Division I commissioners
September 24/Chicago
Process Step 8

Attending: Karl Benson, Bill Bibb, Ron Burtivich, Tom Burnett, Philip Buttafuoco, Linda Bruno, Carolyn Campbell, Patrick Carter, Rick Chryst, Jim Delany, Rich Ensor, Carolyn Femovich, Dennis Farrell, Doug Fullerton, Tom Hansen, John Iamarino, Kyle Kallander, Jon Le Crone, Chris Monasch, Danny Morrison, Greg Sankey, Mike Slive, Jon Steinbrecher, John Swofford, Craig Thompson, Patty Viverito, Wright Waters, Kevin Weiberg and Tom Yeager. Facilitator: Jean Frankel, Tecker Consultants.

Core-purpose discussion

The commissioners reacted to the following draft of an NCAA core purpose: "To ensure that the intercollegiate model of athletics serves as an integral part of higher education and that college athletics is conducted in a manner that ensures fair, safe competition for student-athletes."

The public thinks the NCAA has more power than it does. In reality, it's like the U.N., with lots and lots of vetoes. The NCAA has the power of enforcement, championships administration and the power to make rules. With that in mind, its limitations should be articulated. The public believes the NCAA is like the federal government, but it's not. The document should recognize that action happens someplace else; thus, words such as "cultivate" and "foster" would be more appropriate for the core purpose.

What about sportsmanship and ethical conduct?

The purpose should reflect values such as diversity, ethical conduct and integrity.

There is no mention that intercollegiate athletics needs to be operated in a mission that encourages diversity and within a system that requires ethical conduct.

I would suggest adding the word "equitable" to the statement as a way of ensuring opportunity for as broad-based of a cross section of student-athletes as possible.

The core purpose may not reflect the current disconnect with higher education. The current reality may be a shaky foundation.

The competition should be rewarding -- that is, of high quality -- as well as "fair and safe." The core purpose should be that NCAA fosters competition.

The purpose is missing the inherent value of participation in athletics.

The "intercollegiate model" is good, but it may be ambiguous for the membership (models vary greatly within the NCAA).

"Ensure" is likely an inappropriate verb to use in the NCAA core purpose. It's up to the institutions and conferences to ensure such outcomes. How can they be held to their core purpose? Perhaps "influence" would be a better choice.

Ensuring accountability is harder than we think. There is always good and bad.

Can the NCAA even ensure this purpose? "NCAA" is the name given to our wish to act together. Our core purpose may be to get institutions to embody this purpose.

There ought to be group accountability for bad actors.

If this is our core purpose, we need to enforce rules that ensure that intercollegiate athletics is integral to the mission of our member institutions.

Does this statement miss the aspect of participation -- the inherent value of participating in sports and how sport influences our youth? I mean the connection between intercollegiate sports and how they can affect/influence the choices that young people make.

Shouldn't participating in intercollegiate athletics inspire one's life?

The need to bring academics and athletics into balance is most important. We seem to be moving in that direction.

We need to continue to reward competition but need to reward academics more.

Core-values discussion

The commissioners reacted to the following draft of a set of NCAA core values:

(1) "Our Association is dedicated to integrity in academics and athletics."

(2) "Our Association is committed to the ideal that intercollegiate athletics prepares student-athletes for life by serving as an integral part of the undergraduate experience."

(3) "Our Association affirms and supports the contribution that intercollegiate athletics makes to the ideals, sense of community and public recognition of our member institutions."

(4) "Our Association is committed to pursue the common good through an inclusive and cooperative leadership culture."

Consistent themes such as "integral part of the undergraduate experience," etc., reinforce the NCAA's distinctiveness and relevance.

The list seems to describe the areas that we should include and has described them well.

The goals should place greater emphasis on the academic element.

There is a lack of commitment to meaningful academic standards for intercollegiate athletics, despite the current emphasis on academic reform.

Core-value No. 1 (relating to integrity) is negative. The fact that you have to write that you stand for integrity is bad.

Common good? What is that? Is it redistribution of revenue so everyone gets the same amount?

One value speaks of an inclusive leadership structure, but we want the entire structure to be inclusive.

There is no mention of the business model and fiscal integrity. We are committed to the business model.

