NCAA Division I Breakout
The New Structure of College Athletics
(Tuesday, June 11, 9:30 - 10:45 a.m.)
This is a breakout session on the "New Structure of College Athletics in Division I." We've just heard a complete overview from our executive director relative to the new structure cutting across all three divisions. This morning, we're going to concentrate on what has been taking place in Division I. The format for this session will be as follows: Steve Morgan, the chief of staff of Division I, will give an overview of what has taken place thus far in Division I. We will then have panel members who are members of the Division I Management Team, Jim Jarrett, the athletic director at Old Dominion; Bill Carr, the athletic director at the University of Houston; and Wright Waters, the commissioner of the Southern Conference. Of course, I'm Jim Frank, the commissioner of the Southwestern Conference.
As I've just stated, Steve Morgan will give a complete overview. The other panel members will not be making presentations, but will be available to answer any questions you might have. We're all members of some of the subcommittees that have been created under the Division I Management Council.
Thank you Jim. Good morning everybody. I do think most of you were in here during Ced Dempsey's remarks. You've heard some of what I was going to provide to you in the way of background in Division I. What we want to do this morning is to provide you an opportunity to talk about points of interest to you in Division I's restructuring and, hopefully, get into a dialogue where we can talk some things through. I'll give you a quick snapshot, particularly, for those of you who may not have been in here during the last presentation, to make sure you know where we are. In addition to the panelists we have up here, I think we have in attendance a few others on the transition team in Division I. If any of you feel motivated to contribute from the floor, obviously, we'd be glad to have that as well.
What has happened since the convention in Division I, as you heard this morning, is that one of the recommendations of the Division I Task Force that really put in motion almost everything that has happened in restructuring over the last year, was that for transition planning, if the legislation was adopted, the best way to go at it in Division I was to set up a mock up of the newly approved governance structure. That is, to go ahead and have the conferences fulfill their roles and select a Board of Directors and select the Management Council that could really do the planning. Those would not yet be official bodies, but they would have the same representative structure that the new structure will have when it is official, and therefore, it would be a good body to make some decisions and recommendations to you, as the members, as to how we should go further to flush this whole restructuring exercise.
We got through the convention as noted with an overwhelming better than 90 percent majority support. We can all speculate whether that support came from everybody thinking this was the greatest thing that ever happened or, a resignation that this was going to happen whether they voted for it or not. Whatever happened, we ended up with an overwhelming majority support for a new structure. Obviously, that meant we needed to do the rest of the detailed planning and get after it as quickly as we could.
Immediately upon adjournment of the convention, we solicited from the conferences their selections into this new structure. As was noted to you earlier this morning, remember that last year, there was considerable debate among the membership, but also, at the Council and at the Presidents Commission level, about how to assure and adequately body and yet preserve conference opportunities in this new structure. Clearly, we're moving to a representative structure, away from one-institution, one-vote, and that representative structure was based on permitting each voting conference to have a representative in the governance structure. If you're going to have a representative, you want it to be someone you can select, and therefore, have confidence for being your representative in this structure. That was being weighted against the commitment by the presidents and others to assure that, particularly, those groups that had been traditionally under represented in the governance structure, women, ethic minorities, would be assured adequate positions in this new structure. And, to assure that by position, athletic directors, faculty representatives, were provided an opportunity to participate in this structure in good numbers. Solicitation went out in encumbered by any of that for conferences to make their selections, but asking each of them to pay particular attention to diversity and reminding each of the conferences that diversity plans for each conference are required by the new legislation. With that background, selections were made by March 1. We had selections from all of the conferences, but we didn't have a very diverse Board of Directors. In fact, that Board included no women. There were those who thought that zero women were not enough women to be adequately representative of women's issues. That's a fairly obvious concern. We lost some time in trying to find a way to go back, and dealing with a population of presidents in Division I that includes very few women, particularly at the I-A level, trying to solicit some conferences to reconsider selections and put forward women. As many of you know by now, what basically happened was that among the eight conferences that have the ability to name somebody to the board and two people to the Management Council, the Western Athletic Conference made a decision to change and to send forward a woman president to represent it. We also have a woman in the discussions from the Mid-American Conference. We do have female representation at this point. That allowed us to move forward and look at the Board.
