» «

NCAA Division II
College Athletics in the Year 2000/A Divisional Look at the Future
(Monday, June 19 - 11:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.)

Ed Sherlock:

Good morning. Our topic for the breakout session this morning is College Athletics in the Year 2000. It should be a Division II look at the future. I'll introduce everyone who will make a presentation, and later, we'll open the floor for questions. My name is Ed Sherlock, athletic director at the University of Pittsburgh-Johnstown. Starting to my right is Tanya Hughes, the chair of the NCAA Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, a high jumper who just returned from Sacramento and the National Track Meet where she finished eighth. Next to Tanya is another member of the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, a football player, Jason Wilkie. Then, we have, from East Texas State, a member of the Committee on Committees, a former member of the NACDA Executive Committee, Margo Harbison. To my left, is the football coach and athletic director from Millersville University and a member of the Competitive Safeguards Committee, Gene Carpenter. We also have the commissioner of the South Atlantic Conference and a Division II representative to the Restructuring Committee, as well as the chair of the Division II Commissioners, Doug Echols.

We'll begin with the students and go alphabetically after that. Our first speaker will be Tanya Hughes.

Tanya Hughes:

First of all, good morning. All of us were present moments ago, during the whole general session on Athletics in the Year 2000. I must say that I would love the idea of having student-athletes vote. I would hope, as we start putting student-athlete advisory committees on each of the campuses, that we would seriously consider what type of voice the student-athletes are going to have with our athletic directors, etc., since you're the ones who will be in charge of our destiny. You're the ones who are coming forth with legislation on things that will benefit us, or in other ways, we will not agree with you. We all need to come together and work together. Although no, we're not the ones paying the bills, we are the ones whose interests need to be looked at. We do have a lot of input that can be added to this whole process and I hope that each one of you will be sensitive to the issues that are facing student-athletes today.

We, on the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, are trying to get together and have a number that some of the committee members could call, should you have questions or to talk to those of us who are on the National Advisory Committee. Call us with questions or concerns that you might have. I hope you will all have a true voice of the student-athletes and not one that will just pacify student-athletes. Take an active role on what's going on.

I've now been a member of this committee for two years. Many of you have been in athletics a lot longer than I. I've observed, in going to conventions, and I've learned some of you may not agree, some of you may agree, some of you may want to agree but can't vocalize, but it seems to me that sports, without a doubt, sports do reflect society in many ways. Sometimes, when I'm sitting at a meeting, it feels just like the Congress trying to get something done. Are we turning into a miniature version of the U.S. Congress in getting things done and making sure the interests of the student-athletes are being served? I'd like to ask you that question. Whenever you take a piece of legislation that you want to vote on, ask yourself if this is going to cost us money. Sometimes at our meetings, we ask about the cost for our athletic directors. Rest assured, that we are moving toward the interests of student-athletes, but sometimes we do get caught up on some of the issues you might face even though we're not signing checks.

It's very important that you, as administrators, are sure to make certain that student-athletes are included in your decisions. Other issues are popping up which have to be dealt with in the NCAA, such as affirmative action programs and how are you, as athletic directors, are going to deal with these issues when they do come up. Will you talk to some of the student-athletes and find out how they feel about these issues. It's important if you want to make an informed decision to make sure that all groups that will be affected by such a decision be involved in the process. It seems that whenever more money is involved, we tend to go against those things we know as being right and those things as being pure and honest because we want to make money. I hope we don't see that thought rule the NCAA. As I said, you might see things that you don't agree with or seem too radical, but just know, that we're simply looking out for our best interest and we're not trying to be rebels. We're hoping to have a good relationship together. Thank you for your time.

Jason Wilkie:

I've been on the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee for four years and I'm now in my last term. I'm a former football player and have since taken a job as an academic advisor at Arkansas State. So, I come to you with a view from both administration and as a student-athlete. I'll try to revert back to my student-athlete opinions and views.

