» «

(Monday, June 5, -9:30- 11:00 a.m.)


It is my pleasure to serve as moderator for this morning's session. The intent of this session, NCAA Governance and Restructuring, is to share with you the ideas being explored by two special and very important committees that were appointed by the NCAA within the past year. The first of these is the Presidents Commission Advisory Committee to review the NCAA governance process. The second is a special committee to review the NCAA membership structure. Both of these committees were appointed within the last year and neither have formulated final recommendations to be presented to the NCAA membership.

Today's forum allows for a sharing of information from committee representatives on the issues identified, the process employed and suggestions being considered in an attempt to improve the governance process and to better define the membership's structure of the NCAA.

We are hopeful that this sharing of information will result in dialogue today and throughout the completion of the work of the committees. This dialogue is crucial to the effectiveness of the end results of the committee report. We are hopeful that the recommendations, thus, will result in being workable, productive and meaningful to the entire membership. Both committees feel very strongly that this can happen most effectively with discussion, such as today's, and ongoing participation of the membership. We are hopeful that you can help us to chart the future of the NCAA.

Our speakers for today's session have changed since the program went to press. Unfortunately, both Fred Jacobyand John Ryan are unable to with us. But, we're fortunate to have with us representatives from both of the committees who will present on behalf of the committees some thoughts and ideas that the committees have faced. These committee representatives include from the NCAA staff, Ted Tow, who will speak on the work of the Presidents Commission Advisory Committee to review the NCAA governance process, and Tom Hansen, Jerry Hughes and I will provide information from the special committee to review the memberships structure.

We will begin with the governance process. Ted Tow is an associate executive director of the NCAA and is in his 18th year on the staff. He is responsible for the administration and publishing departments and also serves as primary staff liaison to the NCAA Council and the Presidents Commission. Currently, he is also staffing the two committees from whom you will hear reports this morning.

Before joining the staff as a director of publishing in February, 1972, Ted taught journalism at the high school, junior college and four-year college levels. He was a sports information director, owned a weekly newspaper and then owned a public relations firm. He did his undergraduate work at Wayne State College in Nebraska and graduate study at the University of Wyoming and the University of Iowa. I'm pleased to introduce to you, Ted Tow.


Thank you, Judy. As Judy indicated, these reports this morning are informational and in some ways do not address detail, perhaps, to the extend we would like or you would like. I've been worried that I don't have a lot of information to impart to you this morning. I got even more worried when I listened to Frank Wells in his Keynote Address talking about Dopey, Grumpy and Mickey Mouse. I thought for a minute that he was going to try to name every member of the Presidents Commission. Snow White has been nominated twice, but can't seem to get the votes.

I can't give you much detail because the committee has not completed its report. That's why John Ryan when he was unable to attend, delegated this assignment to me. I am not now, nor have I ever been a chief executive officer, which I assume does something to you. The committee is in the process of completing a statement of its recommendations and some accompanying commentary of the governance process. It's going to submit that statement to the Presidents Commission before it announces any of its detailed recommendations or releases the statement publicly. The reason for that is because the advisory committee is a creature of the Commission, appointed by the Commission after consultation with the NCAA Administrative Committee last fall.

The committee believes that it is inappropriate to share its specific recommendations with anyone until the Commission members themselves receive them. That is why I can talk in general terms this morning, but not in specific detail. The Commission will receive the statement, discuss it and act on it in early October at its regular full meeting, and one would assume that some legislation for the January NCAA Convention will come out of that meeting. It's an excellent committee. It's an unusual type of committee in our structure in that it comprises, for the most part, former NCAA officers, former Commission officers, former members of the NCAA Council and Executive Committee. Five current members are former CEOs; three former faculty reps; three former ADs or commissioners. It's a very knowledgeable group of people. But, the majority of them are sort of in the elder statesman category where they can think of NCAA procedures as they experienced them in their tenure and think of better ways to do it without any particular axes to grind or any current political motivations.

Their charge was to review the association's governance process, specifically, to include President Liacouras' presentation proposal that he presented to the national forum session a year ago in Orlando. The statement that is being finalized now for submission to the Commission will include recommendations and commentary in five basic areas.