The Board was more diverse as initially submitted, but some changes were sought there too. Particularly, among the I-A conferences with the three seats, one at the Board and two at the Management Council level, to encourage them to have some diversity among their selections to help enhance the group overall.
Now, what the Board approved and what is now working as your Management Council Transition Team is a diverse body. That includes 10 women, six ethnic minorities. As noted this morning, it includes better than half athletic directors. The women are representative of all of the various categories of representation. We have women who are directors of athletics, women who are conference commissioners, women who are faculty representatives and who are senior women administrators. It's a very diverse group of women in addition to contributing to the diversity of the panel.
We don't have as much detail as we stand here this morning as we had hoped when we talked with the NACDA Executive Committee in late January about putting together this panel. We had hoped, at this time, to have more details to give to you. What we have instead is a giant work in progress that's going to come to a significant head tomorrow and Thursday at meetings here in Marco when the Management Council assembles.
One of the first things the Management Transition Council did, after being charged by the Board, to treat the transition issues and make solid recommendations, was to attempt to set some priorities. That is, distinguish among those things that require 1997 convention legislation when we're still together, one-institution, one-vote, to distinguish those things from the things that are more long-range in planning, more process in nature, things that'll have to be continued to be developed and evolve over the next several years.
Having made those distinctions, having broken into subcommittees to deal with substructure issues, what the committee and cabinet structure would look like, financial issues, how budgets can be planned in Division I, diversity to assure sub-diversity of representation and a committee to look at the legislative process to see how it might actually run before we actually had to start using it to develop the legislation of the division. All of those subcommittees have been working independently. They've all met and they'll all have recommendations when we get together tomorrow afternoon and Thursday that will help move us toward what legislation is necessary for sponsorship this year.
Remember, the critical dates and the time line for this year for legislation are, of course, that convention legislation sponsored by the membership has to be submitted by July 15. Obviously, you need to be in touch with your conference representatives in this structure, make sure you know what's coming through the structure so that if you want to recommend something different from your conference, you have a chance to do that by July 1.
The other deadline that is critical is September 1, because that is the deadline by which legislation has to be sponsored by the Presidents Commission or Council. That's who the Management Council is making its recommendations to. That deadline follows a meeting of the Presidents Commission later this month and the meeting of the Council early in August. Those two meetings are critical to the Management Council's recommendations to determine what will be sponsored as legislation. So, this week's meeting will try to produce recommendations to go to the Presidents Commission when it meets later this month, and then on to the Council when it meets in August. That's why there is some urgency to get this stuff done.
As we've shared materials with conference offices and with your representatives, nobody has to wait until these recommendations are final to know what's going on. There are opportunities to be involved throughout the development of this stuff so that you can have a sense of participation and in knowing what's going forward.
Remember also, the Division I Task Force went a good deal further than Division II and III's groups did last year in making recommendations, so there is a clear agenda and some concepts that were developed by the Task Force that the Management Council is charged with bringing to a head, developing it into final forms so we can get some legislation concerned and get on with the planning. That's probably more than you really wanted to know about that, but I felt we needed to get a scene set as to how we got where we are and what lies ahead. With that, I would like to stop with the background information and figure out how best we can help you understand where this process is now and respond to your concerns or comments.
As I stated, Steve has given some background information. You have received it from Ced Dempsey this morning and, as he stated, we don't have anything specific, but I think you have enough information to ask any questions of any member of the panel and we'll try to respond appropriately.
The only question I have is in the restructuring. We've discussed it before, but I'd be curious to see where our progress is at this particular point. In the federated process, Navy and Army is not represented, or our presidents do not have an opportunity to be represented on the Board of Presidents and we do not have an opportunity to be represented on the Management Council simply because we're independent institutions. At one time, the independents did have a position and it's been taken out. I understand the process and the conferences, etc., but what other thought process has been put into to allow Army and Navy to have some representation or an opportunity, at some point, to be selected for representation on the Board of Presidents or the Management Council?
Actually, Army and Navy do have a chance right now, with no changes in the structure, to be represented because they are both members of the Patriot League, so their president or Jack or other officials at the Academy, could serve as the Patriot representative in the structure. What Jack has been particularly concerned about as we've talked through this is how do they, as I-A football playing institutions, get their views known in that regard as opposed to just participating in the structure with their multi sport conference which, in this case, is the Patriot League. They're not alone. East Carolina in the Colonial Athletic Association also is a I-A football institution not in a I-A conference and there are others.