There is not enough mention of the value of competition.

The identification of the "undergraduate experience" seems too singular. This should be about the educational experience.

The competition element is missing. The participating coaches and student-athletes are at the top of the heap, but there is nothing about competition.

We are somewhat commercial, somewhat owned by the public, but that is not described in the values or purpose. There are millions and billions of dollars that are not acknowledged here.

We are within the higher education value system, but we are forced to balance the commercial side with those values. That is very difficult. The NCAA role is absent from this document.

Should this reflect a responsibility for perspective? We do more all the time -- are we responsible for finding a proper role?

The image of intercollegiate athletics is more vast than the NCAA. The image of college athletics has a lot to do with what's going on at the regional level.

Is there room for a comment on excellence?

Is there room for fiscal responsibility?

Is there room for perspective?

Refer to value of competition -- providing it at the highest level.

Incorporate the reality of financial/commercial pressure vs. ideals of collegiate programs.

The commitment to providing a quality championship experience should be a core value.

The value of inclusive leadership is not reflected in the composition of the Division I Board of Directors.

Accountability to living up to the purpose/values.

Value gained from competition.

Our Association is dedicated to integrity in intercollegiate athletics. We are not in the academic business. Are we responsible for the standards of the English department? Are we part of the university experience for all students?

Our association is committed to the ideal that intercollegiate athletics prepares student-athletes for life.

It is a delicate balance between commercialism and the academic context.

Lack of recognition of business function of the NCAA and balancing that role within higher education.

To see that these are proven, the public must accept what we are doing. The statements we have now are not being followed. We must see that NCAA institutions and conferences see that they are working.

What does this mean: "Common good through an inclusive and cooperative leadership culture?"

A balance among commercial elements, competition, education?

Audacious goal

The commissioners reacted to the following draft of an audacious NCAA goal: "Our Association will be the catalyst for successfully integrating the intercollegiate model of athletics with the higher education experience, for reinforcing the mission of the university, and for advancing the values and ideals of college athletics -- mind, body and spirit -- as a positive force in our national culture."

This is not big nor is it audacious.

How is this measured?

Who carries this out? We say "we are the NCAA," but as commissioners, do we have the opportunity to be the catalyst, even within our own conferences? The member institutions have to carry it out.

The audacious goal seeks an integration of the intercollegiate model of athletics with higher education. Are we not already integrated?

It seems fundamental to have a goal of maintaining the organization in the face of governmental and fiscal challenges. The maintenance of relevance is a legitimate goal.

Maintaining relevance does not imply acceptance of the status quo.

The question of service vs. leadership should be addressed.

There are times when the NCAA should lead, but to take advantage, it must better define its functions. Those functions are enforcement, the promotion of championships and the making of rules. The NCAA should be wise and occasionally pick something do-able and do it successfully. Do less better. Pick out something, forcefully lead and succeed.

We're competing against each other. There's lots of second-guessing going on.

In a business sense, who is our sales force? Who sells this to ourselves, to student-athletes and to the public?

"Catalyst" is a good word.

The values and ideals of college athletics? I'm not sure what they are. Winning at all costs? Fire coaches who don't win? Retain coaches who win but don't graduate anyone? Ridicule opposing players? We need to help define what is appropriate and then advocate those values and ideals.

We need to maintain the influence and relevance of the NCAA. Note the diversity of the nature and goals of various institutions.

No mention of economic forces.

Manage brand image.

Are we not doing this in the current timeline?

Does it miss again the value of competition?

Where are reform and advocacy?

Is there accommodation for diverse, corporate (divisional) models? Players graduating/being educated? Student-athletes as real role models? How programs fit within financial constraints of universities? A "less commercial" look?

Leadership/service.

Culture will be very different in 30 years. Will we be able to look back and say that we were able to influence the culture as we hope?

How can we determine where we will be in 30 years when we have problems now that we are not sure how long it will take to solve.

Three- to five-year goal discussion

The commissioners reacted to the following draft of a set of three- to five-year goals:

(1) "The Association will employ excellent competition, academic standards and fair yet flexible regulations to help student-athletes be fully exposed to and realize the value of the collegiate experience."