First is the role of the institutional chief executive officers in athletics governance matters, both at the campus level and at the NCAA or national level and how to enhance the presidents' and chancellors' roles in governance matters. Second is the effectiveness of the Presidents Commission itself. Third is the NCAA legislative process and how to improve the level of attention that's given to developing meaningful, well-thought-out legislation before you get to the voting stage. The committee will also, in that category, have some suggestions for adjustments in the new legislative calendar that goes into place next year. Fourth is the NCAA interpretative process; especially as it deals with interpretations of legislation dealing with academic requirements. Last is the nature and format and structure of the NCAA convention. The goal is to try to suggest ways to streamline the convention further in order to assure what this committee believes would be proper focus on key legislative issues.

I've learned in starring the Presidents Commission for five years that it's never wise to guess at what it might do. I've learned a lot of things in five years with that group. My hope is that we can get the statement in the Commission members' hands by the end of this month and that the Commission officers then will authorize us to print the entire statement in the NCAA News. The point should be to get these recommendations and statements before the membership in ample time so that there can be feedback to the Commission before its October meeting when it decides what to do with these recommendations. That is basically where the committee is, what it's talking about and if there are any questions that I'm allowed to answer, I will answer them.


Are there any questions or comments that anyone would like to share with Ted to take back to the Presidents Commission? If at any point in time you do have any questions or suggestions, I would encourage you to contact that body and keep that communication open as they begin to finalize their recommendations. We're hopeful that in both situations this morning, the will of the membership will be heard and will direct the actions that will be taken by both committees.

At this point, I would like to move to the committee to review the membership structures. There are going to be three presenters. I would ask that the questions to the panelists on this committee be held until all three have made their presentations.

The Special Committee to Review the NCAA Membership Structure, consisting of 11 members, met for the first time, November 30 and December I, 1988. The original charge was to provide recommendations to the Council by April of 1989. It soon became obvious that that was not a realistic charge and consequently, the committee has requested, and been granted, a year's extension to deal with the very challenging and important assignment. From the start, the committee agreed to take every step possible to receive and consider the opinions of all the various constituencies in the membership; also, to reach no conclusions until the views of the membership have been received and reviewed.

The topics initially under consideration by the committee include the following: one, the current structure, criteria and size of Division I and its subdivisions including any possible ramifications of the structural change on the Division I men's basketball championship and the Division I-A football classification; two, the feasibility of a Division I-AAA football classification; three, possible greater federation in association procedures and activities; four, multi-division classification; five, the possibility of greater homogeneity in the membership of each division and subdivision including Divisions II and III; six, possible means of enhancing the membership of Division II, the smallest membership division, and seven, allocation of NCAA resources.

I would like to begin by discussing some of the thoughts concerning multi-division classification. In its charge to review the membership structure, a key question was that of multi-division classification. Should multi-division classification be eliminated, further restricted, liberalized or left unchanged. After soliciting input from the membership, listening to consultants who met with the committee last February and engaging in lengthy discussion, the findings of the committee suggest the following: one, most member institutions have all of their sports in one division; two, philosophically, it makes sense to require all members to provide for all sports at the same level; three, practically, there are institutions that have enjoyed a successful history of classification of one sport outside of their membership division. The committee is sensitive to these institutional traditions, but is feeling that some refinement of multi-divisional opportunities is desirable; four, the most discomfort with multi-divisional classification appears to center on placement of a sport in a division lower than the institution's membership classification. It is felt that the competitive advantages of that team, as a result of programmatic support services not available to lower division teams, disadvantages the divisional teams for which the championship is sponsored.

Consequently, the committee is considering the following as options: that a Division I member institution classified in Division II or Division III in football and a Division II member institution classified in Division III in football shall not be eligible for NCAA Division III championship competition j football. This would not preclude the classification in a division other than Division I of football, but would eliminate the displacement of teams from the sponsoring division's championship by multi-division football programs. Potentially, 24 Division I and 12 Division II institutions would be impacted.

Another recommendation being considered is the elimination of all other multi-division classification opportunities in a downward direction, but to permit a Division II or III member institution to petition the Division I Steering Committee for Division I classification in anyone men's sport, other than football and basketball and/or in anyone women's sport, other than basketball.

