NCAA DIVISION I AND NAIA
"NCAA REFORM MOVEMENT"
(Tuesday, June 12, 8:30- 9:45 a.m.)
We athletic administrators need the Presidents Commission and the CEO's if we are to maximize the potential of our programs. Already, they have helped through the Commission, but we can't expect the members of the Commission to provide the specific details that are needed for the management of college athletics. That's why the Conference of Conference was mounted to provide the type of on-hands-hands-on management that is needed to develop proposals for college athletics reform. Several commissioners, plus representatives of independent institutions agreed the reform movement should be guided by the directors of athletics, the senior women administrators and the faculty athletic representatives of the member institutions who most often are in the spotlight of college athletics. Then we would need and seek the support and guidance and political strength of the Presidents Commission and the CEOs.
We began planning for conference input into the Conference of Conferences and each of the Division I-A conferences held a full meeting to develop proposals for the Conference of Conferences which was held in March in Chicago. We hope that the Presidents Commission at its late June meeting will elect to support the entire package developed at the Conference of Conferences and take it forward to the next convention. Some folks would probably find things there that they do not agree with under the new legislative calendar. We have
until September 1 for major adjustments to all of these proposals and then amendments to amendments may be submitted until October 15.
Even before the Conference of Conferences began 18 months ago, two important NCAA committees were appointed to work on various proposals in this area. One, chaired by Gene Corrigan, was appointed to study cost reduction. The other, chaired by Fred Jacoby, was to review the NCAA membership structure. Their efforts are before you this morning. They've been printed in the NCAA News and we have prepared copies of all of these reports for you. They are in the rear of the room. Your panelists are not going to spend a lot of time reviewing them because they are here and I'm sure you've seen much of the material in the NCAA News. You can work from them to ask questions from the panel.
I've had the good fortune to participate in the Conference of Conferences effort and to be a member of Fred Jacoby's committee, the Structure Committee, and also, to be a liaison from that group to Gene Corrigan's committee. I certainly commend the efforts of all of these groups. It's been a long, hard process, but we have to remember, as Dick Schultz said about perceptions, you and I might think what we do in college
athletics right now is very good. I think 95 percent is very good, but the perception is that we need to make some changes and the Congress is talking about this, the media is talking, the public, as well as the Knight Commission. Obviously, there's a lot of interest in how we're conducting our affairs and there's a lot of interest in us changing some of them.
We need to inject common sense into what we're doing. Specifically, on the Jacoby Committee, we have been charged with five area; legislative autonomy, Division I membership criteria, multi-division classification, championship eligibility and enhancement of Division II. These were featured subjects at the forums conducted by the Presidents Commission and have been discussed at some length. I think there's been some feeling that perhaps the Structure Committee has been asking the membership to spend more money while the Corrigan Committee has been working with cost reduction. The Jacoby Committee believes that the requirements for a membership in Division I are so basic that if an institution is
truly conducting a Division I program, it will not have to spend more money. I'm sure there will be institutions which are not in compliance with the new proposed criteria and would debate that statement. The committee believes it's fair if they are to be voting along side institutions with budgets from 10
million to 20 million dollars. They ask that they make the kind of standard commitment which is outlined, and I'll review in a moment.
We did extensive research in arriving at these proposals for new criteria and we found that
consistently, the same group of institutions failed the criteria, no matter what they were. We selected, as representative, an applicable that the university can control how it meets the areas of sports sponsorship, the award of financial aid and scheduling against Division I opponents. We did not adopt basketball attendance because that's where the university really cannot control. There's nothing you can do if
you're in a very difficult setting, competitive with professional teams or in a major media market that affect your attendance. It was interesting to us that regardless of the six, seven or eight different criteria that we examined, the same groups of institutions would fail across the board. In our opinion, after all of this work, these are standards that are representative.
I mentioned enhancement of Division II. We recommended three million dollars be allocated from the Division I's income. We believe Division II tournaments should be enhanced. Championships, eligibilityand multi-division classification. In short, the committee was opposed to multi-division, to institutions competing in divisions other than that in which they hold their basic membership. But, it does hold some options, basically, to be in a Division I championship in a sport in which you're not classified. You could appeal to the membership of Division I, which sponsors that sport, and it could vote you in.
The one remaining element in legislative autonomy is the vote on financial aid in the separate Division I, I-A and other parts of Division I. The committee recommends that one missing piece of legislative autonomy be added.
The committee recommendations for the three areas of membership in Division I are: financial aid is one and there's a separate two-page handout that lists the three criteria within the financial aid option. You could elect one of the three options. One is that you would award 50 percent of the maximum allowable financial aid in the seven sports which would be required for membership in Division I. If the Convention defeated the proposal that everyone in Division I had to sponsor seven sports, then those who would only sponsor six sports would have to meet the 60 percent of the maximum permissible financial aid.