At the general session, I got an overwhelming view that athletics directly reflect the values that society is facing now. In sportsmanship, we as student-athletes, bring onto the field a direct result from the way we grew up and who influenced our lives. In diversity, I know you, as athletic directors, are looking for administrators, student-athletes and coaches with a certain set of values and those values are generated through what we learn in society. In gender equity, the values that we're dealing with in athletics are the same gender values that the rest of society is dealing with. Graduation rates are a direct reflection of how our student-athletes are growing up and the climates that they are growing up in.

Jesse Jackson started to touch on the role models and the importance of student-athletes as role models. In my senior year, I was privileged to be able to talk to youth groups and get involved in the community. I learned and began to appreciate the impact that I had on young people. In my first three years, I didn't realize that if a student saw me drinking a beer in a public place, that it sent a certain perception to that student. We, as administrators, should go back to our institutions and emphasize that to our student-athletes. We have a very important impact on the youth today and we can influence what happens to young people as they grow. Coaches and administrators as well, are role models, whether we like it or not, to student-athletes. As a student-athlete, I often went to my coach with things I didn't go to my father with. In a lot of cases, where student-athletes grew up in a home without a mother or father, they will share things with their coach that they wouldn't normally share with others. That relationship, as it develops, is really a role model relationship. I encourage all coaches and administrators to become good role models for their student-athletes. Family support and influence is a big factor in the values that we bring to the field, to our education and the importance we place on education as student-athletes.

I want to touch on the gender equity issue. When I first came on the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, I really didn't understand the issues we were facing in college athletics today. As I learned what the issues were and as I became more knowledgeable about the issues, I gained more of an administrator's view rather than a student-athlete's view. I encourage you to teach your student-athletes what gender equity means and here's what we're doing on our campus. Through that education, they will begin to understand the issues that you're facing and might be ready to make that change. It was valuable for me and I think it can be just as valuable for your student-athletes, as well.

Our concern, as a Student-Athlete Committee, is that we've worked very hard over the last six years to develop your respect and tried to develop our influence in the NCAA. We don't want to let that influence die. Through the restructuring, we want to be able to maintain the influence of the student-athletes in the NCAA and we want to encourage all of you to keep that in mind as you vote in upcoming conventions.

Ed Sherlock:

Our next speaker is the football coach and director of athletics at Millersville University. I selected him because I wanted somebody who would put the cards on the table. The last time I saw him was at an NCAA Compliance Seminar and he was beating the heck out of one of the NCAA reps and ended up walking out of the room. I thought, "that's my man." So, here is Gene Carpenter.

Gene Carpenter:

That's a way of putting me on the spot. There are many others in the audience who can do a better job than I can do, but I'm going to do my best. I represent the guys who have four or five years in our careers in athletic administration, maybe some have a lot less than what we anticipate. Basically, I'm a traditional type of person. My wife has always called me a chauvinist. I don't really think I am. Politically correct is a big item in America, but I think morally correct would be a better item.

This morning at breakfast, I wrote down some of the items I wanted to discuss. One of the items is the athletic mission. I was going to look for gender equity and cost containment, diversity, integrity (which, if we all had that, we wouldn't need the NCAA). I put down the bottom-up concept because Millersville University had the first chair person, Tom Burns, on the Student-Athlete Committee. I also put down sportsmanship because that will cause an impact in our society which many athletic administrators, if you're like me, find it's hard to read all of the papers that come out about what's happening in college athletics. It's going to be hard even for you to recognize college football in the fall. I think it's for the betterment of the game because it might be showmanship, but we're not in the business of entertainment. We're in the business of dealing with student-athletes and some of the things they should be doing and examples they should be setting out on the field. On that committee were two students, one from Bowling Green and the quarterback from Nebraska. They didn't agree with everything that was happening, but we didn't agree with everything they were talking about. It was a good back and forth meeting.

I also put on my list restructuring, the NCAA Manual, the NCAA being too big. I heard that next year, they will limit the people who can attend their convention. I went into the meetings today thinking that the athletic directors and presidents should be there. Maybe it should be a little bit bigger, but I don't want to get into that.