Currently, Division II members have classified 35 sports in men's Division I, 13 women's sports in Division I, and Division III members have 13 men's sports in Division I and five women's sports in Division I. In Division I, there are no sports, other than football, with downward classification, eight in Division II and 16 in Division III.

In Division II, there are 12 football teams classified in Division III and one field hockey team. In addition, in Division II, where insufficient sponsorship exists for a Division II championship in the sports of field hockey, ice hockey and lacrosse, 14, nine and 14 members respectively have selected participation in the Division III championship. The impact of providing this opportunity in selection is being reviewed by the structure committee also.

Also being discussed is a possibility of permitting a Division II or III member institution to be classified in Division I only in a sport in which there is a national collegiate championship.

A final recommendation being considered, under the topic of multi-division classification, is the adoption of a policy specifying that the separate membership classifications for women's programs permitted under Bylaw 20 be reviewed by the Council every three years. Those are just some of the ideas and thoughts that the committee has addressed at this point in time. We will welcome your input on the ideas presented and any other suggestions that you might have.

At this time, it's my pleasure to introduce a co-committee member, Jerry Hughes. Jerry has been director of athletics at Central Missouri State University since January of 1983, when he moved up from the position of associate director of athletics. Currentlya member of the NCAA Council and newly elected vice president for Division II, Jerry came to Central Missouri State University in 1979 as business placement director. A year later he became director of student recruitment, prior to being named associate director of athletics in 1981. He received his bachelor's degree in 1971 from CMSU and was a three-year letterman on the golf team. He also received his master's degree from CMSU. He was coach, athletics director and assistant principal at the high school level before he came to Central Missouri. He serves on several NCAA committees as a result of his position as Division II vice president as well as a Special Events Committee and the Structure Committee. In that capacity, Jerry will address thoughts on enhancing Division II membership and non-scholarship football options. I'm pleased to introduce Jerry HUghes.


I always knew it was easy to transfer to Division III, but I didn't know you didn't have to get an approval first. My purpose, as Judy said, is to inform you about some of the committee's discussions relati~ to non-scholarship football, commonly known as I-AAA in the committee discussions, and the enhancement of the Division II. As Ted and Judy have said before, the things I'm going to outline are in the discussion stage and the committee is definitely still open to any ideas that the members assembled might have. We've kicked around several ideas from various extremes and we welcome more to discuss.

Back last fall, the NCAA Council supported the study of the concept of I-AAA football. That was due in large to the dissatisfaction of the membership of Division III with Division I and II members moving down, as Judy has outlined, in the multi-division talks and playing in the Division III championships. Once our committee began to look at the impact of I-AAA football on the other divisions, it became not quite as easy a discussion. Unless the criteria for Division I is strengthened and unless Division II is enhanced, there is some concern from the committee that we might see a mobility towards Division I, from not only I-AA teams moving their football team to I-AAA, but also Division II programs moving their entire program to Division I and playing I-AAA football. This would result in mobility in the wrong way, more teams in Division I.

There has been discussion that should the concept of I-AAA football emerge, there should be some type of freeze on the membership in that category until some of the movement problems with the other divisions hav, settled and that we do provide some type of championship opportunity for I-AAA football teams. Our Committee has identified two major reasons programs move their teams from Division II to Division I. The first is the monetary reward received if their teams qualify for Division I men's basketball tournament. The second is the media perception of the prestige of being Division I. Those are the two major reason we've identified for teams moving to Division I.

I'd like to start out my thoughts on enhancing Division II by quoting Executive Director Dick Schultz' comments from the June, 1988 National Forum held in Orlando. "Division II can be made much more attractive. I think this has to happen. I think we need to take a look at the strengthening of that division. It is very small and, in many cases, it is creating problems for Division II members to even playa Division II scheduled. Because of this, it has suddenly become attractive for a number of Division II schools to move their entire programs to Division I. Not because they are going to compete as the Division I members do, but because of the attractiveness of the Division I men's basketball tournament. It makes it almost attractive enough to move their whole programs there and really not do much about the rest of their programs."

But, we do make Division II basketball more attractive by working more diligently to achieve some live television to subsidize that program so that the amounts of money available to those teams that perhaps win the championship would be more attractive. This might help solidify some of the situations and stop some of the upward mobility.