The second way to qualify would be to award grants-in-aid totalling $250,000 in sports other than football and men's and women's basketball. You would have to have the equivalent of 19 full grants-in-aid in addition to the $250,000. Or, if it was more attractive to you and benefited your particular circumstances, you could award 25 full grant equivalencies and meet the requirement in that manner. If you didn't sponsor basketball for men or women, you would then have to go to 35 grants or $350,000.
The third criteria in sports sponsorship, as I just mentioned, you would have to sponsor seven sports if the legislation passed to be in Division I. You would have to schedule all of the contests which are required for membership to count a sport as sponsor in Division I. One-hundred percent of those contests would have to against Division I opponents and, thereafter, additional contests would have to be scheduled with 50 percent against Division I opponents. We think the scheduling criteria will be demanding and we believe the sports sponsorship will be demanding. If the financial aid is a little harder to read, I think institutions will rise up to meet that. Particularly for women's programs, that financial aid requirement is going to be a big difference. It will be something you'll see that will enhance women's programs a great deal. Our research showed a rather startling difference in the revenues going into the financial aid in the scheduling of women's programs in Division I.
I urge that you support these proposals. It will be good for all of the membership and they will tend
to divert anymore radical proposals. I look at them as reasonable compromises and I urge your support. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Tom. For those of you in the back, there are a few remaining seats left. the sellout and there are some seats if you don't mind coming forward.
No question that Tom's been involved in this cultural change more than anybody else, but, following closely behind him is President Sliger, from Florida State University. He has been involved as a member of the Presidents Commission. As well, he has been a member of the Cost Reduction Committee, so, he brings us many perspectives that I think will be very valuable. President Sliger.
Thank you. Athletic reform is not a new concept to American higher education. The problems we're facing now are much like those of a hundred years ago. Big time athletics actually began in 1880. As colleges began to pay coaches, purchase equipment and provide elaborate training to further athletes. The competition grew more and more tense and athletic departments struggled to pay the bills. As the financial demands soared, athletic programs were forced to raise money continually, leading the way to heavy involvement in increasing dependence on gate receipts from football. Because gate receipts were crucial to their financial stability, winning became good business.
As the popularity of college athletics increased, the number of questionable practices increased. Yet, it wasn't until the Chicago Tribune published that 18 football players have been killed, and over 150 seriously injured in one season, that President Teddy Roosevelt, held a White House Conference with representatives of the major athletic programs. Thus, a reform movement began. During the decades that followed, a zest for reform slowly faded. One contribution that emerged was the Foundation of the National Intercollegiate Athletics, which eventually became the NCAA. It was not until 1929, that the Carnegie
We're delighted at
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching conducted a comprehensive study of college athletics. This study addressed many of the same issues which we're discussing today, from time demands on student-athletes to financial issues faced by administrators. The Carnegie Foundation focused its attention on the recruiting process, scholarships, paid for plays subsidies and coaching practices. They called upon the NCAA as well as individual institutions to take steps to curtail or correct serious abuses.
Specifically, comments were made regarding the excessive correspondence to perspective student-athletes. The involvement of well-meaning, but over-zealous alumni, the cushy jobs saved for promising athletes and other financial incentives for athletes. Critics, even then, wondered if the monies spent on equipment, travel, complimentary passes and public relations were necessary.
Since 1929, we've come to appreciate the need for continuing reform. Not much, however, has been done to study the financial aspects of college athletes. I think we all can agree that steps must be taken to reduce the escalating costs of operating an athletic program. By now, I'm sure you're all well aware of the specific recommendations proposed by the NC!! special committee on cost reduction as well as a separate reform package developed by the Division I-! conference commissioners. While there may be some disagreements among these reports on specific recommendations, it's clear that there is an agreement on the need to cut costs. There has been a barrage of criticism from Congress, the tax-paying public and our own faculties, who think we have allowed athletics to become too important. They say we need to regain the delicate balance
between athletics and academics. If this is true, now is the time for us to make some difficult decisions. If we don't take action ourselves, as Tom has said, someone else will.
I'd like to just briefly touch on three main areas which have been targeted for reductions this year. Recruiting is one area which needs immediate attention, especially due to the sharp increase and the cost of recruiting men's football and basketball. As long as the reductions are applied equallyand fairly so that no program gets a competitive edge over another, we can ulake some progress. The proposed reductions in coaching staffs are not as easily agreed upon. But, since personnel is typically the largest expense item in an athletic budget, it is no surprise that many would like to look at reducing it. If the hiring trend continues the way it's been going the past few years, we could end up with as ~any coaches as players.