At this point, what the legislation calls for is that those I-A independents who, for their football issues, would have a conference designated by the Board of Directors to communicate with them and to hear from them on football issues. But, for all other issues, their access is through their multi sports conference. That's the way the legislation is working at this point.
From the Floor:
Would the same be set up for the Division
Legislatively, that's a protection for the I-AA football schools who play football in a conference other than their multi sports conference. There is a special subcommittee of this Council looking at those issues that Wright Waters chairs.
The problem in I-AA is, for the sake of reference here, there are groups that we'll call franchise conferences. They're the total sport I-AA conferences that are mentioned in the legislation that either have a vote on the Management Council or the Board of Directors. We also have several conferences that play football only that are not members. For the sake of reference, again, disenfranchised conferences. There are a number of I-AA independents in there. What we're struggling with is really two questions. Number one, how do we accommodate the disenfranchised conferences and get their votes, which in number, is about 39 of 120 schools. So, it's a significant number of schools that are disenfranchised.
The other thing we're struggling within I-AA is set up where each year, we have three representatives on the Board of Directors and, consequently, those three conferences don't have representation at the same on the Management Council. In this first rotation, the Big Sky, the Metro Atlantic Conferences have votes on the Board, but there would be discussions on the Management Council where their representatives wouldn't be there. So, we're struggling how to do that and we don't have an answer. We've met on it a couple of times. We don't have a clue. We're all over the board on how to do it. The easy answer would be to just give everybody another vote, but I'm not sure that would work. We're struggling with this and if anybody has an answer, we'd be delighted to listen.
I've introduced everybody on the panel except the best looking person up here and I didn't mean to overlook Jackie Hudson, who is Steve Morgan's assistant. She's working with the Management Council. Let me take a few minutes to be a little more specific in terms of the Cabinet structure in Division I. The Cabinet structure is broken down into four different categories. You have the academic eligibility and compliance group. You have the championships competition, strategic planning and business and finance. What has been created has been a subcommittee on the committee structure. One of the things this committee has done and will be making recommendations to the full Management Council, was to look at all of the different committees in the association. We've attempted to put all of those committees under one of the Cabinet structures that we have here. Perhaps some of you have received the survey, particularly if you're serving on some of these committees and if you are chaired, to determine which committees would remain as association wide committees and those that would be put under one of the Cabinet areas.
We've gone through this process. We've put together a rationale and, as I've stated before, we will be making recommendations to the full Management Council. For example, one of the Cabinet positions is the championships and competition and some of the committees under that category would be the Special Events Committee, all championship functions, all of your sports committees, etc. Whether they remain intact as a committee will have to be determined later. Certainly, the functions of some of those committees will be assumed under the new Cabinet structure. I wanted to give you a better idea of what we're looking at in terms of all of the committees within the NCAA.
Other comments or questions.
I have one for Steve and this is just for a point of clarification. As we know, we're all Division I and the only sport where we are actually subdivided is in football. The question has been raised that if no additional legislation is presented and passed in 1997, does the situation and guarantees as are currently standing, protect Division I in terms of not permitting the subdivision of any other championship other than football?
The answer to that, in my view, is that there is no opportunity to create subdivision championships outside of the sport of football. Football is the only sport for which there is subdivision autonomy legislatively. I've heard comments about possibilities of creating subdivision championships in other sports, but I think that runs counter to the constitutional guarantee of championships access. In other words, subdividing a championship and then providing access through that subdivision championship doesn't really seem to be access to the national championship that was guaranteed. For example, in basketball, clearly one of the primary drivers in the Division I Task Force in creating the constitutional guarantee for championships access. Just to make sure what we're talking about, there is now in Article IV of the Constitution for Division I when the new structure becomes effective, a guarantee that championships access, at least at the level that existed at the time of this legislation in January 1996, be continued in all Division I sports. That would require a two-thirds vote of the Division I membership to change as opposed to a change within the governance structure. So, that was seen as an important protection particularly in the Task Force discussions by the I-AA and the I-AAA interests to make sure Division I didn't take its new found majority on the board and on the council to somehow change championships access in a way that would make it more difficult for I-AA and I-AAA participation. If you take that as important and the guarantee that the Division I Men's Basketball Championship as perhaps the most important in that access guarantees, it seems to me that to attempt now, through division action to create a subdivision championship in a sport would be counter to that guarantee. It would tend to dilute the access to the current championship and access is also defined as an opportunity for success and, therefore, access to monies pulling through that championship in that, in those formulas which were also guaranteed to continue for revenue distribution in Division I.