OUr committee has studied those thoughts. We have many discussions on how we might enhance Division II. We believe that should the criteria, which Tom is going to address, for a more stringent Division I become a reality, we will see some movement from those members in Division I to Division II. And perhaps, if the Division II men's basketball tournament is enhanced, we might even see some Division III members elect to move to Division II.

Our question is, how do we enhance the Division II men's basketball tournament? We have formed a sub-committee of two members of our committee to meet later this year with members of the men's Division I Basketball Committee and members of the Division II Men's Basketball Committee. This committee will report back to the Membership Structure Committee in the fall and, hopefully, we can move forward with some ideas.

Some of our discussions relate to the guarantee of live television for the Division II championships, a Division II TV game of the week and a monetary enhancement of each round for Division II basketball tournament. One thought is making it so that if you reach a championship finals, your share of the Division II tournament would be equal to a first-round share of a Division I men's basketball tournament. On other sports, we want a guaranteed transportation per diem for all Division II championships with the possibility of increasing travel party numbers. Our committee would love to have any comments you might have and welcome any thoughts. Thank you.


Thank you, Jerry. This time, I'm pleased to introduce Tom Hansen. Tom is a University of Washington communications graduate. He was director of public relations from 1960 to 1967 at the Pacific 10 Conference and was a staff member at the NCAA from 1967 to 1983, during which time he served as director of public relations and assistant executive director, involving himself as a football television program director, staff liaison to the NCAA Classification Committee and member of the NCAA Postseason Football and Re-structuring Committees. Currently, he is commissioner of the Pac-lO Conference and is the Division I representative to the committee to review the NCAA membership structure. I'm pleased to introduce Mr. Tom Hansen.


Thank you very much. I regret that Fred Jacoby can't be here today due to his health because Fred has done an outstanding job in the existence to date of our committee, guiding and leading us in what I'm sure you have already perceived, is a very challenging assignment. Each of the fellow panel members who has preceded me has covered an important and very difficult area.

As Judy mentioned, I worked with the Classification Committee from the time it was established back when we first divided into the college division and then into the 3-membership divisions and I still recall the following incident. First of all, classification started not with the NCAA membership, but with football statistics. You were either in the top division for football stats and it evolved into a committee of athletic directors. A university was about to be taken out of the Division I membership classification. We were a committee of athletic directors sitting there listening to this institution's president defend his institution's ability and right to be in Division I. The tears were coming down his face as he said, "if you take me out of Division I, you will not only close down my athletic program, you will close down my institution." He perhaps was overstating the case somewhat, but nonetheless, this is the type of challenge we face and type of emotion we are dealing with and we understand the implications very clearly to the people in this room and to each of your programs. I assure you that the committee is aware of its responsibility and the magnitude of its charge.

Ten of our members are from Division I and we are obviously, in my opinion, well equipped to talk about Division I criteria and be representatives of the division. I'm going to repeat what the other speakers have said, that the committee at this time has done a lot of exploration. Our staff has done a great job and we appreciate the cooperation that the membership has given to us. We want to share this information with you without revealing the committee's position at this time, so we can get you to respond to us without any prejudices to what you think we may be doing.

We want to take back as much information from you as we possibly can. For that same reason, we held a hearing in February and invited 13 individuals who represent different membership constituencies to come in and speak to the committees. Seven of them did and it illustrated that we are reflective of the membership since they provided us with valuable information and helped us focus and assured us that we had not missed any major element of what we are about. We have also put a couple of articles in the NCAA News asking for input.

Why are we talking about the structure and changes in the structure and do you qualify for membership? We were appointed by the Council in response to the unrest on the part of the membership about the structure and the incompatibility of some members in the different divisions. Dick Schultz included the steady growth of Division I as one of the items we are to look at. Dick stated that all of these are part of the puzzle that is created by the diversity in our membership reflected in a growing uneasiness felt by many members.

He said that it was important that Division I-A have more voting autonomy including the ability to set its own financial aid limitations. He concluded that the work of the committee would be very intense and needed to be very thorough. Fortunately, because of the timing, Judy told you we were to report this year to the Council in October, but because the magnitude of our tasks is so great and we asked for an extension, our report will now go to the Council in April. Under our new legislative format, the members will have this presented to them in the spring and will have eight months to review, debate and refine the work that this committee does.