I began with Dr. Joe Crowley. I think he did an outstanding job. The changes he talked about will certainly impact our business in the year 2000. The academic reform, cost reduction, graduation rates, all of those things will be impacted. The things that the NCAA has done in the last five years will be the focus of whether we were right or wrong in the year 2000. The challenges that we must face, according to Dr. Crowley, dealt with expectations in dealing with the student-athletes. Our courts have screwed up more things than I care to mention. I always felt that insurance companies control our money and news media controls our emotions and the courts have ruined our school systems and the things that are happening in athletics. That is only my opinion.

We took the paddle out of teachers' hands 10 years ago and put pistols in the kids' hands. That wasn't mentioned today, but in loco parentis was and there's no question that your coaches today have more responsibilities as a coach than their predecessors did 10 years ago. We have to be involved in some of the things that are happening in their personal lives. A lot of student-athletes are from broken homes and coaches become like parents. Jesse Jackson said, we need more coaches, but we're taking them away. Dr. Crowley mentioned the fact that the NCAA is too big. It is too big. I thought that it was ridiculous for Millersville University to have to keep a record of our recruiting program on every kid we recruit. It's a joke. My coach will go out on the road and see 20 kids. It's tough to ask my coach to come back and document all of these kids.

Federation in Division II must continue to deregulate. We've got to get out of the business of trying to look and act like Division I. If we went through every school in Division II, I'm not sure there are any clean schools. I don't think Millersville is. I worry about this and we shouldn't have to, but we're forced to; maybe it because of a lack of integrity in the programs. I don't think this lack of integrity has been as prevalent in Division II as it has been in some others.

ADs' jobs are going to become more involved in managing change. I think we've been doing that the last several years. I have a son at West Point and when he reads the sports pages in the papers, he's always reading about lawyers, salaries and things that have nothing to do with athletics and the way we knew them to be years ago. Grant alluded to some of those things. We all have to understand what reality is in our own program. We have to work within that reality and stay focused there. As one of the students mentioned that college athletics has a strong reflection on our society. I think we're just a minuscule of that. We should measure our coaches, not only by winning, but also as role models. We have that ability to do that. If our student-athletes go to those thirsty-Thursday parties on our campuses, this reflects on those students who give money toward athletic activities for the athletic program. Even as student-athletes, they become role models.

I would also like to expand on the sportsmanship. It's great for football. I had some concerns about enthusiasm. Some of the gestures the players make on the field might go over big on television. I don't think it does. It doesn't go over well with our president at Millersville. A kid could break away for a touchdown, show that ball to the kid chasing him as he crosses the goal line. Now he takes the ball and doesn't hand it to the referee or give it to him gently, that's another 15, he's out of the game. Two unsportsmanlike penalties dismiss an athlete from a game. So, it's going to change the game a little bit, but in times where football is under such great attack, and maybe for the wrong reasons. I thought some of the things that were talked about today by the lawyers were some excellent things. They're not out to get football. I picked up listening to this discussion, that we're not getting our women to participate. I'm in support of participation. I'm not in support of taking away participation. We have some programs that have dropped football and made issues of this. It's not going to work. The only people who lost there are the schools and the athletes. It was mentioned today that only 37.9 percent of our high school athletes are women. That doesn't add up when it goes into the college level. When he talks about that three times the drop out rate from the age of 15 to 18 is hard to believe for me. That tells me that the women have three times the drop out rate as men.

I think football should still be out of the picture. What it does for our schools that have football, I can't see how any of us can be in compliance with gender equity and the Title IX rules. There are ways to approach this problem. I was very impressed with Walter Connolly this morning. Some of the material he presented should be part of our programs.

Regarding gender equity, it is here and we need to put it to work. We have to make it work. We have to provide opportunities for both men and women at our schools. As long as we make the effort to do that, we'll be in good shape.