Again, you're saying, I think. It seems like rather than a statement, it is. Would it be possible to get an official interpretation that does say what you're saying as opposed to you're simply being able to position yourself I think or it seems?
I suppose that it would. The only reason I'm saying it seems or, it appears, is that, technically, the Division I legislative structure can adopt legislation beginning after this date. If somehow, there was a way envisioned by that group to create some subdivision championships that did not delude the access to the standing Division I championship as it existed at the time of the legislative adoption, I think that authority would be there. As I'm sitting here, that's a difficult concept to envision, how that could occur. I don't know what the interest is that's prompting this. Whether it's a concern about the validity of the guarantee or, whether it's a sincere desire on the part of somebody to look at another kind of championship opportunity in Division I. Whether you want to lock down an interpretation that you can't do it may depend upon which way you're looking at it.
It's my understanding from most people who are discussing it, it's from the validity of the guarantee.
I think that everybody, there's an I think in there again. It appeared to me during the Task Force discussions that the guarantee was intended to protect the current championships, the current championships opportunities and that those would not be supplanted by some kind of subdivision championships. Part of what we're struggling with, in all of this structure, is trust. All the subdivisions of one another, I-AA and I-AAA, are, for the first time, going to be in a position where majority votes in the governance structure rest with I-A. So, it's important that you be confident that you're protected in that environment. Also remember a key protection in this is that notorious 5/8 majority has so much historical significance. Actually, I've never heard of a 5/8 majority outside of the NCAA, but we now have a 5/8 majority and that was the product of compromise because, in truth, Division I-AA and I-AAA voting as a block are more than 5/8 of the membership of Division I, therefore, even though you've got a I-A majority in the governance structure, you have a protection for I-AA and I-AAA. I'm sure that's not been lost on anybody. That's how that number got arrived at.
Back to your question, if you think it enhances the comfort level of I-AA and I-AAA to specifically state that outside of the sport of football, there is no ability to create a subdivision championship, we can put that on the agenda of the Management Council for this meeting later this week and I suspect that is where it would come out.
I would recommend that. I think it would be the issue to closure.
I have a question about the committee structure and what the process will be about whether or not a committee would be federated or will be divisional and how important were the surveys and how that will affect the decisions that are made about the committee?
I'll respond initially and Steve may want to add something. When I was talking about the committee structure, one of the things I left out was that those committees that will be designated as association wide will report directly to the Management Council. As I mentioned earlier, many of the committees will be in one of the four Cabinet positions. Those that are designated as association wide, such as Infractions Committees, Athletics Certification, Postgraduate Committee, they will report directly to the Management Council. In terms of your question, each committee that is put under a particular Cabinet position, will report directly to that Cabinet. Again, Academics and Compliance, Championships, Competition, Strategic Planning and Business and Finance and the committees that are put under them will report directly. Basically, it is federated within Division I.
Steve, do you want to add to that?
Barbara, just specifically to those surveys, they were actually conducted by the Oversight Committee, that continues to exist, chaired by Joe Crowley. This committee looks at the work of all three division transition teams. That Oversight Committee was hearing, kind of on a rifle shot basis, from some committees that they thought it was important to remain association wide when the new structure came on line. The Oversight Committee decided to survey all standing committees to make sure they had some input before it then began a process of looking at what it recommended for all committees.
What it found was that all but two of the standing committees recommended they remain association wide. Not too surprising in the view of the Oversight Committee that there was a view among committees in responding to the survey, it appeared there was a heightened stature to remain association wide. I think the Oversight Committee was concerned a little bit too about the preservation of the status quo. Clearly in Division I, this is a new day in terms of its approach to governing itself and continuing the committees as they are was not thought by the subcommittee of the Management Council to be the primary focus. That was also not the view of the Oversight Committee. So, what the Oversight Committee did, basically, in looking at those recommendations, was consider them individually, but stay with only 10 committees and the Sports Rules Committees as a group that would continue to have association wide responsibility and, essentially, report to the Executive Committee.