Why is there this unrest of which we have all taken note? My personal response is that we have too many members in Division I. They vote along side some of the institutions with programs of lesser magnitude and athletic programs that are far greater in scope, budget and extension. The current 293 members in Division I are too many. A large number of them are there to pursue the NCAA basketball tournament and the pot of gold that it has become.

We really have membership and voting in Division I based on the ability of an institution to sponsor a basketball program. Essentially, that one single factor governs who has the ability to vote on a wide-range of issues. There are others who object to sharing this Division I basketball tournament with this number of institutions. They believe that Division I should be reduced so that there are fewer eligible for the tournament. I would, personally, prefer to leave the eligibility question for the basketball tournament to the basketball committee. I think it has finally done a very good job of addressing how to keep the number ( institutions eligible from growing and I would concede eligibility for the basketball tournament to a larger group if we could reduce the voting. I sense in our own conference that it's very frustrating to have institutions with budgets in the 10 to 15 million dollar range looking at institutions with budgets that do not reach a million dollars. Your vote is being cancelled by those members.

The members of the committee addressing this issue have decided not to propose any radical change such as a fourth division. They prefer to address the unrest by reducing the size of Division I through adoption of more demanding membership criteria and by enhancing the attractiveness of Division II, as Jerry mentioned. So let's look at what new criteria might be considered to accomplish this. Each of the following has been mentioned and discussed at our meetings.

Criterion one, would require award of a minimum percentage of the permissable financial aid for each sport the institution sponsors to meet the Division I membership requirements. Why would this be so? We hs surveyed Division I and have found that 72 percent of Division I-!!! does not award 50 percent of the financial aid permitted in men's track and cross country. That's one example. We have every sport and the percentages of the financial aid being awarded. In women's track, the percentage that's not awarding 50 percent of the permissable aid is 91 percent in Division I-!!!. That suggests that that group of institutic is not putting any resources into a sport that it is using to establish its membership in Division I.

A second criterion would be requiring a minimum percentage of the playing schedule of such an institution to be against other members of Division I. We have found that in Division I-!!! only 55 percent of the members schedule at least 75 percent of their contests against fellow members of Division I in their mens' sports. In women's sports, only 43 percent meet the 75 percent request.

A third criterion would be setting minimums for the size of the basketball facility and a minimum average home attendance requirement. We discovered in our research that 102 of the 291 Division I members which sponsored mens' basketball, over a third of the division did not average 2,500 in home attendance. Twenty Eight members of Division I did not average even 1,000 in home basketball attendance. That's 9.6 percent under a 1,000. You really question if they belong in the same division voting with North Carolina, Syracuse or Michigan and some of the other major basketball programs.

Criterion four is requiring a minimum participation in NCAA championships by Division I member. The committee has found 41 Division I institutions did not have a single participant, team or individual, for over three years from 1985-86 to 1987-88. An additional 23 institutions had fewer than 20, so 64 Division I members had under 20 individual participants over a three-year period. I now want to give you the average number per institution of the Division I-A conferences over those same three years. one conference had 645 such participation in Division I-A championships over three years. The other numbers go down; 469, 465, 414, 404, 380, 281, 170 and 89, so certainly, the number of 20, which was not reached by those 64 members seems a very low number, indeed.

A fifth criterion would be to adjust the requirements for sports sponsorship for Division I men and women's sports. Currently, to be in Division I-! and have a major football program, you have to sponsor seven sports, whereas, if you do not have a football program, to be in Division I, you only have to sponsor six.

The committee wonders if the institutions without football programs should be required to sponsor more, or at least the same numbers as those with the Division I football programs.

We have also discussed permitting indoor and outdoor track and cross country to be counted only as two of the sports sponsored and not three. The committee has recommended and the Council has agreed to sponsor Proposal 124 from the last convention, which would say that in a multiple institutional meet, such as a cross country meet, you would be able to count it as two of your six required events for the season.

