National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Guest editorial - Structure study is broad, timely
A significant discussion has begun within the Association. During its January meeting, the Executive Committee charged a working group with exploring the current membership structure, and with developing structural models that would accommodate the future growth of our membership. While Division III delegates were briefed on this topic during the recent Convention, the importance and complexity of the issue suggest the need to restate some basic facts.
First, the Executive Committee initiated the study. While the discussions have the full support of the Division III leadership, the scope of discussion will be Association-wide, potentially affecting all three divisions.
Second, as one would expect of this kind of discussion, the effort will take some time. The current schedule calls for the review of models at the 2008 Convention and voting on options in 2009.
Third, the two concepts on the table to date (subdivision of Division III or the creation of a new NCAA division) were generated in 2006 by a related Executive Committee working group that focused on the overall status of the NCAA’s membership structure. That working group initially was created in response to a 2006 Convention proposal sponsored by the North Coast Athletic Conference to cap the size of the Division III membership. But the working group’s focus quickly became and remained Association-wide.
Fourth, the primary focus of these discussions is to position the NCAA for future membership growth. It is important to review the Association’s recent growth, position the Association to best manage additional growth that may occur and address related Association-wide membership issues. The conversation is not intended to simply rehash the philosophical or practical discord that currently appears to exist within Division III, although the working group will attempt to address those issues.
Here are examples of the related membership issues affecting Divisions I and II:
The fall 2006 report of the Presidential Task Force on the Future of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics suggests the current Division I financial model may not be sustainable for a segment of the Division I membership. Division I institutions may look to Division II or III as a membership alternative.
Division II has seen significant migration to Division I (49 members since 1985, including 21 members since 1997). The standards governing the migration from Division II to Division I continue to be a source of concern for Division II, and must be addressed. In addition, Division II has commissioned a study (expected this June) to attempt to prove that the Division II model (smaller programs with athletics aid) is a financially viable alternative for a broad range of schools (including many current Division I and III members) because it encourages the recruitment, enrollment and retention of students in general.
Most recent growth in Divisions II and III has come from the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics. The NAIA currently has 282 members. Some of those already have explored NCAA membership or are committed to joining the NCAA. We also should consider the pending end of the Division III moratorium on new membership, as caps and moratoriums do not ultimately solve the underlying problems that must be addressed. The NAIA has new leadership and is beginning a strategic-planning process to chart its future. NAIA representatives will participate in selected discussions with the Executive Committee working group to help ensure that each organization fully understands the issues and concerns of mutual interest when planning their respective futures.
Fifth, the current broadcast agreement with CBS, which generates directly and indirectly almost 90 percent of the Association’s revenue, will expire in 2013. The final three years (beginning in 2010) are at the NCAA’s option. It is only prudent to expect the Association to seriously begin to consider its current position and future options by 2010. The Association should determine what it will look like, structurally, before seriously exploring future broadcast agreements. The time to explore our options and identify the most strategic course of action is now.
Sixth, self-selection will be a basic principle of any models that are developed, and the democratic process will remain the ultimate method through which these issues will be determined. Any structural changes must be approved by the membership through the Association’s legislative process and the related legislative processes that exist in each division.
The discussion of these important issues and the development of the related concepts has just begun. Nothing has been determined and nothing should be assumed — the working group’s first meeting in fact will not take place until April 25.
But it is not too early to begin thinking about these important issues. I strongly encourage you to contact me or any other member of the working group or the Executive Committee to share your thoughts. The committee roster, charge and additional information are available online at www.ncaa.org.
Daniel Curran is president of the University of Dayton and chair of the NCAA Executive Committee Membership Working Group.
|
By Daniel Curran
University of Dayton
University of Dayton
A significant discussion has begun within the Association. During its January meeting, the Executive Committee charged a working group with exploring the current membership structure, and with developing structural models that would accommodate the future growth of our membership. While Division III delegates were briefed on this topic during the recent Convention, the importance and complexity of the issue suggest the need to restate some basic facts.First, the Executive Committee initiated the study. While the discussions have the full support of the Division III leadership, the scope of discussion will be Association-wide, potentially affecting all three divisions.
Second, as one would expect of this kind of discussion, the effort will take some time. The current schedule calls for the review of models at the 2008 Convention and voting on options in 2009.
Third, the two concepts on the table to date (subdivision of Division III or the creation of a new NCAA division) were generated in 2006 by a related Executive Committee working group that focused on the overall status of the NCAA’s membership structure. That working group initially was created in response to a 2006 Convention proposal sponsored by the North Coast Athletic Conference to cap the size of the Division III membership. But the working group’s focus quickly became and remained Association-wide.
Fourth, the primary focus of these discussions is to position the NCAA for future membership growth. It is important to review the Association’s recent growth, position the Association to best manage additional growth that may occur and address related Association-wide membership issues. The conversation is not intended to simply rehash the philosophical or practical discord that currently appears to exist within Division III, although the working group will attempt to address those issues.
Here are examples of the related membership issues affecting Divisions I and II:
The fall 2006 report of the Presidential Task Force on the Future of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics suggests the current Division I financial model may not be sustainable for a segment of the Division I membership. Division I institutions may look to Division II or III as a membership alternative.
Division II has seen significant migration to Division I (49 members since 1985, including 21 members since 1997). The standards governing the migration from Division II to Division I continue to be a source of concern for Division II, and must be addressed. In addition, Division II has commissioned a study (expected this June) to attempt to prove that the Division II model (smaller programs with athletics aid) is a financially viable alternative for a broad range of schools (including many current Division I and III members) because it encourages the recruitment, enrollment and retention of students in general.
Most recent growth in Divisions II and III has come from the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics. The NAIA currently has 282 members. Some of those already have explored NCAA membership or are committed to joining the NCAA. We also should consider the pending end of the Division III moratorium on new membership, as caps and moratoriums do not ultimately solve the underlying problems that must be addressed. The NAIA has new leadership and is beginning a strategic-planning process to chart its future. NAIA representatives will participate in selected discussions with the Executive Committee working group to help ensure that each organization fully understands the issues and concerns of mutual interest when planning their respective futures.
Fifth, the current broadcast agreement with CBS, which generates directly and indirectly almost 90 percent of the Association’s revenue, will expire in 2013. The final three years (beginning in 2010) are at the NCAA’s option. It is only prudent to expect the Association to seriously begin to consider its current position and future options by 2010. The Association should determine what it will look like, structurally, before seriously exploring future broadcast agreements. The time to explore our options and identify the most strategic course of action is now.
Sixth, self-selection will be a basic principle of any models that are developed, and the democratic process will remain the ultimate method through which these issues will be determined. Any structural changes must be approved by the membership through the Association’s legislative process and the related legislative processes that exist in each division.
The discussion of these important issues and the development of the related concepts has just begun. Nothing has been determined and nothing should be assumed — the working group’s first meeting in fact will not take place until April 25.
But it is not too early to begin thinking about these important issues. I strongly encourage you to contact me or any other member of the working group or the Executive Committee to share your thoughts. The committee roster, charge and additional information are available online at www.ncaa.org.
Daniel Curran is president of the University of Dayton and chair of the NCAA Executive Committee Membership Working Group.
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy