» «

LEGISLATIVE BREAKOUT - DIVISION II
{Monday, June 8, 1987 10:00 A.M -11:45 A.M.)

BOB MOORMAN:

We have a good nucleus here to work with. We are going to try to solve a lot of problems for Division II in here today and we are going to look for a lot of cooperation from you. What we are really thinking about is what lies ahead for Division II and we want to get a good exchange. We have two excellent people to bring you into your question and answer period. Of course, we are sort of like stepchildren. One indication is whenever there is a meeting and we have a breakout you always have to search to find where are are going to be, because we have to wait until everyone gets assembled before we can get started. We are sitting between the rock and a hard place, with Division I getting all the publicity and Division III not giving scholarships. All of these things we want to talk about, whether we are giving ourselves self-inflicted wounds or what we have in mind. We had television take a lot of people; everybody wanted to make that $4OO,OOO and now it's basketball, everyone wants to make $200,000. So where are we going?

As I said, we have some people here who are really going to point us in the right direction. First, we have Dr. Miles Tommeraasen from the North Central Conference, more specifically Morningside College. The good part about it is the fact he went to Morningside College. So he has been in the system, he has seen just how we have been working and now he is in control of one of the institutions. As you know, North Central is one of the strong conferences in Division II. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce Dr. Miles Tommeraasen.

MILES TOMMERAASEN:

Thank you, Bob Moorman. I appreciate the invitation to be here today. As Bob said, I did go to Morningside College; I am not an expert, however, in this particular field. If I am an expert in any field, it is supposed to be accounting, because I am a CPA. In fact, if some of our staff wonders sometimes why I am such a stickler on budgets and all it's because I am an old accounting professor and a CPA background. I listened to the introductions at a lot of these meetings and the introduction of Peter Ueberroth this morning and it always reminds me of the married couple who are walking down the street and who come to one of these old scales. Now, most of you are old enough to remember those big old scales they used to have on the street; you put in a coin and a little card could come out. So they stopped and the man got on the scale and he stuck in a coin and his wife quick grabbed the little card that came out and she took it out and started reading it. It said, "you are handsome, charming, articulate, witty and attractive to the opposite sex." She turned the card over and looked on the other side and said, "And it's got your weight wrong, too".

I want to begin by thanking all you ADs for the outstanding job that you are already doing. You are the CEOs for a sizable operation. These are difficult times for CEOs and you are not alone in this. Look at the airlines and deregulation and the problems that they have. Or the banks these days, where there are agriculture or some other kind of loan problem, and deregulations in the banking industry which gives them a whole set of problems. Or take insurance companies, which used to be a nice, peaceful business and now is in an uproar all the time. Or automobile manufacturing or steel manufacturing or a whole lot of other areas these days where CEOs have a lot of problems. The point is the CEOs have to adjust to the environment in which they find themselves and you have to figure out new strategies to accomplish what has to be done, some of the things the keynote speaker talked about this morning. Also, as I am fond of saying, if we really didn't have any problems in athletics at all, we could probably get along without ADs because the coaches could run their programs for the vice president who is in charge, or the president. We wouldn't need an athletic director. You are there to help take care of some of those problems and that is your job. We do need you and I think you are doing a great job.

I think you might be doing a little bit better job if the presidents would have stayed out of all of this, and I think the keynote speaker mentioned that this morning also. While I recognize that we have some problems and something had to be done, I was opposed to the direct involvement of the presidents in this in the first place. If the presidents would have been doing their jobs in the first place, we wouldn't have any many current problems as we have in certain areas in the athletic circle. The problems reflect our society, they reflect our culture and they also reflect some boards and presidents who didn't do their jobs. I believe that all colleges and universities ought to have academic integrity. They ought to have a drug-free student body and they ought to have control of their finances, all of their finances. This applies to the college of business administration, it applies to the college of education, it applies to the college of fine arts and it applies to athletics. One of our problems is that we forget about this. I have watched athletics from a lot of circles. Before I became President of Morningside College I was Vice Chancellor for Administration at the University of Nebraska. Because of the laws of the state of Nebraska I got involved a lot in the athletic program because I had to sign all of their contracts for everything that they did, including all of the games that were outside of the Big Eight, for example. But you have got to keep these things in the proper perspective. I don't care in what division you operate.