Patty Viverito's presentation dealt with restructuring, the student-athlete and women's issues, not as much as I was hoping she would come out with. I didn't get as many comments to respond to her support. Restructuring is a key issue if it's going to bring individuality to Division II. If that happens, we'll be in excellent shape. We can set some of our own guidelines, get rid of some of this legislation that doesn't impact us the way it might impact a Division I situation. There, we run into some problems with that extra legislation.

I was impressed with Jesse Jackson, not on every issue, but on most. We should be expansive as athletic administrators. We should be all-inclusive. I think we are. The athletic field, instead of being a negative place, should be a spot where we can copy some of our social things. People who are making society decisions should look at the playing field in athletics. I have some great friends of many races. I hug my football players, no matter what color they are and I cry with them. I laugh with them and I get excited with them. I think Jesse Jackson brought that to the forefront in my mind. We, as athletic administrators, need to take a stronger stand behind the Rainbow Coalition. In building toward the year 2000, we need to do a better job in developing coaches. Millersville had two minority interns and they get paid a graduate assistant salary. Our conference limited our coaching staffs. Our presidents wrote and asked permission to count those minority interns as graduate assistants. That president's board decided that each school could have four minority interns. That's a step in the right direction. Now, some legislation came from the commissioners' office saying this might be racial inclusive. I feel that Jesse Jackson had some great ideas and I hope some others will elaborate.

Thank you.

Doug Echols:

Thank you. I appreciate having an opportunity to share with you briefly a few comments about this morning's speakers. I really believe that the future is extremely bright for Division II and that the year 2000, although not too far away, is going to hold exciting challenges and opportunities for all of us.

Some of the issues we face will fall into the category of challenges or opportunities, but many of them will fall into both of those areas and it's going to be incumbent of us to analyze and dissect each of the issues and address them through all the various forums we have in order to make sure that we're participants in this whole process of dealing with the issues which are so much in front of us. Our task right now is to provide some response to those presentations and I'll do that briefly.

Several of our speakers referred to the fact that we're going to need to try to do more with less. That refers to both people and resources. Education, of course, will continue to be valued, but with a graying of America, it's going to be important for us all to keep an eye on the number of public education bond issues and votes which fail. Along with doing more with less, it's going to be the responsibility of athletic departments to do strategic planning and have better time-management skills than perhaps we have addressed in the past. As you look at downsizing your staff as various corporations in your communities have had to do, you're going to have to be calling on that staff to do more with less, carry more responsibilities even though they're wearing numerous hats and have various duties at this point in time. I really believe that that's going to be a picture that we'll have to address. We're going to have to ask our staff to take on these various role model duties above and beyond what they've had to do in the past.

It's also going to require a real commitment from the staff. In order to do that, my suggestion would be for athletics departments to look at various kinds of consensus administrative models. You only gain commitment by involvement and the top-down military hierarchy organizational structure which so many of us are used to and which our teams are used to, is going to find itself in the forefront in regards to the future. We also need to utilize every technological advancement that we have on our campuses and whatever we can include in our athletics department, we need to do that. We need to train our people to do that because there's going to be fewer people and perhaps fewer resources.

The gender and participation equity issues which have been addressed, I think, have been properly stated. Everyone deserves access in equity and we must make any and all necessary adjustments to provide these opportunities. Walt Connolly gave us a list of how to do that on our individual campuses and we can't ignore that, we should not ignore and it would be morally wrong to ignore it. I would take issue with Patty Viverito regarding her comment regarding gender representation is necessary in order to have gender issues seriously addressed. I would say that from a male to a female and from a female to male perspective, I don't believe that you have to be female in order to give proper attention and address women's issues, nor do you have to be a male in order to do that for male issues.

Compliance administration will streamline itself, I think. Yet, if we don't embrace the technology, we're going to find ourselves with an ever increasing amount of paper flow. We must continuously hold to high academic standards under the compliance umbrella. I felt that Jesse Jackson eloquently expressed some of the ills which face us in society today, yet I thought he alluded to some flexibility standards which I'm not so certain that I could concur with. I'd much prefer Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' view that any acknowledgment of reduced standards is contrary to the advancement of African-Americans and to the correction of some of the social ills which we see today.