Finally, it was suggested that with all these criteria, rather than being pulled in by its conference, an institution would have to achieve membership on its own. It was not suggested that this be applied retroactivelyas it was to the football criterion. I believe the members of the committee feel that if you apply these critera in combination, it would clearly demonstrate that a number of Division I institutions are making a very modest commitment to Division I at all. Only two of these four have been broken down on an institutional basis. The others have been broken down in percentages by these three classifications, but I believe that when we get all of the data broken down by institution, we will see that there is a consistent pattern of a particular number of institutions not meeting these critera across the board.

Two of our other discussions concern voting. First, we discovered that Division I-A has more voting autonomy than anyone realized. To date, there hasn't been any legislation proposed on the basis of Division I-A voting alone in categories. Such areas as financial aid, eligibility for championships and limitations on squad and coaching staffs in basketball are not permitted for separate I-A voting. That leaves a considerable agenda on which it is possible.

There has been discussion of more separate voting on federated bylaws. Ted was mentioning how the Presidents Commission is discussing this and our committee also has been looking at this area. I think it's important to know that Fred has met with the chairs of other committees, such as the Cost Reduction Committee and the Presidents Commission group. So, we are trying to coordinate and not wander over each other. Now, we vote on these federated bylaws, one, two, three, by division. Meanwhile, we're wasting a good amount of time in our divisional meetings. It's our opinion that we vote in our divisional meetings on these federated bylaws where the three divisions may adopt them separately because if we do get to a place where we wish to come together to discuss a major issue of this nature, we can certainly move that to the general business session.

Finally, let me go back to basketball for just a moment. I'm going to offer an idea of my own and this is not to be attributed to the committee at all. We have asked two of our members to meet with two representatives, Cedric Dempsey and Jim Delaney, and the Division I Basketball Committee and the Division II Basketball Committee to explore how the Division II tournament might be made more attractive. I am more concerned about the voting than about the basketball tournament eligibility. I would let all members, both of Division I and Division II be eligible for the Division I basketball tournament. This would make it unnecessary for a member in Division II to classify its program in Division I only to pursue the pot of gold. It could stay in Division II with its other programs but it could allow its student-athletes a chance to be in the NCAA tournament. I would not have the conference income and grant programs be dependent on how you were classified in the sport and that is a whole other area we would have to work on. I'm sure there are many in Division I who are every bit as interested in the financial affairs as they are in the voting.

We appreciate your attention and we earnestly seek your help with these charges. What I've gone over here today is provocative, it's very difficult, it's stimulating and we need your help in reaching conclusions that the membership will wish to adopt. If we can't do that, our work of nearly two years and your assistance to us will be for nothing. Thank you very much.


Thank you, Tom. We do have some time before the next session and we're hopeful that the thoughts presented to you today have stimulated some reactions. We'd like to open the floor to any questions or comments.


I'm wondering if the committee has given any consideration to having a division within a division. I know that Division III does not want teams to move down from Division I, yet many of us are actually runni~ Division III programs in Division I. My school has 31 varsity sports, 16 for men and 15 for women. We are meeting the interests of our students. Many of those sports do not receive scholarships. We have an outstanding men's tennis team, but it will never compete for the national championship. We have a wrestli~ team which will certainly never compete in a Division I category. The rule says we cannot move down and I understand that, but is it possible to have wrestling in Division I that's A and B; namely, criteria for Division I as it is now, but criteria for B with the same criteria as in Division III.

We talk about cost containment and we can't turn around and put 31 sports and try to have all of them compete for national championship. Yet, we also talk about broad-based programs. If you're going to have broad-based programs, it means you have to have a good number of sports, which we do have. We do have broad-based program. Why can't we have a division within Division I which is more or less the B Division similar in many ways as Division III. Therefore, we wouldn't move down to Division III. We're too big a university. I'm wondering if the committee is giving any consideration to that idea.


Thank you for both your question and your comments. You brought up a very important point. At the f time that the membership structure committee is trying to pose some viable directions for the membership ir the future, we are also concerned about cost containment. There was a committee recently appointed to deaJ with cost containment and the Membership Structure Committee is hoping to work very closely with the Cost Containment Committee in hopes of co.ming up with some solutions that really do make the most sense for the membership. Your suggestion is one that we will carry back to both of those committees.

If there are no further comments or questions, I would like re-emphasize Tom's closing comments to yc on how important it is to the success of both committees to receive input throughout the process in order j us to come up with the most meaningful recommendations possible. Thank you very much for your attention.