Now I'll get down to some of the more specific things, things we may all want to talk about a little bit later. Bob Moorman sent me some time ago a few questions to think about. I think he was worried about rambling presidents, of course, but they are good questions. As always, I called in the vice president who is in charge of this and the head of the department, just as if I had been asked to speak at an academic conference someplace. I would have called in the dean and said, "What do you think?" If the National Chemical Society would have asked me to speak, I would have called in the head of our chemistry department, and the Division of Science head and the dean and said, "What do you guys think about this?" So I called in our athletic director, who some of you know, Irv Mont, and the vice president who is in charge of this particular area and we discussed these kinds of questions. Then to get a little further feel for it I called the commissioner of our conference, Noel Olson, who is here today, and one of the other presidents, Del Weber, who serves as president of the University of Nebraska at Omaha and who serves on the Presidents Commission.

However, in spite of talking to all of these people these are going to be my answers to the questions, myopinions. You can probably already see I have pet peeves in certain areas also. But, I am responsible for these answers. One of the questions Bob raised was, "Is Division II needed and why?" My answer to that is absolutely. This is the ideal place to be. In fact, this is where Division I real] should be. Now, I can see why we have to have separate divisions; everybody can't be in Division I. There is quite a diversity between colleges and universities as far as that is concerned and it is probably this diversity that makes up three different divisions. Division I certainly has its place and I assume Division III has its place, but there are a lot of problems in both those areas, probably more problems than we have in Division II. I think Division II is important because it still recognizes athletics, but there is a lot less pressure than there is in Division I. I don't think Division I comprehends the smaller cost of operating as cheaply as we do in Division II, especially if you are a small, private, liberal arts college like Morningside. Division I has a lot of problems and almost any of my earlier comments about problems and some of those that were brought up by the keynote speaker are basically Division I problems and problems of certain schools. I think Division II is closest to the ideals of college athletics. We have students who are students first but have other interests in life, just as one day they are going to be accountants who have other interests in life, or they are gonig to be teachers who have other interests in life, or they are going to be doctors who have other interests in life, or whatever. So I think it is the perspective that you get in Division II that is the best one of all of the divisions.

Another questions is, "How will the federated approach in the intersts of the NCAA affect our division?" Again, I think each division has its own problems. Division II is smaller, the smallest of the three divisions. Division II has a greater variety of colleges and universities than probably either of the other two divisions. We range over a tremendous range of institutions. Division I is probably more uniform. Increasingly over the last few years, the divisions have had a tendency to vote separately or to take different actions to express their own autonomy and a federated approach does provide autonomy to the various divisions. You know, this is the 2OOth birthday of a rather well-known federation. We are going to be hearing, more and more about the 2OOth anniversary of our Constitution as the year progresses. It gave autonomy to the states, to the various individual groups that made up the United States of America. That united all of these people where is was necessary to unite them for the common good. Its motto worked out very well and it would seem to me it could also work out very well here. In fact, I think I would take the position that it ought to strengthen Division II and it ought to make the NCAA more responsive to our problems.

Another one of the questions Bob raised is, "How can we improve our image?" My reaction to that is it is not Division II that has the image problems, it's not the North Central Conference that has the image problem and I sure hope it's not Morningside College that has an image problem. There are some schools in the United States that may have an image problem. They are in the news all the time and I get clippings from friends around the United States who delight in sending them to me.

There are a certain group of friends I have who should know that Morningside is a Methodist College and therefore, I have friends around the United States who send me every clipping that there ever was about Southern Methodist University and all of its problems. They are trying to tell me something; I'm not quite sure what it is. But Division I does have an image problem, I don't think there is any question about that. It tends to reflect on all the rest of us, because they are in all athletics.

I think that what Division II has to do to improve its image is to continue to recruit high-quality students and then emphasize education, continue with high graduation rates and continue to emphasize graduate school for students which we do a great deal. We need to have coaches who are active in the faculty, who actually come to faculty meetings and take part in what goes on. I am very fortunate in that I happen to have football coaches who are professors of English and professors of psychology, which does give them an in when it comes to other faculty committees. I think if the coaches are active on the faculty and they emphasize education, it is going to improve the image of all coll~ge athletics and especially Division II; it might even help Division I. I recognize that some Division I schools do this already, but we have to get the message out there. Maybe if you want to reflect what the problem in Division II is, we are not getting the message out. We don't even have Division I schools in our area; Lincoln's 150 miles to the south, Minneapolis is 275 to the northeast and Iowa City is a long way to the east. Out in our particular area it is Division II, Division III and NAIA. We could probably do more to emphasize the good things about college athletics, which would be a Division II effort and which would, in getting the message out, help all of college athletics. Of course, one of the problems with this is that the media loves the sensational and they are not so strong on things that are positive. They are great on man bites dog, but they don't care a whole lot about dog bites man; they've got to have the sensational.

Another question was, "With Division I making sports headlines and Division III supposedly being tied in with academics, where does that leave us?" Well, I think that leaves us in the best of both worlds. In the first place, I don't believe Division III gets that much association with academics, not in our area at least, because the leading schools in our area are in Division II. They are not Division III, anyway, at least not in my opinion. Nor do I see much criticism anywhere of Division II. We get fallout, of course, from Division I. It taints us, but again, I think that we need to get the message out.

Another question Bob listed there, and he has mentioned to all of you this morning, "Can we look for an increase or decrease in membership?" I assume that we are going to see some schools wanting to move to Division I and some schools thinking they are going to move to Division III, but I imagine we are going to find some Division IIIs who want to move to Division II and some schools in Division I who are going to get sick and tired of that may want to move to Division II. Maybe they will kind of go in opposite directions, maybe we would more or less hold our own; I don't know much about that particular area. So I just answer yes, Bob, and we'll see.

Finally, he said to me, "What effect will Proposal 64 have on us?" In the first place, it is still a year away. Overall, it probably wouldn't have a direct effect on us. That is, it wouldn't effect Morningside College particularly. It probably wouldn't have much impact on the NCAA or the North Central Conference ~ ~, because the schools in the North Central Conference are probably largely above these cutoff marks in the first place. So most of the teams in our conference, in our particular area, are not going to be unduly affected by this, or at least not very much. In our college for example, most of our athletic teams, especially if you throw in the women, have got grade point averages that are either equal to or exceed the campus grade point average. Now, I am not going to mislead you about this. For example, about three or four years ago, when our basketball team ended up in the Final Four, we had two straight-A students on that team, one in math and computer science and one in chemistry. Both are in graduate school now and one is going to be a chemical engineer. I think there were four players on the starting five who had been on the Dean's list basically every semester in school. Now that's an exception; it's an exception for us, too. On the other hand, overall we do have very good grade points. Our average freshman ACT test score is 21.8. I'm not very good at SATs, but that's 800 or something in that neighborhood. The average is 21.8. Of course, within that we've got students who are 26, 28, 30, 31, 32 and we've got students who are 16, 15, 14 and so on up and down the list.

However, having said that about it, I do look on Propostion 64 as being something that is going to be very difficult to implement. I think the technicalities involved are incredible, and it's going to be very hard to all of us. Also, I don't think the ACT was ever designed in the first place to be an admission threshold. That wasn't what it was designed for. So to take a test that was not designed for that in the first place and making it an admission threshold does create some problems. What's important about this in the first place is to have academic integrity. You ought to have the same admission standards for all of your students, and it doesn't really matter if their extracurricular activities are going to be music or theater or athletics or if they are not going to have extracurricular activities. You ought to have the same admission standards. Some of the most infamous cases that we ar looking at are Divison I schools, where it turns out that with the president's and the board of directors' knowledge and consent they. have two different admission standards, one for the regular students and one for those people they call athletes. Now this is a lack of academic integrity.

I could go on and on about those things, but we have run out of time. In summary, I will just say that I think Division II is a great place to be. I think you athletic directors are already doing a great job in very, very trying times. We ought to continue to emphasize education and if you do tha~ we are all going to come out okay. Thank you.

BOB MOORMAN :

Thank you, Dr. Tommeraasen. Noel and I have become pretty good friends over the past years and he told me he was super. He's very tactful, too. One thing that I read in the USA Today is kind of interesting. The University of Maryland is raising its minimum standards for freshman student-athletes from 1.28 to 1.70 and for sophomores they are going from 1.63 to 1.8S. That is a little contrary to what we have been hearing in Division I, but that was in the paper today. We have in the program Dr. James Lyons from Bowie State. They are having a few problems in the state of Maryland, as you all may surmise. Anyway, he could not make it so we have an ample substitute. In fact, we are fortunate enough to get the last name together, Lyons, and we got the complexion together, but we had to change the first name. We have Dr. Charles Lyons who is from Fayetteville State University. Once again, he attended a Division II school, Shaw University, which puts him right in the same field as Dr. Tommeraasl He's been with it all through the years except for graduate school, of course. And fortunately for us, he could fill in for the other Dr. Lyons. He is a member of the Presidents Commission of the NCAA, so he has a lot of insight in that part of the field also. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce Dr. Charles Lyons.

CHARLES LYONS:

Thank you very much, Bob. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It is a great pleasure to have t opportunity to come and share this with you this morning. I enjoyed my colleague's remarks, Dr. Tommeraasen. I was telling him that Del Webb and I have been serving on the Presidents Commission fr the very beginning. Dr. Jim Lyons and I have been friends and colleagues for a number of years. I m Jim when he was at the University of Kentucky. He got interested in doing some other things and I invited him to come to Fayetteville State University. He said he eventually wanted to become a college president. I said, "Well, you come on to Fayetteville State and we'll show you how to do it, we'll train you." So I would like to think we had a little something to do about his moving on and progressing. Of course, his ability did it for him, but it's good to see your former staff members move on and do well.

I want to share with you a little story which I think is emblematic of what we can do as Division Somebody tells me that we have about 190 institutions in Division II. We are the smallest of the divisions and I guess some people think not much can happen in Division II. Division I seems to be very sell set on what they want to do. and Division III has a pretty set program. They look on us as being sort of a hybrid division that doesn't quite know what it wants to do. Lots of people see us that way. but I don't quite see us that way. Where I grew up in eastern North Carolina. it's tobacco country and you worked hard out there during the week in that green tobacco in the summer.

On weekends when you got a little bit of time for recreation. one of the first things you did on weekel was to take your bath. You took a bath every Saturday night, once a week. You were working too hard during the week to take a bath. Then the men always went out on Saturday night for a little recreatiol In those days, back eons ago when I was a boy, in my part of the country, there were a lot of illegal stills running. They made moonshine. Some of you are old enough to know what that is. And there wer, poeple who sold the stuff. They would sell it by the gallon, they would sell it by the quart jar, the: would sell it by the shot. There were certain houses, everybody knew who was doing it, and they calle, them shothouses. The men would go out on Saturday night and they would meet their friends at these houses where this substance was sold. Then they would have their drinks and tell their tall tales and then they would come home. Well, the story is told about this one man who was out one night at one of these places. He was on his way back home and he had come through a cemetary and he was ambling along, swaying and whistling and singing, being a great time and he didn't realize that somebody had dug a new grave right in his path and he ambled along and fell in. He called and scratched and yelled and did everything he could to get out and to make somebody hear him and nobody heard him, so finally he settled back in and said, "Well, I'll just wait here until tomorrow morning and somebody will come and get me out." And he thought he was alone, but he wasn't. Finally, after he had thoroughly exhausted himself he heard a voice, very clear and very distinct, say, "you can't get out." He did.

Now, they tell us we can't get out of the mess we are in, but I think we can. I think we can muster the strength andwherewithall that we need to do whatever it is we want to do. I was interested in the story this morning that Peter Ueberroth told about the little girl. There were people who thought she couldn't make it, but she did. And I think we can muster the strength to do that. I am especially pleased to have this opportunity to speak with you, the athletic directors of Division II, because I think like my colleague, that you are doing a great job. You're very important to the educational institution with which you are associated. You're very important to this enterprise that we are involved in, especially to athletics. Because in my view varsity athletics constitutes a significant part of educational programs at our institutions and I would like to look at athletics as education and we should encourage and support athletics as education.

There are four basic premises from which I would like to proceed with my presentation this morning and they are all under the rubric of atheltics as education. I say to the people at our institution that all sports should have an educational purpose and if they don't have a place at our place then we ought to get rid of them. If there is no real education purpose for having the sports in which our young athletes participate, we ought not to be spending time, we ought not to be spending the resources of the institution, the appropriations and the student fees to support it. You and I both know that participation in and support of varsity sports can contribute to health, development of ethical and moral values, to team work and fair play and loyalty, on the part of the participant as well as on the larger student body and the larger society.

The second point I would make is that student-athletes should be students first and athletes second. That is another premise that we preach all the time, that students should come to college to primarily get an education, hopefully, to earn a degree, not just to playa varsity sport. I would want athletes around our institution who are not serious about getting an education, because if all of us on that campus are doing our jobs well, that student is not going to be around very long. Unless we are doing things to minipulate the system to help that student stay there longer than he or she should and make enough progress to continue to play their sport. Each student-athlete should qualify for admission to his or her institution on the basis of his or her record and on the promise of academic success at that institution. We know that athletes spend a great deal of time in practice, in travel, in game competition and many of them come with deficiencies, academic or otherwise. They will need special help in developing the disciplined approach to long years of academic pursuit. Manyof them need it even if they were not in sports and many a student-athlete should be required to take a reduced course load during the period that sport is in season. I think we do the athlete a service by requiring that; we don't help a student-athlete by permitting that athlete to load himself unduly during the time his sport is in season. Then there are some student-athletes, as there are students who are not athletes, who come with certain deficiencies in basic fields and they need academic reinforcement, tutoring and counseling. I think it's the obligation and responsibility of the institution, through the athletic department if the person is a student-athlete, to offer these services to the student-athlete. I insist on that at our institution, that the athletic director and the coaches be involved, because they ought to have enough interest in that individual as a person and as a student to want to provide those.

Number three, the primary purpose of alumni and other booster organizations should be support for the athletic program and not control of it. Such organizations should not be permitted to dictate the hiring and firing of new coaches and athletic directors, nor should they be permitted to control budgetary matters. Yes, we want them to support the budgets of our programs and raise funds, but the administration and allocation and accountability for those resources should be with the administrators, athletic directors, coaches and other officials on the campus. And fourthly, the president and chancellor must not only be involved, but he or she should be in charge. Those are the four points that I want to make.

When I say that the president and chancellor should be in charge, I mean just that; athletics is not an autonomous activity, or at least it ought not to be. In my view of athletics as education, athletics constitutes another part of academic enterprise. The final decision rests with the head of that institution. The buck stops at the president's desk. If you don't believe this, you let somebody get hold of a difficult situation or problem at that institution, and you see who is called on the carpet. Or if the newspapers get it, you see whose picture goes in the paper. Now it may not happen in your part of the country, but in my part of the country it is the president who get publicized and who gets front-page coverage, whether or not he deserves it. So I'm saying that athletics has to be a part of the academic enterprise that the president is in charge of. Just as the chief academic officer, the vice chancellor, the vice president reports to that president, or the business officer, student affairs officer or the development officer, that athletic director has to be accountable to the head of the institution for the running of the athletic program. I think that some institutions can improve on that relationship in terms of the way you place the responsibilities for athletics in your hierarchy. I believe that the athletic director ought to have the opportunity to have more direct access and interaction with the head of the institution. In my institution, when I reorganized the place, one of the things I wanted to make sure of was that I had direct access to that athletic director and he in turn had direct access to me, because although we don't have a huge budget for athletics, I found that one of the areas that can create one of the greatest problems on campus was athletics. If you let something go wrong in the athletic program, budgetarily or otherwise, or with regard to how we treat student-athletes in terms of student financial aid and these kinds of things, it can be a real headache. So I have the athletic director at my institution reporting directly to the chancellor. I think that is extremely important. If the president is going to assume responsibility he ought to assume responsibility by having that kind of direct access and that kind of direct line of supervision with the person who runs that program. I have seen many athletic directors who are totally frustrated because they've got so many layers to go through in order to get to the top until they are frustrated in trying to do their jobs. It ought not be that difficult for that athletic director to interact directly with the president of his or her institution. One other point I would make, and that is that athletic directors and presidents ought to be partners, not competitors and not adversaries. As I have looked at and observed and read in the press with regard to what we have been trying to do in the NCAA since 1983, when the Presidents Commission was formed, there seems to be a tremendous effort made by some people to create a climate of not only competitiveness and competition but also a climate of adversarial relationships between the chief executive officers and the athletic directors of the NCAA. I hope they are not being very successful on that, especially in Division II, but I have seen a great deal of that taking place,

Like my colleague, I think there are limits to presidential involvement. I don't think that presidents ought to try and run the athletic program. We don't try to run the academic program. We ought to select the best people we ca~ find and make them responsible for running that program, but require them to be accountable. So, I was not supportive of the way that the ACE wanted to inject the presidents into the NCAA. They wanted a Board of Presidents that would be the authority in the NCAA. I didn't think that was the right thing to do. The way we have done it with the Presidents Commission, which is a compromise kind of position, I think is the more logical way to have this kind of presidential involvement. I know from sitting on the Presidents Commission that the presidents on that commission are not interested in running athletic programs.They are determined that as heads as their institutions, and their suggestions is to their colleagues as heads of their institutions, that you be in charge of whatever is a part of that academic enterprise. I agree with my colleague that is more of us had been doing our jobs well, many of the problems would not have arisen. I readily admit that in Division I there are some problems that even presidents cannot solve, because we know of cases in which presidents have tried to get a handle on things, tried to resolve some problems, only to be fired before they could get a handle on those things. So you have to be sure that you have your boards with you and that the big boosters don't have so much control over the money that the president doesn't really have the authority to do the job. I think anybody who takes a job as president ought to be sure that there is an understanding that if I am in charge of that institution, I am going to be in charge of all of it including athletics and what happens in that athletic program.

Bob gave me some questions, too, and I probably have used up most of my time already, but let me comment on a couple of points in the questions that Bob raises. One thing I think Division II ha! a split personality. I think that is one of our big problems in Division II. We haven't decided yet what we want to be. There are some people who sort of have a dream about going into Division I. As soon as we can do this and do that and we've got this sport, we're in; some of the coaches are like that. You may have some coaches on your campus like that, a coach who has a great football team and thinks, "We are so good that we ought to try and go to Division I." We have a little bit of thaI on our campus. We have a conference of 14 institutions and there are some of our people who see themselves in Division I in certain sports. As a matter of fact, Bob Moorman can tell you that we hl a proposal right now floating around on our campus that talks about, some institutions being in Division I, some institutions being in Division II and maybe some being in Division III. Well, it il a very interesting kind of a proposal.