This involves a little detail about the new structure. I'll try to make this clean. In the new structure, the new Executive Committee has no legislative power. All of the legislative power rests in the three divisions. So, in order for a committee, association wide or otherwise, to influence the legislation of the association, it has to go back into the governance structure in each of the divisions or, at least, the division about which it cares about the rules. The Oversight Committee, in looking at it, said it doesn't make a lot of sense except in committees that speak to broad policy issues to have them be association wide. They really ought to be specific to their divisions and then there is no barrier to keep those committees from different divisions that may have an interest in coming together to talk about common topics. There's nothing to keep them from doing that, but because of the way this all feeds into the legislative process, there ought to be separate federated committees.
The Division I group's action clearly supports that. It's driven to a Division I specific structure and involving Division I people talking about Division I issues, but with some acknowledgment that there can be communication across division lines where it's important. So, there is only a handful of committees that do remain association wide. Even where that is true, most of those in Division I were assigned to one of these Cabinets, at least the proposal is, and their areas of interests be reported through that Cabinet and, in all probability, the members of that association wide committee from Division I would come off of that Division I Cabinet so that there is a clean communication, participation with the Cabinet with an open dialogue across division lines.
In a couple of instances that Jim mentioned, some of the honoree committees, would continue to exist association wide and in Division I, the vision is they would report directly to the Management Council. Their scope is rather limited and they're not so much in a policy or legislative area as in recommending who receives specific awards in a given year.
Whether that's a lot of noise to your question, I don't even know if that gets to what you were asking.
It does and you've just said something very interesting. What you've said is that, with the association wide committees that the representation on those committees would come directly from the Management Council.
No, from the Cabinet. Take, for example, the Committee on Minority Opportunity and Interest, the recommendation would be that continue as an association wide committee. It has national policy implications in its dialogue, but in Division I, it would report through the Strategic Planning Cabinet to the Management Council.
My only concern is that in doing that, there is a real limitation on the opportunity for a great number of people to serve on the committee. Maybe, that's the result of this new structure. But, when you go to bat, right now the way the committee structure is set up, there is wide representation across the board in the opportunity to serve on an NCAA committee. That's my only concern.
There was concern about trying to balance the opportunity for widespread participation. Obviously, we're a division of 300-plus members and in order for everybody to feel like this is their association and they're part of it, there needs to be broad-based participation in committees. The subcommittee, in making its recommendations, was trying to address streamlining and providing continued opportunity for participation. I think it's struck a pretty good balance in that. It has cabinets which, in themselves, include about 100 or more people. It continues the sports committees which involve another 250 people involving and running championships and participating on a sport specific basis. The eligibility to serve on committees is broadly defined on the cabinets and on the committees so, it's hoped that good people have an opportunity to participate. There will be some settling out, clearly, initially, a slight reduction in the number of opportunities to be involved in an NCAA committee. Some of that is felt to be necessary just to be efficient in trying to get work done. Balancing efficiency against broad-based participation was a clear consideration of the Substructure Subcommittee and I think you'll see it in its recommendation.
Barbara, I see this as increased opportunities for broader participation and even though the subcommittee has come up with a structure for these committees, superimposed upon whatever we come up with, the committee on diversity will be looking at this also and will be making recommendation relative to how these committees would be structured. I'm not sure if Bill Carr wants to comment on that, or not.
Well, the Diversity Subcommittee has taken on a task that has been deferred for years by various groups. It's been addressed and acknowledged as being complex and difficult and so it has slid down hill until it has landed in our laps. Our group has achieved consensus, but not unanimity with regard to how some of those balances might be achieved. The three categories we have looked at are those of gender ethnicity and position and trying to look at how the Management Council might be established and, of course, that could move over into other groups, whether it be the Cabinet or be committees and to have guaranteed representation or minimum requirements in number for each of those groups. That's one of the things that has to be determined.