(2) "The Association will be instrumental in enhancing the educational success of student-athletes by ensuring that student-athletes are prepared and motivated to earn a degree."

(3) "The Association and its member institutions will create an environment in which there is less financial pressure to be competitive."

(4) "The Association will strengthen the intercollegiate model of athletics, with a particular emphasis on the development of benefits that lead to positive educational outcomes."

(5) "The Association will promote the operation of athletics programs and the development of policies and practices that align with those of other departments in the university."

(6) "The Association will work with its members so that their actions will improve public confidence in the integrity of intercollegiate athletics."

(7) "The Association will advocate for the value of intercollegiate athletics so that the public will understand and play an increasing role in preserving and nurturing its continued success."

(8) "The Association will be a catalyst and resource that will allow member institutions to identify solutions to intercollegiate athletics issues."

We focus on graduation rates, but we also should make certain that those who are entering college want to be there for academic purposes.

It is true that the intercollegiate model is unique to this country. However, the SEC model is very different from the Ivy Group model.

The NCAA should increase revenue production to aid the membership. We are a business. The world has changed.

Balancing cooperation with competition is difficult. Is competition eroding our brand as we seek to become more like professional leagues?

How is this to be measured?

The NCAA should advocate (measure by public surveys), serve (measure by membership surveys) and fund (measure by the provision of money).

The term "conference" is not mentioned in this document.

Goal No. 1 is not necessary.

In Goal No. 1, use "foster" rather than "employ."

Goal No. 2 is difficult, not necessary and not appropriate

Goal No. 2 should be revised to read: "The Association will be instrumental in enhancing the educational success of student-athletes by ensuring that student-athletes earn a degree."

"Ensuring" is an inappropriate word for Goal No. 2.

Goal No. 2 is not appropriate, nor ensured.

Goal No. 3 is not feasible.

Goal No. 3 is not realistic.

Goal No. 3 is impossible.

Goals No. 3 and No. 4 should be deleted.

Others dismissed Goal No. 4, but it is a very measurable goal.

Eliminate Goal Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. They do not reflect the NCAA's day-to-day role.

One piece of advice

Less is more.

Focus on the role. Less is better.

Less is more. Focus on two or three fundamentals.

Focus on doing a few things that help the membership and do them well.

Make this less pie in the sky, less fluff, more reality, more practical.

Much of what I read today minimizes the fiscal and political realities that exist on campus. Without a fundamental change in the collegiate model, this is difficult to address, but we must recognize it if we are ever going to back away from the edge. Focus on the role: the notion that less is more is good.

Focus on the business model. You can't ignore the business model.

The need to incorporate the business model of Division I and of the Association into this plan.

Incorporate more business model aspects. Most conferences are expected to raise revenue.

How are conferences integrated into the plan? Under the governance system, conferences are really the middleman between the national office and the membership institutions.

Conferences are a choke point in the system, which creates a need to involve them extensively in all processes. The NCAA could solve a lot of problems and still not change public perception if this is not considered.

Within Division I the conferences have a great deal more influence as they control the information flow both up and down in a representative structure. This must be acknowledged and included. Maybe we need different answers for Division I.

Advocate/serve/manage and conduct national championships.

Continue getting feedback/input from as many groups within the NCAA as feasible.

The true challenge is connecting goals to the actual action.

Focus of NCAA should be on really big issues.

We need a win!

The "membership" is member institutions and conferences that pay dues -- not all of the related groups such as coaches associations, TV, USOC, NACDA, NFL, etc.

The big audacious goal needs to be more specific -- that is, what the Association will have accomplished (outcomes) in the next 10 to 30 years, such as an improvement in the basketball culture (with specific outcome statements).

Distinguish between the goals of the Association and of the "enterprise" of intercollegiate athletics more clearly, then bring them together at the end.

Include faculty athletics representatives.

Continue to engage the membership in the development of the plan.

Don't develop a strategic plan that would challenge the Association to change the world -- create peace, solve poverty and find cures for all the world's illnesses. Remain focused on what the Association's primary purposes are: conduct of national championships; a mechanism for creating fair legislation (regulatory responsibility); responsibility for enforcement.

Our link to higher education is special because it is what makes us distinctive. If we become more pro-like, we become more of a commodity and lose what makes us special.