each campus.

Core values

* In its conversation about core values, the group focused on integrity, fairness, honesty, sportsmanship, fiscal/financial accountability, trust and openness.

Other ideas included the following: One institution means one vote; service (with a focus on the student-athletes, what is best for them); mutual respect (for the different philosophies of the divisions; for autonomy of institutions); collegiality and teamwork (some in the group thought the NCAA lost this along the way in favor of the current "caste system"); amateurism; and a good work ethic.

Another part of the conversation questioned whether the NCAA is too large and too diverse to achieve common rules and philosophies.

Envisioned future

In their dialogue about the envisioned future, these themes emerged from Divisions II and III commissioner participants:

One of the most pervasive themes was the idea that a quality education will be provided to all student-athletes. Every student-athlete graduates. Educating students is the No. 1 NCAA priority, both in policy and action. Every student-athlete attends a college because he or she was academically qualified and matriculated for educational reasons. Every student-athlete graduates within five years and has his or her life enhanced by the athletics experience.

Another theme focused on the accomplishments of student-athletes in society: as sports involvement has an impact on students, student-athletes will have a better work ethic, better time management and good leadership skills. The NCAA provides an environment that fosters the positive growth and development of each student-athlete academically, athletically and socially.

Other comments focused on the future state of intercollegiate athletics: There is increased, equitable access to championships for all sports; there is more personal accountability; there is a level playing field among institutes of higher education; there is a national monument to intercollegiate athletics on the Mall in Washington, D.C.; and changes in collegiate athletics have a ripple effect to professional sports.

Other comments focused on the global impact of intercollegiate athletics and the NCAA's role, both in the United States and around the world; the NCAA expands into Canada and overseas; there are international competitions among collegiate athletes; foreign students are educated to better understand what the United States and the NCAA are about (encourage the continued influx of foreign students); the NCAA is the most respected and trend-setting sports organization in the world; the NCAA is aligned better with the USOC and national governing bodies; the NCAA is able to affirmatively answer whether sports are good for America and the world; the NCAA is the prototype for "the American Way."

Envisioned future themes of a new NCAA organization included the following: The NCAA is an organization genuinely based on institutional and individual integrity and also trust that honors institutional autonomy while celebrating institutional diversity; and there is 100 percent rules compliance by the membership. The NCAA returns to a structure that treats each institution with equal value; members and staff have pride in the process.

In their dialogue about the five- to 10-year future, these themes emerged from Divisions II and III commissioner participants:

In the area of demographic trends, the group recognized that people will work longer and retire later; more people will move to the southern regions of the United States; the number of males attending college will decrease; the population will be increasingly diverse; ethnic groups will grow -- there will be more minority students; there will be fewer traditional, college-aged students; more women will be working and having fewer children; rural- and small-state institutions will be at risk due to decreasing population; and students will have higher expectations and demand more from their college experience.

Dialogue about factors in the business and economic climate included the following: globalization will increase (affecting industries, athletics competitions, marketing) Europe (and the Euro) will be strong in the world economy; there will be greater global usage of the stronger currencies (that is, the Euro and dollar); higher education institutions will operate more like business; and there will be greater numbers who are poor and unable to pay for college. A saturation point will be reached with respect to revenue -- particularly regarding revenue from televised sports. Entertainment dollars will not stretch as far as they once did. As it affects society in general, the group believed that the gap between the haves and have-nots will increase; Social Security could be privatized; debt issues will increase (people could be comfortable having more debt); the drain on natural resources will continue (for example, oil, gas); and there will be a greater desire to "buy American."

Regarding issues of legislation and regulation, gambling will grow; federal and state government deregulation will increase; government will be more willing to intervene; intercollegiate athletics programs will increasingly move away from being state-funded to state-supported to state-encouraged; there will be an increased emphasis on athletic trainer laws; the United States will enter a more conservative political cycle; there will be greater risk of litigation; regulation will continue to focus on creating a level playing field; there will be an increased demand for accountability by federal and state governments and the public; the need for anti-trust exemptions for the NCAA will increase in order to control salaries of coaches; control of amateur athletics could shift; immigration laws will be tightened; there will continue to be an assault on equity and personal freedoms; more states will move toward not allowing state funding for athletics; the focus will shift to K-12 public schools; and the cost of insurance will continue to increase.

In the area of technology and science, the dialogue centered on factors affecting how schools deliver education, thus impacting how students attend school (as well as the idea that virtual campus and Web-courses may mean fewer students on campus). Different perspectives and developments of physical training will emerge (for example, advanced athletic training and computerized athletic training). Improvements in science will blur the lines between what is legal and illegal. There will be significant medical advancements (for example, steroids, drugs that enhance performance safely). Scientific and health advances will blur the lines of performance integrity and artificial enhancement. There will be a tremendous increase in entertainment options and how one interacts with sports. The work force will become more technologically savvy. There will be a greater need for education as society shifts from labor to service and technology.