The question of how that can be achieved is something that we are going to discuss here tomorrow and Thursday and, as Wright has suggested, we are very open to suggestions as to how that might be accomplished. Another dimension of that issue is the rotational aspect. Trying to balance the aspect of representative governments where each conference is able to put forward it's people against the aspects of trying to have these guaranteed representative numbers. We've talked about several different options as to how that might be achieved. For example, a conference might nominate a larger number of people than it knows it can have represent it, and then, the Board of Directors would be the group that would then look at that field of candidates and determine how the composite field would look at its ultimate placement on the Management Council.
Barbara, the relationship between a committee membership on an association wide committee as it relates to expanding the opportunity for the membership, I would not worry about that. Where we get confused with this, is the fact that we want to make sure everyone understands the assignments of say, the Minority Affairs Committee that was brought up, a number of people from Division I will be assigned to that committee. They will be on the association wide committee and they'll serve with the members from Division II and III. Who they are, is fairly flexible. But, what is not flexible is that the legislation that would impact Division I would have to go through the process, and so, those Division I members would bring it back to the Cabinet who would consider it and recommend it to the Management Council and then it would go before the board before anything that committee did would be voted upon in the legislative process.
So, it's immaterial who they are and how they get there. What's important is that in order to enact legislation from that committee, it would have to be brought back by the representatives to the Cabinet.
My concern is that the committees will be made up by people from the Management Council. That's what I thought Steve said. That's what concerns me because right now, in our process, committees who are not on the Council propose legislation through the Council to the convention. That's my concern. We're already limiting opportunity now because we will no longer have a convention. As we further limit participation, then I think that's a concern. I just thought about this today, honestly, when I heard Steve speak. That's a concern I think should be addressed as everything is put together.
That has been addressed and there will be a great opportunity for people to serve on committees and it's not going to be all of the people on the Management Council or even the Cabinet that are going to be the committee members. The Management Council will take recommendations.
The members of the Management Council will have enough to do just serving on the Management Council and they will not be serving with all of these other committees.
What Jim just said is very important. As you know, the current Council does have one of its members on every standing committee of the association. The Management Council, specifically, moved away from that as not a good plan because of the work load for them, but also, because of this opportunity for broader exposure. I actually made reference to the thought that there would be people from the Cabinet participating on behalf of the divisions on an association wide committee related to an issue that concerned Division I. I was talking about the Cabinet and, as has been well explained here, even at the Cabinet level, that's not a done deal.
From the Floor:
Again, on representation, when the selection of the members on a particular committee, be at whatever level, are conference appointed in relationship to conference recommended. Number one, is there going to be an expansion of conference representation or representatives by conference on committees? Two, if a conference representative cannot attend, can the conference select someone to represent someone on those committees that had "conference representation?"
It's possible there will be increased conference representation on some of the committees. But, you're other question, and again, Steve or someone else can speak to it, has not really been determined yet. We've talked about some plan of rotation or a substitution and those decisions have not been made yet.
At the Cabinet level and committee level that we've been talking about so far, there is anticipation that the recommendation of the Substructure Subcommittee will be that the eight identified I-A conferences in the governance structure would have someone on each of the Cabinets. It is not anticipated that person would be directly appointed or selected by the conference to that Cabinet. Rather, they envisioned a nominating committing of the Management Council to handle evaluation of the nominees and appointments. Partly, that is to facilitate the concerns about diversity of position gender ethnicity, try to not have to sit in one of these situations where the conference is somehow either in a vacuum make their appointments or try to communicate among themselves as to whom they're selecting so that you have a broad and diverse cabinet. The plan, at this point, is that the Management Council's representatives would review the nominees and make the selections. But, each of those eight conferences would have a representative on each Cabinet. Out of the committee structure, that is not determined, and obviously, some of those committees that continue to exist wouldn't be big enough to have eight conference representatives and still others.
You raise the substitution alternate issue which is a knotting problem within this structure. What happens if my conference representative can't be at a particular meeting? That's probably not as critical as some envisioned as we started down this path, because as you look at the legislative process, you see that it will take multiple meetings for there to be final action on legislation. If you miss one meeting, you probably don't miss your conference's opportunity to comment in addition to all of the notice to the membership and opportunity for written comment.