As for reducing scholarships, the membership is sharply divided. Some groups want to see a ten percent across the board reduction. Others are strongly opposed to any cuts at all, arguing that this would limit the educational opportunities for students. We all want to save money, but none wants to reduce opportunities for students. I believe we need more information and should continue discussions in this area.
At our April meeting. the President Commission adopted a resolution endorsing the concepts expressed in the report of the Division I-A conference commissioners. At that time. we requested that NCAA Executive Director. Dick Schultz. who is with us today. and his staff. work together with the various groups who have made proposals and come up with one comprehensive package for discussion at our meeting at the end of this month. Until then. we all have an obligation to take advantage of opportunities. such as this Convention, to discuss the issues and problems facing athletic administrators today. The Presidents Commission is interested in what you have to say. You do have open ears on the part of the Presidents Commission and they are looking for dialogue. So. I encourage you to talk with your presidents and with people who represent you on the Presidents Commission and other committees of the NCAA, to make your feelings and wishes known. You're the people who work in this area. Presidents don't work in this area. Alumni directors don't work in this area. We all have ideas. The only group I know that gets more advice than presidents are athletic directors. Everybody knows what they do, they think. I do encourage you to have dialogue with us and express your feelings. Thank you.
Thank you, President Sliger. It should be emphasized that the introductions to our panelists have been shortened for the purpose of allowing enough discussion time at the end. It's not to say that these people are not distinguished. We also feel that you're familiar with many of them. The next person I'm here to introduce is Karol Kahrs. Associate Director of Athletics at the University of Illinois. Karol has served as a member of the NCAA Special Committee on Cost Reductions and is responsible for the women's program at the University of Illinois.
For those of you who attended the luncheon yesterday, I feel a little bit like Larry King did with the topic that I have to talk about this morning. I find myself wishing I could have picked my own topic and own dialogue. If I had time. I might have chosen to talk about the future of the Merchant Marines this morning. Let me say this to you, that although President Sliger did not want to cut into my remarks, my remarks really reflect those of the Committee that dealt with special items on cost reduction, so please don't shoot the messenger this morning before we get through with the topics.
It's a real evitable thing that the Cost Reduction Committee grew out of a resolution that was a part of the 1989 Convention. The process has been lengthy and it's also been very thorough. Oftentimes, we lose sight of the fact that with national committees, once the dust settles and the resolutions and the legislative items are on the floor, our initial reaction is, "where in the world did that come from?" It is important to know what process took place.
We had two major charges when we started. One was to not deny access to higher education on the part of students; the other was not to significantly deter or disrupt the competitive balance of NCAA member-institutions. I'm not certain that balances ever existed in some of our divisions. When you take a look at Division I and the budgetary resources available in Division I, they span the horizon of $400,000 to 22 million budgets. I don't know how that's comparatively equitable or balanced.
We've dealt with three general areas on concentration. Those were, recruiting, competitive policies and financial aid. Before we embarked upon the task of identifying those areas pinpointed for cost reduction, resolution and legislative items, we surveyed the membership with the assistance of the NCAA staff. Upon the completion of those surveys, we spent numerous hours discussing the philosophical basis upon which we would proceed and the items which would be targeted for discussion and refinement and, ultimately, legislation. ThE areas that we dealt with, primarily, relate to the following: In the area of recruiting it's important to recognize that in dealing with the matters pertaining to recruiting and the other areas which we'll briefly highlight in a moment, that we dealt with those areas as a package. We tried to avoid the band aid approach of not dealing with one issue which would impact another. We tried to look at the whole thing and I would sa~ to you, that much, like any committee, while there might be agreement to the task and an agreement of
what needs to be outcome, there is usually not total agreement on how the outcome is pinpointed and targeted at the end. Consequently, you do have compromise involved here and we need to recognize that.
We further need to recognize that in dealing with any of these issues that compromise is part of the issue to get to reform, given the diversity of our member-institutions. We did try to look at the diversity of divisions and we did take a look at the peculiariaties and unique aspects of particular divisions in relationship to the reform measures that we've come up with.
Initially, in off-campus recruiting, it was identified that our committee, supported by virtue of inpl from the membership, off-campus recruiting by seven football coaches in Division I; only two basketball coaches at anyone time could be off the campus to recruit. That would be the case in all other sports, wil respect to recruiting, at anyone time how many coaches could be off campus. In sports that had less than I equivalency head count, in terms of financial aid, only one coach could be off campus to recruit. The idea behind this approach to contact off campus was, obviously, to reduce costs, keep coaches at home, keep student-athletes better supervised and attuned on our own campuses, and place restrictions on all sports.