Finally, regarding political and social values, the group noted that there will be a decrease in social values and skills; less sportsmanship; people will live more sedentary lifestyles (for example, 5-year-olds with computers); the social values of athletes will affect how staffs deal with young people; winning will be increasingly more important; the focus will be on those teams that are winning. There will be a multitude of choices for sports, particularly in non-traditional sports -- X-Games, skateboarding, video games. Education will be "dumbed down." Children will burn out on sports at a younger age -- possibly by the time they reach high school. They are starting to specialize in single sports at such a young age. People will become even more specialized in their sports. The allure of money will continue to be an issue for young athletes. Consumers will expect to participate in the process of athletics (for example, vote on what plays a team should make next). There will be an increase in the number of radical splinter groups (political groups). There will be an increasing need to defend the premise of athletics being critical to the education of young people. Security will be more emphasized. Four-year colleges might decrease in importance with increased emphasis on the adequacy of two-year educational programs.

Five-to 10-year planning -- mega issues

In their dialogue about mega issues, these themes emerged from Divisions II and III commissioner participants:

The structure of intercollegiate athletics: What will the structure of college athletics look like? Will there be a football playoff in Division I-A? What will be our model if the major Division I schools leave the Association? How would such an occurrence affect all NCAA members? What constitutes the membership of the NCAA? What if the NJCAA is included? The USOC? The Senior Games? The X-Games? European universities? The NAIA? How will we handle mega conferences?

Other issues within intercollegiate athletics: Should/will collegiate athletics move to pay for play? How should we deal with nonrevenue sports and their viability? What are the emerging and dying sports? How do we interact with a student population that comes from an increasingly specialized and overemphasized athletics culture and that is increasingly at odds with the type of educationally based athletics programs we seek to conduct? How can we adapt eligibility roles to the new educational models (online classrooms, etc.)?

Financial models: What should be the role of money in the NCAA? How will we compensate for reduced TV revenue? What other income streams should we explore, other than the basketball tournament and CBS? How will we maintain a clear demarcation between amateurism and professionalism? Will the spectator/fan base decrease along with TV viewership (thus, decreasing revenues as expenses increase)? How will we support the 80 percent of college student-athletes in an environment where funding and emphasis are on the other 20 percent? How do we continue to change the role athletics plays in the educational experience of student-athletes given the ever-increasing emphasis on winning and money?

Determine if the NCAA is ready for reorganization across all the divisions -- finding better niches for our philosophies to increase the feeling of ownership, creating compatibility among the divisions and finding additional opportunities to share information among the divisions. The NCAA should increase understanding and show an interest in the makeup of its member institutions (their financial issues, long-range plans, values, where they are heading with athletics). Employ people with athletics experience at the NCAA office.

Create a subcommittee of the commissioners to do focus groups like this one. Include coaches in this process since they will be the future athletics administrators. Be certain to include all divisional perspectives in the planning process by maintaining an open line of communication with administrators, current student-athletes and academic elements of member institutions. As the membership continues to grow and become more diverse, provide the opportunity for open dialogue among the members. Value our differences, but hold true to our purposes. Keep the price of doing business consistent and proportional with our values. Do not lose sight of the diversity of the NCAA membership, and make all decisions with the good of the entire entity as the primary focus.

Concentrate on the 20-year vision, and then decide on the three- to 10-year focuses for getting there. Focus on internal factors that can affect collegiate athletics. Create images for illustrating the ultimate goals. Continue to use members to set long-range goals -- do not be afraid to reach out with audacious goals even if they do not fit our current philosophy. Be bold. Get back to the future -- recall the vision and goals of what defined intercollegiate athletics during its inception. Follow through with whatever is decided during this process; do not be afraid to say no to money in order to achieve the vision.

Focus on the impact on student-athletes and not the needs or desires of sports and championships. Student-athletes should be the paramount concern at all times. If something is ultimately to the detriment of the student-athlete, we should not be doing it. Value the athletics experience more than the athletics success. Scale down (budget, rules, staff and activities). Put the focus back on the experience of the student-athlete at the campus level within the context of the educational mission. Understand the financial realities facing private institutions. Value the impact of decisions originated by staff on campus and conference schools. Do not assume that presidential leadership and involvement will take place in the same manner or to the same degree as athletics administrators. Trust individual institutions to shape their own form and manner of presidential involvement (that is, through their own institutional staff members).

Keep it simple. Push to get an antitrust exemption from Congress. The root of so many problems is escalating coaches' salaries. Too many resources go in that direction and it causes an "end-justifies-the-means" approach by coaches at every level. Take over all recruitment, training, assigning and evaluation of officials in all sports; right now, we rely on countless officiating organizations that may or may not be operating as we would like; we do not have the connection we need with our officials and are not bringing new people into officiating. Become more involved in game management for all contests. Rules and behaviors expected at NCAA championship events should be required at all contests all year. Do not let revenue supersede everything else. Do not go too overboard with trying to be "politically correct."