As I say, we have got a split personality in Division II. There are some people who aren't very happy with their place as Division II institutions. It's alright, they think, as a kind of stopover place, but they really want to get into Division I. They think they can get some of that big money if they develop a good football team or a good basketball team. So I think the first thing we have to decide is what it is that we want to be as a division.

Another thing with regard to the membership, those larger institutions that think they really ought to be in Division I and are working hard toward Division I membership are not going to be a great deal of help to Division II over the long haul. Eventually some of them are going to move out and become Division I. others may go to Division III, so you get nibbles on both ends; nibbles at the top and nibbles at the other end. We ought to decide what we want to be and develop a set of criteria, Division II criteria, that we really feel strongly about, that we believe in and that we believe are good for us. And no matter what, come hell or high water, Division I or Division IL you go do what you want to do, we feel so good about who we are in Division II that we are not even thinking about moving out of Division II and going to Division I or Division III. We haven't arriv, at that yet. I have seen this among our presidential colleagues. On the Presidents Commission the was absolutely a heart-to-heart discussion. Del Weber is one of the persons that I talk with quite a good deal. I saw it when Proposition 64 came up. We are split on Proposition 64, not quite half1 but 91 to 70, so you know we are not that together on what it is we want and what we want to be in Division II.

The final thing I want to comment on, Bob, and ladies and gentlemen, is federation. This is another place we are not together on what we want to do. You know where we are at the present time. The current multiclassification division opportunities essentially represent a kind of compromise between these two schools of thought. Right now Division II can offer a sport in Divis" except in football and basketball. But, Division I can also offer football in Division II, and so goes. I think that is one of the areas where we are going to have to come to grips with what it is we want to be. Do we really want to be Division II? Why? If we want to be Division II, what should be the principles and premises that undergird what we are as a division? And finally, how strongly do we feel with regard to the issue of multidivision classification? Do we feel so strongly about it that we would really want to have a single-division classification applied to all our institutions in Division I or in Division II? I think those are some questions that we have to respond to. Thank you very much.

BOB MOORMAN :

Now what we really want to do is get an exchange here. YOU may have ideas; bring them Up, because this I think is more important than anything else based on the fact that not too long from now we will be going into that convention in Texas. If there are points that we have discussed, or some points that we have not discussed, that you feel may be pertinent, please bring them up. Both Dr. Lyons and Dr. Tommeraasen, or anyone else within the group, we hope, will respond to them. One thing I always like to say is that some of those "dumb" questions are awfully important. Quite frequently you say, "Well, I don't want to ask that because it's not too sharp." And 10 or 12 people in the group want to ask it but everyone is afraid. So please, if you have an idea or a question, please bring it forth because this is something we need to discuss and discuss at length. Okay, what do we have on the floor, please?

FROM THE FLOOR:

I would like to hear their opinions on the elimination of spring football.

FROM THE PANEL:

I figured that was coming. I'm for spring practice. I think we could eliminate spring practice. I have talked with a lot of people on our campus and some of the folks in our conference. I don't see a great deal that we would lose by eliminating spring practice. That's my personal view.

FROM THE PANEL:


I have mixed feelings about this. I guess one of the things they are trying to tell me is that we are going to save some money. My first question to the athletic director, who is also the football coach, and vice president would be, "Where you are going to save the money?" The field is already there, the equipment is already there, everybody is already sleeping and eating and going to class and I have already paid the coaches' salaries. I suppose I am going to save in tape, and if there are injuries, that would cost money. But, talking about money now, I would like to know what we are going to save by cutting out spring practice. If it would help the baseball team and the track team and maybe our mixed chorus in the theater department, then that's a different question. So, if this comes out to be an academic decision, then I am going to be a lot more for it than I am for all those arguments I have seen about how we are going to save money. I don't really see that it is going to save us much money, so I have mixed feelings about that.

BOB MOORMAN :

I know we have some football coaches in here. What are your opinions?

FROM THE FLOOR:

I feel very strongly that we need spring practice in Division II.

I don't thing we have the developmental programs to do without it.

BOB MOORMAN :


Let's help each other to get to know each other. When you do respond, give your name and so forth so we can be familiar with one another. One more football coach.