Under contacts and evaluations, presently, three and three has been the contact limit--and the commit' is recommending a total of three at any site. Also, to possibly limit phone calls, so that phone calls do start initiated by an institution prior to the completion of the junior year of the perspective
student-athlete in high school. To eliminate and preclude other kinds of recruiting contact that might OCI
before the junior year.
Under the area of official visits, to reduce those visits from five to four. To reduce the number allowable visits in football from 85 to 75 and to reduce those in basketball from 18 to 15. The other restrictions that apply to other sports, generally, are inherent in the lack of budgets that they don't I
Under printed recruiting materials, briefly and simply, is to reduce those and to allow only one recruiting material or media guide per sport across the board for all sports. To limit the color of al those productions to one color and, also, to do the same with stationery. You might think that some 0: things are far removed, but as an institution that has just changed from an association to a division 1 past year, it was amazing to me that as we switched stationery, to be in compliance with our new title change cost us $25,000. If you look at a budget that exists, it might be only $400,000, that's an appl sum of money.
Also, to eliminate or prohibit personalized videos per prospect to have only one video per institt with no more than three-minutes per segment per sport so that might be simplified across the board. It certainly no personalized approach to recruiting. Also, to establish early signing in all sports which occurred through the National Letter of Intent, with the exception of the fall sports, which include foc
volleyball and men's and women's soccer.
Under competitive policies, those might be summarized with the intent to try to apply the principles of competitive equity. With the establishment of coaching limitations in all sports, it was mentioned that personnel is our highest cost factor, and that truly is a case-in-point. We also established September 15 as starting date for all sports with the exception of football, so that might reduce the cost of bringing teams and students back early. The number of practice opportunities supported by the Cost Reduction Committee at this point is 21. Other numbers have been presented by other groups, with the exception of football and basketball, which are slated right now at 29.
On the provision of departing for a competitive event, to shorten that time frame from 48-hours to 36-hours, which is a reduction of 12 hours on each end of the trip. To potentially eliminate athletic training table benefits.
Under financial aid, this Committee has supported collectively the 10 percent reduction across the board in all financial aid. That may not seem like a major thing for many people except in principle. If you don't have a full compliment of aid, it's tough to lose 10 percent. By the same token, a couple of other
limitations that I could identify and summarize, other than staff limitations, relate to competitive contest opportunities which are sport-by-sport. I would like to close by saying that the Committee is truly interested in having input before getting to the floor in Convention if you have serious concerns or recommendations pertinent to the activities of the Committee. What we don't want to see happen as a committee and as an association is to nit-pick at the fine details because we know that we don't all agree on the fine details. That is evident at every national convention you go to. If you do have concerns and input,
please supply it to someone on the committee or to myself before I leave. We will meet again on July 12
to fine tune our proposals and to try to mesh gears with all of the other committees that have dealt with reform.
The intent of all committees is to protect the integrity of sport. We'd like to be able to do that on a sport-by-sport basis as opposed to applying a broad-brush rule to everything that doesn't really fit. We want to recognize, also, that cost reduction may slow the growth of intercollegiate athletics in their cost, and that reform revisited on a sport-by-sport basis probably will insure better integrity of all of our sports.
At this time, that is all I have to conclude with. I will enjoy the opportunity to respond to questions when that's appropriate. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Karol. Good job. Now the puzzle is beginning to fit together here. There's yet a fourth element that has been involved in this reform issue and that is the Conference of Conferences. To talk about that is John Swofford, the director of athletics at the University of North Carolina. He is one of my top ten really terrific people.
Thank you, Phyllis. Obviously, I'm not one of those wild and crazy commissioners, but I was asked to talk about the Conference of Conferences because Tom Hansen was talking about structure in the overall view that he gave to you. I want to highlight what is in Draft #5 that each of you have. The Conference on Conferences really began at the conference level. As a number of conferences were talking about the reform movement and in some places, it was being called an "idea of looking at a new model in intercollegiate athletics" and how that model needed to be changed. From the conference discussions within several
conferences evolved the Conference of Conferences. The commissioners took the lead on this. There was an initial meeting in March in Chicago for two days. It involved the commissioner, one athletic director and one faculty representative from the major conferences and the independents. Out of that two-day discussion came the recomnlendations that you have before you in Draft #5 of the Conference of Conferences.
The commissioners will have further discussion and possibly further refinement during the last week of this month. Decisions will then be made regarding what specific legislative proposals will be forwarded to
the NCAA before July 1. It is my understanding that several of the commissioners involved with the Conference of Conferences will be meeting. Dr. Sliger will be meeting with the Presidents Commission forwarding this information to them. It is my understanding that these proposals will be put forward in some legislative
form, whether it's through the Presidents Commission or whether it's through the sponsorship of eight or more institutions. What you have in front of you, in some form, will be moved forward for legislative proposals to be voted on in January.