I really believe that the conference structure is going to be extremely important as we move forward in the next few years. It's going to be even more important as we possibly see an influx of NAIA institutions, both at the Division II and Division III levels. We may even see, in the future, new alliances and new structures, conferences getting bigger, new alliances perhaps among regional conferences to address regional issues or problems or take advantage of the collectiveness of those alliances to seek sponsorships and other kinds of support services that we may need for supporting our athletics programs. Grant Teaff referred to that when he talked about being a participant in your various associations and groups that you're involved with.

Restructuring, in my view, is going to be extremely good for Division II. I believe that we're going to be the real beneficiaries of these discussions and the model for restructuring holds some real opportunity for Division II, both from a representation and from a future involvement standpoint on committees, etc., where we had basically a reduced amount of involvement in the committee structure of the NCAA, I believe when we become more federated and restructuring comes about, there's going to be a greater responsibility and challenge for us in Division II.

I don't think that we will have the problems that Patty Viverito referred to in Division I regarding the restructuring. As I said, I believe that Division II is the real beneficiary of all of the restructuring.

The corporate world will continue to want to have a close tie with intercollegiate athletics, but it will be pressured from a lot of new groups. Our communities will begin to see that the symphony is going to seek corporate sponsorship, the local choral group is going to seek corporate sponsorship. More and more groups are going to turn to the corporate community for dollars. They only have so many dollars and that's going to impact intercollegiate athletics. We have to decide also what we're willing to give up for that kind of support. How many places can we put a logo? Joe Crowley referred to the craziness of having to decide and define all of that, but nevertheless, as we try to seek resources to do more with less, we seek resources from outside and we're going to find ourselves caught in this Catch-22, of trying to balance all of that with corporate support.

There will be a continuing uplift ration of sport on television and it will force us, particularly at the Division II level, to look at new and creative ways of gaining some market share and also continue to fight the battle of maintaining attendance. Yet, in Division II, I believe that we can hold the true purpose of athletics within the framework of higher education. Hopefully, we won't have to fight as big as battle as they do in Division I between entertainment and educational philosophical positions.

Our mind set for student-athletes has already been referred to by our Student Advisory Committee representatives and others. The expectations, I think, are going to change regarding their time and their commitment. We will have to better understand, better explain and be more knowledgeable in dealing with the changing attitude of student-athletes.

Public accountability will continue to grow beyond what we're seeing now and beyond winning or losing. We're going to have to define for the public the value added for participation in intercollegiate athletics, the resource allocations which we see, the costs which are associated with our programs, and we're going to have to do that in a results-oriented way above and beyond winning and losing. No longer can we simply say that the funds are properly being used if, in fact, we have a winning program. There will be new voices that will begin to ask questions. Our student-athlete advisory representatives mentioned that earlier. You will also see that in a greater way among your local governmental units as well as state legislative branches, etc.

I think all of these matters can be well addressed in Division II and by the Division II philosophy which we exercise on a daily basis and we must continue to hold on the good of the past and reach out aggressively, enthusiastically to participate and be a part of this change and helping to mold the future for Division II. Thank you.

Margo Harbison:

There are some things to be said about being last. You've heard everything that I've had to say, so therefore, I can just sit down. I want to thank Doug for his comments when he said, "We don't have to have men represent men. We don't have to have women represent women." I appreciate that, Doug, because I think my football coach would appreciate that comment. In our role as administrators, we certainly have to represent all of those that we serve. I'm not going to take quite the same angle as the previous speakers because they've all done a great job.

I thought about looking at the year 2000 and what Division II, from a divisional standpoint, how can I put together some thoughts on that and where do I think we're moving. Of course, we don't have tea leaves and we don't have palms to read and we don't have the writing on the wall, but based upon the information that we ourselves have gathered through the many years of experience, we do have to look back to see where we've been to get a focus on where it is we're going. As I did that, I realized that it is very difficult for me to say what's going to happen, where it's going to happen, how it's going to happen, but I certainly know why we're going to have changes by the year 2000.