FROM THE FLOOR:

I would hate to see us lose spring practice. It gives us an opportunity to really work with our kids all along and really do ~.lot of teaching, which we don't have in the fall when you've got your football games, practice and this kind of thing. I think with any institution you have to establish some cooperation with your baseball team. At our place we let the kids go into other sports. A lot of our track team made the football team and we have let them know there is no pressure on them not to compete in track.

CHARLES LYONS:

Let me respond in this manner. I think that if you feel Division II feels strongly about this as an issue, you ought to say that. Oftentimes when we sit in the meetings of the Presidents Commission, or other committees, we don't realize the basis for taking this kind of strong position with regard to an issue. But, if this is an issue that Division II ADs feel very strongly about, regardless of how I feel about it personally, I'd take that position to these councils and I would fight for it. But, oftentimes we don't have a basis for going in and fighting for a strong position. This gets back to the point I tried to make earlier, that we have to decide now what it is we want for our division and why the institution is in Division II. Too often in the Presidents Commission, and in the NCAA generally, what gets done is based on somebody's perception about what's good for Division I. I've seen it ever since I've been on the Presidents Commission. Most of the issues that we discuss emanate from someone's perception and consideration of what we ought to do with some problems in Division I, and it sort of gets trickled down to us the way that the Proposition 64 thing got trickled down to us. There wasn't a sitting down together in Division I and Division II and deciding what our problems and our needs were and trying to fashion a solution. Somebody said, "Well, if it's good enough for Division I, it ought to be good enough for Division II." Some of us tried to say our problems and our needs are not the same, so why should we pick up something out of Division I and bring it over to Division II and try to make it fit? It's not going to fit, I think. So, I am saying to you, if you really feel that strongly about it, do something about it, give me something to work with and there have been some others who might support you on that.

FROM THE FLOOR:

The initiation of this proposal came from the Presidents Commission, is that correct? That initiation came from where?

CHARLES LYONS:

It came from a special committee, but I have to acknowledge that most of the people on the spe committee were Division I presidents and chancellors. It was a special group that is not a part of Presidents Commission, but they are still working to get things accomplished and most of them are associated with Division I institutions. But again, we have to decide in Division II on what it is we want for our division, and if we do that, I think we've got something to work with. I think one of the problems, too, is if you're Division II and you play against Division I-AA teams, then you are going to be playing against teams that have some sort of spring practice and this is one of the problems. I think Division I-AA football has somewhat the same problem in relation to their competition against Division I-A.

BOB MOORMAN:

I think what we are going to have to do now is what Dr. Lyons said, react to it. Go back to your presidents and chancellors and tell them you're against it. Then you can improve on it, if you want, in January, which is in time for spring practice anyway. By turning this thing down in Dallas, we still have time to put in a proposal for January. I think the Presidents Commission will understand that in time for the spring practice coming up.

RICHARD FLANAGAN:


I wonder if that committee knows the views of Division II regarding spring football programs and limitations on the number of days of practice.

BOB MOORMAN :

I guess they don't, do they, Dr. Lyons?

CHARLES LYONS :

I would doubt it.

BOB MOORMAN :

Maybe it's a good idea we have Dr. Lyons here so he can tell them all that when we get into Dallas. It may help. I think the basic thing is we are going to have to go back and tell our p, what we want. Too frequently we don't do that.

FROM THE PANEL:


Turning to fifth-year scholarship, we don't have them, but we do ask our kids to come to summer school. We have two five-week sessions in summer school, a pretty full program. Youngsters can come to summer school and make up whatever they may have lost by taking classes. They can get financial aid in summer the same as they can in the regular school year. But, I think we have to face clearly the fact that some students are going to take longer. Some of them need that fifth year, but by and large, most of our youngsters, if they really want to graduate on time, can make up the deficiencies by going to summer school.

FROM THE PANEL:

I think we should keep in mind that there are a lot of other students who don't finish in four years who have nothing to do with athletics. They may be business majors, they may be nursing majors and they may be in other fields. They don't get in every class they want to in what we used to look at as the traditional four years. The majority of our students are going to graduate within the traditional four years and so is a majority of the athletes, but there are going to be a few who do not. Summer school is a good solution for those who want to concentrate in whatever it happens to be, theater, music or athletics, in a given semester. They can make it up in summer school, of course, there is always the possibility that they can go an extra semester or something like that.

BOB MOORMAN :

I think if you reduce the load while you're playing and then increase the load when you are not, it would balance out. When I say reduce, it doesn't necessarily mean reduce to 12, you could reduce to 14. To take 18 hours for the average student-athlete is going to be tough, but some of them could take 14, or like that. Speaking of reduced hours and extra years, the papers that were handed to Dr. Tommeraasen are evidently from someone who is supporting Proposal 43. For those of you who don't know what Proposal 43 is, it's the new suggestion that we play for five years. So, then the question would be what to do with the sixth year. But, I'm going to hand these papers out to you before we leave. They're pushing that for Dallas. I think it's Boise State and that crew.