There are basically four categories that the Conference of Conferences dealt with. Those are,
academics, cost reduction, student life and time demands and recruiting. Beginning with academics, as you can see, I would highlight that by calling your attention to the new initial eligibility proposal, which has an
indexing table to determine a high school qualifier. The table increases basic requirements. It increases a number of courses required and allows flexibility in the high school grade point average/test score combination. The effective date would be August, 1995. Student-athletes who do not meet the current 14.31 requirements could qualify by using the above table immediately.
Secondly, is the satisfactory academic progress where there's a qualitative grade point requirement. This has been voted on several times in recent years and narrowly defeated, and that will, again, be somethin to be voted on. In addition, there would be a degree requirement check establishing a standard requiring eac student-athlete, as a condition of eligibility for competition, to have successfully completed 50 percent of his or her course requirements for a specific degree at the beginning of the student-athletes fourth year of college attendance. Obviously, that's saying that not being in a situation where our student-athletes are majoring in eligibility.
I won't get into a great deal of cost reduction. Karol has covered that very well. In essence, the Conference of Conferences adopted what the Corrigan Committee has put forward. I don't think you'll find a great deal of difference in that. There are a lot of different feelings on scholarships. If those should be cut as a cost reduction, it should be the last area to be cut because of the impact on our student-athletes. But, there are changes there, both in football and basketball, as well as all equivilency sports, recommend~ a 10 percent cut across the board. There was sentiment expressed that once the limitations had been reached, an initial limit only, without an overall cap, should be considered in the sports of football and basketball.
Next, are the student life and time demands. The feeling being that the institution and all of us involved in intercollegiate athletics should be doing what we can to attempt to make a student-athlete's life more like that of a normal student. We know that that's not lOO percent possible, but the idea is to bring i as close to that as we can by allowing for what is necessary to compete at the higher levels of intercollegiate athletic competition. There's a prohibition against athletic dormitories or blocks within dormitories for student-athletes. There's a feeling that training tables should be provided only during the 22-week competitive season. In addition to the 22-week playing season, you extend that to where we're lookin at a 20-hour per week maximum commitment required by the coach for the student-athlete's sport. No more than four hours per day with the required one day off from all athletically related activities per week. In other words, for one day a week, the student-athlete would not be required by his or her coach to be involved in hi or her sport.
We move on to the maximum number of contests or dates of competition that should be reduced. Those are listed by sport. Maybe, not unlike some things you've seen before, but there's a reduction in each of the non-revenue sports on a per sport basis, both for the traditional and non-traditional seasons. It has been recommended that in the sport of basketball, the following adjustments should be made; practice beginning
on November 1, playing 28 games and, as exemptions, allowing one on-campus contest against a foreign team or ABA-USA club team, one contest at the University of Hawaii and contests in one post-season tournament.
The idea being that, obviously, Hawaii is a different situation in Division I and needs that kind of help in order to attract games and; number two, that the contest against a foreign team is financially important and does not take our athletes off campus and out of class. It's something that you can do on your own campus.
In the sport of golf, no practice rounds would be permitted in conjunction with competition except for conference or NCAA championships, which would be quite a change. Again, it would aim to keep athletes in
In the non-traditional segment, required practice and other athletically related activities would be limited to a maximum of eight hours per week during the off-season.
Spring football practice was not altered other than to reconfirm what was passed at the 1990 NCAA Convention, which was 15 practice sessions with no more than 10 to involve contact within a period of 21 consecutive calendar days.
Academic counselling should be available to all sports, not just revenue producing sports. Exit interviews would be required so that all of us as administrators would have the opportunity to sit down and truly hear what a student-athlete leaving our programs has to say about his or her experience. The adoption of a student-athlete code would be authorized and sent to the Presidents Commission and Counsel for consideration.
In recruiting, during the contact period, limit the number of in-person off-campus visits to two at the prospects educational institution and two contacts away from the prospects educational institution.
An idea that arose, which I think was rather novel, was the establishment of a sub-committee to study the concept of a NCAA funded and administered summer basketball evaluation camp. There's a great deal of
concern in our profession about some of the things that go on during the summer with various types of camps
and the involvement of people that should not be involved in the recruitment of basketball players. The NCAA would actually control the summer camp situation for basketball. A national recruiting code of ethics should be adopted and that's one of those things that you wonder why we haven't done a long time ago. The idea of a national certification of coaches to recruit off campus. In other words, if you hire a new coach or a coach comes to you from another institution, before he could actually recruit off campus, there would be some type of certification process administered. The idea there is to accentuate the importance of the NCAA rules and this would be a refresher.