Some of those changes you've heard about from the two speakers to my right, the student-athletes. They are why we have athletics in our institutions in Division II. It's for them to broaden their educational experiences. In our Division II school, I know that many of our students have never been beyond the bounds of East Texas until they board the bus or get on the plane and what an experience those young men and women have that first time. That expands their educational opportunities, opportunities that add quality to their life. I want to say to both of these young people, thank you for the comments you made because that's really why we have athletics in Division II. It's not for entertainment. It's not to make money. If any of you have those kinds of programs, I'd like to talk to you, because we're always looking for a little bit more money. We have probably the lowest budget in our whole conference.

Where are we going and how are we going to get to the year 2000? We, in Division II, as a group, need to continue to talk with one another. We have to organize ourselves better as athletic administrators so that we can talk, we can debate, we can see what some of our common goals are. We can forget about some of the other divisions. We know that there are core values that all of us have, but let's begin to zero in on what's best for us for a change.

We have big brothers and we have big sisters, but what can we do? What is out there for us? To look at this, I decided to choose an athletic continuum to get us into the year 2000. The first stage is the primary stage. That's where we are now. We will continue, on a day-to-day basis, to have challenges. Opportunities will come, however those change every day with the computers, the E-mail, the faxes, and as I thought about where we've come in the last five years, to get some perspective on where we'll be five years from now, we didn't have a fax machine in our office. I didn't know how to do E-mail. It's just amazing how our day-by-day operation with a computer and computerizing our eligibility list, computerizing our squad list and how much easier that task is becoming for us. Even though we don't have a lot of people on our staff, we do the concessions, the tickets, the clean up and mop the floor in many of our programs. There are a lot of things on a day-to-day basis that's our primary stage, that keeps us here and they are improving with technology.

The second stage that is going to lead us into the next century is how well do we prepare day by day to respond to that secondary phase. In order to look back to see where we're going, we've heard all of the speakers today, we've heard Title IX, we've heard gender equity and all of those things are things that have already been brought before this body. We've all had past experiences and we gathered information today and the third stage that we'll have to go into is how are we going to continue to respond to challenges that have been presented, as well as the new challenges and opportunities that come to us?

I've heard that football should be left out of the mix when we look at proportionality. First of all, we know that Title IX became law. We know that it was about in l979 or l980 that NAIA got together a task force and decided that they would have intercollegiate athletic opportunities for women. Some of you out there belonged to that organization at that particular time. The next year, the NCAA thought that it was now time to offer competitive sports opportunities for women. We've made a lot of strides forward since that time. We forgot about our beginning in these organizations, but we haven't forgotten yet what the result of Title IX was and that's gender equity.

Each of us on our own campuses must do our studies. What I'm doing may not be okay for you. What you're doing may not be okay for me. We attack that problem by doing a five-year strategic plan. Many of these things have been mentioned earlier. We decided that with 70/30 as our ratio on our campus, we had to gradually begin to make changes and the easiest change to make was to begin to add more women to the existing sports that we had. By adding more people to our track teams, volleyball teams and basketball teams, sometimes without the coaches really believing that they could handle additional numbers, we were able to have a six percent drop in ratio with men and a six percent increase in women. That did not decrease the number of participants. We were able to improve the ratio that we had.

The second phase of our strategic plan to show numbers, and I'm very much in favor of not taking away any opportunities that we have for males or females, was to add some sports that would allow us to, hopefully, next year move down. So, as we move into the year 2000, at my institution, we will have the ratio that we need. Where the money is coming from is another consideration that we'll talk about in just a minute.