FROM THE PANEL:

The kind of business we are in is not like other kinds of businesses. A great deal of the time that gets cut, what gets impacted most heavily, depends very largely upon consideration that transcends the concept of cost-containment. There are those who would say, "Well, the only revenue-producing sports we have are basically football and basketball, and it's football and basketball that carry the rest of the athletic program." They feel if you interfere too much with those revenue-producing sports, everything is going to vanish, not only the major sports, but those that are carried by the revenue that comes from that. And, I think you have to give some consideration to that. I think the people who are responsible for the football and basketball programs have a major influence on these kinds of decisions that are made in institutions and by institutions, and it is a little difficult sometimes to balance these kinds of things off. In a way, it is sort of like the problem that leaders in government have at any given time, deciding what to cut in order to try and get the budget deficit under control. It seems rather ridiculous to many of us to cut aid to families with dependent children to try to get the budget deficit under control. The only real place to cut is where most of the real bucks are and that's the place that doesn't get cut, but oftentimes it is a question of who has most of the influence over the decision-making process.

MILES TOMMERAASEN:

As an accountant, I want to comment on scholarships. Again, I would like somebody to show me where I am going to save money when we cut scholarships. I don't care if a student is an athlete or a musician or in theater, let's say this student has a scholarship. On our income statement, this student's tuition,room and board are counted as income over here and down on the expense side we have an expense that is a scholarship. In almost all cases, if a student would leave school then the income drops out on one side, the expense drops out on the other side and in most cases, the income exceeds the expense and, therefore, I lose money. Now, this is the side to this scholarship business that I don't hear talked about very much and it bothers me a whole lot. It is usually an English professor or a history professor or a chemistry professor who wants to cut the scholarships, and he or she doesn't even understand how it works. But, I fail to see where you are going to save money on that. I think you started to talk about where we might save some money. I don't know whether it is in travel or some other areas like that where you are going to save some money. Again, it has to be, as Dr. Lyons said, where the big money is. Now, maybe that is wrestling and maybe it is golf or tennis, but probably it is football. They try to tell me we are going to save money by cutting out spring practice, we are going to save money by reducing scholarships. I don't believe that.

FROM THE PANEL:

Our general philosophy about athletics is a broad-based program and we just went through a situation from the top down where we had to eliminate a sport. The sport was wrestling, which had a budget of $9,000 and I think the coach was getting $26,000. The premise there was that it is going to increase the amount of money we could use for salaries, or to upgrade the salaries of our people at the institution. But we could have cut one vice president and saved twice as much money.

FROM THE PANEL:

One thing I think we definitely need to do is to get our colleagues to come to these meetings. You may have noticed that Division I-A had a special meeting to discuss various things. Theyare going off on their own way, and I think we really need to strengthen our whole as Division II individuals and go to whatever the meeting might be. I know some of us on the Basketball Committee have gone before the basketball association, the Division II portion of it, and there are about 30 or 40 guys there. We need to make our meetings and get together and discuss what we want out of Division II. Until we do that, we are going to have a problem.

ED LAWRENCE :

Dr. Lyons talked about the trip to Dallas and not knowing where we are and where we want to be. At the last convention we approved along with Division I that basketball rule of not exempting the games played in Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Why in the world should we hold that opportunity down to where you only get one exempted game? The rule for Division I was intended for Louisville and North Carolina State and those kind of people who play an extra eight, nine, maybe ten games because they play in the Rainbow Classic, Shootouts, the NIT, and so forth. We have had problems scheduling, believe it or not, because of that rule, where we invite people maybe every two or three years. They can't count those games because of their conference and their traditional opponents and that kind of thing. We tie in the educational and cultural aspects and so on for the kids who get opportunities to come to Alaska. For us to vote that opportunity away from ourselves, I would just like to have a response to that.

FROM THE PANEL:

I tell you what you can do. You can put it on the program in January. It's in this one? Well, that we are aware of it, we can bring it up at the Division II meeting that we have in Dallas. I'm going to think about Fayetteville State going, Morningside, schools like that. We can work on that.

FROM THE PANEL:

I think that is an important factor. We as Division II athletic directors and commissioners don't get together often enough to have a solid organization. The college-division commissioners, we have six or seven, ten at the most, at the convention, that can meet. If we don't do it, theyare going to put us right out, they are going to federate us right on out.