Recruiting calendars should be reduced. The calendar for contacts and evaluations should be a three-month time period. Rather than dictate what that three-month time period should be, the NCAA Recruiting Committee and the respective coaches' associations will be asked to recommend specific dates as to which three months should be allowed.
Telephone calls is an area with feedback from various student-athletes, from committees and exit interviews, etc. It's become very obvious, from the student-athletes, that telephone calls to them during the recruiting process is a major problem. It is also an expense. This calls for no telephone calls to prospects, parents or legal guardians from institutional staff members prior to August 1 following the prospect's junior year in high school. It gets more specific, but you can read that.
Reduce the number of visits from 85 to 70 in football, and 18 to 15 in basketball. Hopefully, this will reduce some of the pressure and craziness that go along with that national signing date period.
Lastly, to investigate with the NBA and NFL Players Association the possibility of contacting three professional teams to ascertain market value of student-athletes without jeopardizing the student-athlete's eligibility. That is something we're all struggling with right now as to what is the legal and right from a moral standpoint, with our student-athletes, who might have that opportunity and how they can find
that out. There's a draft of the student-athlete code that would be adopted on the back of the handout.
We want to establish some ground rules about the dialogue that we're going to have. First of all, we ask that you use the microphone in the middle of the room. Dick Schultz does not have prepared remarks for us. We've asked him to join us today as a resource.
Donald Combs, Eastern Kentucky. My question is in track and swimming. We've put our people together because they sometimes work out in the morning. We find it difficult for them to find work out period if you have kids coming in all hours of the day or night. We don't have athletic dorms. But, we put our kids together in a floor segment. Is this really a valuable thing to have? We also put our football and basketball together because they are there before the other students come in. Basketball's there through Christmas. If we don't, we have to keep every door open on campus to supply these people or move them into someone else's room in another dorm. We find that a little difficult to do.
Don, I don't think anyone has addressed the time away from the regular academic period. It seems to me that when schools not in session and your dorms are generally closed, you'd have to bring them together. You wouldn't be required to keep them spread.
I would like Dick to come up and tell us where he sees the coordination of this coming and where he sees the status of these various proposals now.
First of all, you have to remember that there's a lot of things on the table right now. You've got two or three major committees that are coming in with legislation. Two of those committees were scheduled to come in in 1990, but because of the complexity of the problems, cost reduction and structure, they asked for more time. In addition to that, you have the Presidents Commission thrust on time demands. Part of which was dealt with last year and then the resolution that called for the membership to come back for the '91 Convention, taking a look at other areas. There's a lot out there.
You have something going for you this year that's a real plus. That's a new legislative calendar. In the past, imagine what it would be like with all the issues that are out there and all of the discussion that's going on on all of those issues, if you really didn't see the legislation published until November. Then, you'd have a Convention 30-days later. You're going to see the basic legislation shortly after July I. You have sessions like this that are in place, simply because of the fact that the legislation is so much farther ahead, that gives you the opportunity to have the discussion.
I've talked to all of the committees involved. I think it's really important that you not take an adversarial position with the committees because they've really worked hard and they're your representatives. They represent every segment in this room. Take a position that you want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. If you have concerns, express your concerns, but at the same time, it's helpful if you've got an alternative approach that might accomplish the same thing. Let's not make them gender issues 0] racial issues or divisional issues. Take it from me, and you know this, there's a lot of pressure on college athletics these days. I can guarantee you that the world is sitting back looking to see if this is just another exercise that the athletic people are going through. Are they going to talk about reform for another 25-years or are they really going to do something about it. I think it's incumbent upon us to take all of these proposals, work them around and by January, have some things that we can all live with. Keep in mind that there's going to be pluses and minuses for everybody. Nobody likes change. Change is a very uncomfortable situation for anyone because you know what you have now and you don't know what you're going to have after change. Time is on our side to discuss these issues. The committees are willing to make adjustments. You have all the way through August to fine tune some of these measures. We need to have positive discussion on all of these issues so that we can make some progress.
The coaches have been very responsive. I met with a number of coaches' associations. They've taken a look at the recruiting issues and they've come back with some counter proposals that really make a lot of sense, both on the time issues with individual sports, with scholarships and recruiting legislation. It's incumbent on us as athletic administrators to do the same thing. Share your thoughts with these people. Question them and question them hard. I've been spending about half by time since January in Washington, D.( and with various state legislatures. There's all kinds of legislation out there both national and at the state level that is going to try to do our business for us. So, we do need to be pro active. We do need to be positive about it, but we do need to know where we're going. We don't want to throw the baby out with thj bath water. We want to make sure that the changes are good changes that will accomplish what we want to accomplish.