There still is that concern. What happens if my representative can't attend? At the presidents level, the discussion has been, they don't know of any other representative body, including their Boards of Trustees, that have substitutes. Basically, you come or you don't get to vote and participate in the discussion. They are also suggesting we look at alternative means, telephonic and video means of participating in meetings other than being in attendance, to try to allow participation and critical votes if they're to come up.
This substructure committee, at this point by a very narrow majority, has recommended to the full Management Council that a single conference be permitted to designate a single alternate substitute who, when extenuating circumstances prohibit the regularly selected individual from attending, can come on behalf of that conference. That was a close vote out of the committee. It'll be an interesting discussion at the Management Council level. For those of you who are interested in the diversity issue, you can see how this complicates this even more unless your alternate/substitute has the same characteristics as your regular representative. Every time an alternate is there, you've altered the composition of the body. After some of the fights we've gone through to get to this point that obviously, is a sticky issue, as well.
That's far from settled at this point, but at least there is still interest in the substitute/alternate approach at the Management Council level.
From the Floor:
While we're talking about representation, on the four cabinets, is it our understanding that while all eight conferences will be represented, will they be represented with multiple numbers?
They could be because the substructure, as recommended, includes more than eight members from Division I-A. In a couple of Cabinets, you would have 18 I-A members. The Substructure Subcommittee strove to achieve a balance that is much like the Management Council that was legislated. For example, two of the Cabinets are 34-member cabinets. Their breakdown is 18 Division I-A members, eight I-AA and eight I-AAA, maintaining the same 18-16 split that exists on the Management Council. Yes, there will be multiple representation.
From the Floor:
So, in all cases, representation will be like the Management Council in percentages?
The percentages will stay the same. Basically, that same proportion will continue.
From the Floor:
So, when it comes for the opportunity to be on those four cabinets, while the I-AA and I-AAA represent over our 5/8 majority we now have, we don't come anywhere close on those four to being able to be represented in that situation as a conference being able to get people to serve and have their representation there. The 50 percent will belong to the equity or above and the 5/8 majority of us in I-AA and I-AAA will have less opportunity to be represented there.
From the Panel:
That's correct. One of the real concerns comes with less representation and certainly not multiple representation from conferences, how do you balance diversity with the desire to have athletic directors who are in charge of their programs from I-AA and I-AAA. In the first Management Council, it's worked pretty good, as Ced said this morning, but that's going to be a continuing difficult choice when it relates to balancing diversity athletic director and other positional participation from I-AA and I-AAA. You're absolutely right.
You need to make sure you address all sides of the issue. It's easy to say I want my conference represented, but you need to also make sure that when it's your issue, do you really want someone else coming into the room? The balance here, both ways is, do you want to have your representative replaced by someone who might have a special interest in a particular issue? Do you want someone coming in as a replacement who has perhaps not heard two meetings previous discussion, and at the same time, you certainly want your conference represented. It may be even more important in I-AA and I-AAA where you might not have but one position, whereas, one of the eight equity conferences has two representatives. If one of them is gone, you still have a voice. But, in I-AA and I-AAA, if it's your issue and your guy's gone, then you have a problem.
Make sure you know it's more complicated and there is a diversity issue in it too. What if the lack of your person there upsets diversity and there is a diversity question on the floor at that time?
It's important to remember that at the last convention, the Pac-10 had legislation that, if voted on and approved, would have required the alternate to be available at every level from Executive Committee, Board, Management Council, all kinds of ways. That was referred to this committee. I certainly anticipate if, as you describe, this issue doesn't get through this process as we're working on it now, that some conference, probably the Pac-10, would have it on the floor and you will all have an opportunity to vote on it, but it would be very helpful to know where you stand on it before we go into these meetings.
Well, you've all heard the advantages and disadvantages of having an alternate for the Management Council. All of those who would favor an alternate for the Management Council, raise your hand. All of those who would be opposed to an alternate, raise your hand.
From the Panel:
In my mind, the resolution is really going to be a conference issue. You're going to have to go back to your conference and if you've got one or two delegates, the dissemination of information in the preparation of an alternate is going to be more critical than anything else. I don't think you can give up the conference vote, therefore, I favor the alternate, but I sure want an alternate coming to the table who's prepared and capable of voting.
Our time is up, and I want to thank you for your participation.