I would like to say that I think gender equity has something to do with our attitudes. I want to give you an example of something that happened on our campus for you to think about. We had Jay Novacek from the Dallas Cowboys come onto our campus and do two weeks of football camps. He has a wonderful family, he's a great guy and he brings in a lot of the other Cowboys on Wednesdays to sign autographs and to participate. This year, for the very first time, we had a 10-year-old girl participate in our football camp. Some of the guys were not very comfortable with that and I'm not proposing that we begin to add women to all of our football teams, but the question came to Troy Aikmen, the quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys, "What do you think about women playing sports?" Troy's answer was, "When I was back in Oklahoma in high school, I had a young lady playing on the baseball team with me and she was good and I liked that." Not another question was asked about women in sports. When we talk about role models, just a word, not only the action that we have, can make a great difference in helping us to achieve some gender equity.

I'm going to leave any restructuring comments because I believe we have some sessions where we will actually be discussing that.

I want to know how we're going to respond in the secondary stage to several things. One is, after restructuring takes place, what's going to happen to us in the way of governance? I feel very strongly that knowing what I know about Division II, we're going to do something about decentralizing some of those rules and regulations which we have. How are we going to do that? I foresee, maybe not during my tenure as an athletic director, but I foresee that there's enough difference in Division II schools that we may even have a Division I and a Division II within Division II. I guess that would be II-A and II-AA or some other configuration. We've discussed this at many of our meetings in relationship to financial aid. Some schools can compete just as well with financial aid as others compete without it.

Another thing I want to know how we're going to respond, and that's to the certification program that's coming down. We've heard speakers earlier talk about certifying our coaches. We know that in our state, we have a lot of the administrators who do not want certification of coaches from the state's standpoint. We do know that we must certify our coaches within our own institutions, but I heard one of the speakers say that we have to make sure that our coaches are more than the certification that they have now. They need more training.

I heard one of the speakers talk about the number of participants that we have on our campus has increased, the number of coaches in women's sports has increased and the numbers of women administrators have increased. I looked at the number of women head coaches in Division II. We have 22 percent of all of our head coaches who are women; that leaves the other head coaches, 78 percent, being men. I looked at the NCAA and I found that overall, in all divisions, there are 24 percent women and 76 percent men coaches. When she began to talk about increases, I'm not sure how long those increases will continue. I do believe that in Division II, we're going to be faced with more part-time coaches as Division III has been for quite some time. As we talk about increasing participation, our funding may be decreasing.

Talking about funding, I believe, as I've heard several speakers here and in other arenas talk about the corporate world, it's time for us in Division II to look at a campus marketing program. We, in the Lone Star Conference, are presently doing some initial talk on total campus marketing. This means that in our suited activities, they try to get some corporate sponsorships. In our drama, music, all of the various performances, all the literature that is printed, all of us have needs on our campus and until we can look beyond athletics as a vehicle for marketing to the corporate world, until we can begin to pull together the great work that's going on in our art department, in our music department and be able to pull some funds through total campus marketing, we will continue to suffer, each of us going out our own separate ways. As this program in our own conference advances, I'll try to keep some of you updated, if you're interested in that concept. It's not a selfish concept at all, it's the concept of sharing. Once we can get some corporate sponsors for our campus, hopefully, we'll be able then to have some of the money to redistribute on our campus. Instead of paying $10,000 to print a student handbook, maybe they can get corporate sponsorship to pay for that kind of thing.

Of course, all of you know that many of our programs are run by student activity fees. I want to challenge us to look at the Division III model of endowed funds and begin to work toward that, if you already haven't done so. All of those are part of the secondary, that response period that we're all in.

The third stage is the recovery stage. We want whatever we do in our secondary stage, when all of these issues such as gender equity, restructuring, reduced cost, or whatever the issues are that come to us are complete, to make us ready so that we go through a time of quality control. We can increase numbers. We can increase competition, but is quality there? Some kind of quality control should be added to whatever programs we have. I heard some issues relative to that in the speech that Grant Teaff made, as well as the speech that Jesse Jackson made. It's not that bigger is always better. I'm in Texas and I'm saying that because, as you know, bigger is better only if you're in Texas. Thank you.

Ed Sherlock:

I'd like to thank Margo, Doug, Gene, Jason. Tanya had to leave because she had a plane to catch. Do we have any questions from the floor? If not, thank you for attending.