Keep in mind that we use this business of competitive balance in a level playing field. That's worn out. You know and and I know there isn't such a thing as a level playing field. There never has been and there never will be. But, we keep trying to legislate a level playing field and that really creates all kim of problems. Let's do what's best for intercollegiate athletics for the young people that we're working witl and for our coaches in the programs, so that five or s1x-years from now, we can look back and say what we dic was really the right thing and intercollegiate athletics today is where it should be because of our efforts.
Jack Lengyel, from the U.S. Naval Academy. I appreciate what you're saying. I would urge all of the participants; the commissioners, the NCAA, the Presidents Commission, etc., that while we are going through this reform position, there are a lot of good things about college athletics. If we come out with just the reports that say, these are the reforms that we're going to do, we labeling ourselves and putting ourselves back into a position where we are now created by a perception that athletics as a whole is bad. We do a gr, disservice to college athletics by not talking about the positive things we're doing and here are some negative things that we're trying to correct to make it a good balanced program. I would urge all of the particular commissions as they go out and send that information forth, to put some positive aspects in it w some reform aspects so that we have a balanced approach to college athletics.
MIKE MC GEE:
Mike McGee, from USC. I'd like to commend the Conference for Commissioners for what is very thorough and, I think, thoughtful presentation. It certainly covers the full range of possibilities. There are some of us, however, that would like to see some of this phased in that the agenda, with the exception of cutting back opportunities for young people such as scholarships, would be implemented and once we've had an opportunity to see the results and the impact on, indeed, the budget reduction resulting from that, then and only then, deal with the issue of cuts for scholarship and putting it on, as it were, the backs of our produl and our most important product, that being the young people.
I know there was some discussion on phasing. Could you give us some of the benefits of that discussion and where you or the conference looks at the possibility of using the scholarship reductions as a last resort?
Mike, I think you've said it pretty well. I agree with what you're saying. There's a growing consensus that, indeed, there ought to be cuts in all other areas first. I've talked to quite a few of the directors here and during the year about this and, unfortunately, it comes down that the greatest reductions you can
make are in the areas of personnel. If you have fewer coaches, you have fewer expenses. I've been told that recruiting costs are insignificant along side personnel costs. This is for you people who have to pay the bills and who have to generate the money to pay the bills to tell the NCAA Convention when the time comes to vote on this. In many cases, yes, we can make reductions in scholarships last.
In other proposals, there are cases where it takes three or four years to phase them in because you have to give institutions opportunities to meet these different new standards. So, it would be several years
before many of the proposals from of all these groups here are fully in affect. Those matters are certainly open questions.
President Sliger, I'd like to ask a question. Yesterday, in the Division I-A meetings, one of the
issues raised was continued dialogue between the athletic directors and the Presidents Commission. There have been some difficulties perceived by the athletic directors that they were not receiving adequate input to the Presidents Commission. You had an excellent response. Would you like to share with the group what that was?
If it was excellent, I don't remember what it was. I think you're going to find a different attitude this year than in the past with regard to input from you. When we came out of last year's session, even though there were comments to the effect that this was the Presidents meeting, everyone of us was aware that we did not have enough input from the constituent groups. We agreed that there would be more input and in a more direct way. All of you will find that you will receive a very warm reception. The Cost Reduction Committee has heard all kinds of input.
The swimmers, I found, are the most articulate. They are better letter writers than any other group. I don't know if they're smarter or they have more time or they can write under water, or whatever it is. I've had more letters from swimming coaches than from swimmers. It has a good impact on us. I do encourage you to get with your presidents and members of the cost cutting committee.
I think everybody is sensitive to phasing and to cost reduction. On the Cost Reduction Committee, we talked about the special convention that was held in 1975 oriented to reduction. In August of that year, major cuts were made across the board. We re-instituted all of those things in January. I don't think
anybody wants to go through that again. By the same token, it's important that the impleDlentation date of the package of reform is not so immediate that there's not time to preserve the integrity of the sport programs involved. I'm hopeful that the implementation date as it relates to the reform package will be far enough out to do that.
I'd like to respond to Donald Combs in the question on the athletic dorm. That was discussed
extensively by our committee. I don't think the intent was to preclude at all what you described. The intent was to preclude and prohibit athletic dorms which would deny access by normal students or regular students on the campus and to integrate the athlete into full campus life. It's perceived by many that athletic dorms offer extra benefits beyond that which the average student has availability of. That was the intent to reduce and eliminate those opportunities, not to do what you've indicated and asked.
Doug Dickey, University of Tennessee. We've been told not to be adversarial or to nit-pick. Those
might be my two specialities. As an athletic director, you find yourself in that position constantly and it is necessary to take those positions. A lot of little things have come up here have been discussed by
numerous groups to this point. The nit-picking, for instance, physical rehabilitation as part of the time demand. As Draft Two went by, it was suggested that not be included by a number of people. It seemed an unreasonable part of student time demand to have physical rehabilitation. I'm hoping that you're listening to nit-picking. There are a lot of us who have nit-picked at this by little details that we think
are out of line. The other point would be the swimming and track people are concerned about the morning workout losses of endurance participants. You have people who do work out twice a day, but in shorter peric of time. I find the people who do that are my best students. You're out of line when you say once a day people in work out sessions. I would encourage this body to be nit-picking adversaries. We know by the middle of next month, you're going to be in place. By July I, this group must have it all documented or we have no participation other to amend. People should know by October I, they may amend less restrictively whatever you've done. It's important that that process be understood and it's important that we do nit-pil it along the way between now and October.
How did the dorm issue get in here, Tom? We've had a number of people consider this to be an institutional matter. The matter of dormitories and dining halls is strictly an institutional matter that , submit those who don't have them are proposing it and those who do, aren't. The question to us is, is an institutional decision of over 30-years of doing that, be there nobody say that that was out of line within those doing it?
This week the commissioners are going to have a conference call and consider four amendments, one
of which is to permit for cross country, track and swimming, two-day workouts, as long as the four-hour total per day is not exceeded for the very points you made. So, there is some listening going on. The same would apply to swimming and gymnastics for safety sake, even on the voluntary workouts, the coach may be present in the facility with the student-athlete. We didn't feel those sports should be completely excluded from the entire matter, but obviously, there are some special considerations. And as President Sliger said, the swimming student-athletes are most articulate and persuasive. They've done a great job.
I've read submissions to the Presidents Commission from all of the coaches associations and from the committees of the NCAA in these various sports. To me, a very surprising degree, support the types of restrictions that we're talking about with some of these changes filled in.
On the athletic dorm issue, in my personal opinion, that's no more intrusion on institutional autonomy than a lot of other NCAA rules. I don't remember anyone proposing that, but I do think that the athletic dorm, unfortunately, was the target of negative publicity that has hit us over the last couple of years. Fairly, or unfairly, I think it's been there.
Ron Petro, University of Alaska/Anchorage. I have a few questions on the Conference of Conferences. You have November 1 as a starting date for practice. Has the starting date for games been changed from December 1? Secondly, the 36-hours before the contest leading to site of your institution makes it very difficult for the schools in Hawaii and Alaska. If you have a game on Saturday night, 36-hours isn't enough time to get there when you're travel from Anchorage to Denver, etc. It's not practical. I would suggest 48-hours before and 24-hours after to keep within the 72.
If this passes, for instance, the Great Alaska Shoot Out would be disbanded. Is there any sensitivity toward some type of legislation, whether it be on in eight years or l4-years, or something, which would allol us to continue both Hawaii and Alaska to have that type of exemption. I think it will also knock out the NI' at least if it's passed in this form. I will submit some suggestions for that exemption which we hope you'l: take a look at. We think the Great Alaska Shoot Out will be eliminated if this passes.
Lastly, everything deals with Division I. Have the commissioners thought about Division II. What impact these changes will make. If we eliminate many of the Division I-A institutions and they have to make a choice to go to Division II, are you recommending the same type of reductions for Division II, which we haven't seen anything discussed on.
We did consider the 48 back to 36 relevant to Hawaii and Alaska. there for that purpose to protect those two entities.
With respect to the other divisions. As I indicated. our committee approached the notion of reductionf First. with the broad-base approach and principle. Secondly. as it would relate to each of the divisions.
Given that this was a Division I meeting this morning. I did not address II and III, but certainly, the representation from those two divisions were on our committee and those divisions do have similar and/or the same kinds of reductions proposed. but not straight across the board. It's clear that what goes on in Division II in the level of support and also the level of support in Division III varies. So, what their needs are also differ. Their proposals will, in fact, be different. As you well know. there's no financial
There will be a provision waiver in
aid based on athletic ability in Division III. Obviously, they don't have a 10 percent reduction cost built into their program. They wanted some other things done. But, generally speaking, those things that would impact them from a dollar standpoint, have definitely been addressed by division. You can expect to see that in January.
I want to thank everyone for the dialogue today. As you can see, it's been stimulating. At 10:00 a.m., the next meeting will be on NCAA Division I and NAIA Institutional Controls. Thank you.