REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION DIVISION I OVERSIGHT AND MONITORING GROUP

REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION

DIVISION I OVERSIGHT AND MONITORING GROUP

Indianapolis, Indiana May 21, 2007

Participants:

Michael Alden, University of Missouri, Columbia

Robert Caret, Towson University

Tom Hansen, Pacific-10 Conference

Walter Harrison, University of Hartford

Jack Jewett, TMC HealthCare

Shirley Raines, University of Memphis, (chair)

Virginia Shepherd, Vanderbilt University

Nancy Zimpher, University of Cincinnati

S. David Berst, NCAA

Myles Brand, NCAA

Beth DeBauche, NCAA, recording secretary

Jim Isch, NCAA

Committee members Percy Bates, University of Michigan; Damon Evans, University of Georgia; Peter Likens, University of Arizona; and James Moeser, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, were unable to participate in the meeting.

NCAA staff members Gary Brown, Bernard Franklin, Amy Huchthausen, Kevin Lennon and Wallace Renfro were also present during the meeting.

· INFORMATIONAL ITEMS.

a. Background Information. The NCAA president briefly provided the group with background information regarding the establishment of the Presidential Task Force on the Future of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics, which was a group of predominately 50 presidents charged with setting an agenda to help shepherd Division I intercollegiate athletics into its second century. During the course of review, it was noted that while there is a need for national leadership, this reform initiative generally resided at the local campus level. Presidents should be encouraged to provide an environment that embraces the collegiate model.

b. Review of Group’s Charge. The group was informed that during the April 26, 2007, Board of Directors meeting, the Board agreed to establish an Oversight and Monitoring Group (OMG) to help identify and manage strategies for possible implementation of the Presidential Task Force’s recommendations. Specifically, the Board charged the group with:

(1) Prioritizing consideration of the recommendations listed in The Second-Century Imperatives Report;

(2) Developing suggested strategies for possible consideration of the recommendations including oversight of the referral or assignment process by the appropriate entities;

(3) Monitoring consideration of the various recommendations; and

(4) Communicating and providing status reports to the Board of Directors regarding consideration of the recommendations.

In examining its charge, the group members concurred that they would focus their efforts on prioritizing the various initiatives and developing implementation strategies aimed at providing more tools to enhance presidential leadership.

c. Discussion of possible strategies for implementation. The group members reviewed select initiatives within specified categories, which are set forth below, and offered a variety of thoughts and comments as they sought to address their charge.

[Note: Given the number of possible initiatives identified by the Presidential Task Force on the Future of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics, the Oversight and Monitoring Group was not asked to provide specific comments on every recommendation included in The Second-Century Imperatives: Presidential Leadership – Institutional Accountability. Accordingly, this report should be read in conjunction with the Presidential Task Force Recommendations – Status Report.]

(1) Academic Values. The group identified a number of strategies to promote consideration and implementation of the recommendations included in the academic values section of the Presidential Task Force report.

(a) Athletics Certification Program. The group discussed whether as part of the Athletic Certification Program institutions should be required to provide evidence of the value added or outcome when addressing topics that support the collegiate educational model; yet the group acknowledged that the current certification program by its nature does not require institutions to provide much evidentiary information. The group discussed whether there might be merit in modifying the program so there is more focus on providing evidence of outcomes.

(b) Best Practices. The group recommended the development of “best practices” information so that the Division I membership could learn from the success of other programs in the areas of presidential leadership and athletics integration.

(c) Strengthen Partnerships with other Associations involved with Higher Education. The group recommended seeking to enhance existing partnerships with other higher education associations such as National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) and American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) so that more presidents would have an opportunity to participate in the important dialogue regarding presidential leadership and integration. The group suggested more collaboration with these groups so the themes identified by the task force are incorporated into the agendas of other higher education associations’ meetings. Given that athletics is part of the overall fabric of higher education, discussions on issues pertaining to intercollegiate athletics should not just be occurring within the NCAA.

(d) Legislation. The group acknowledged that a discussion of academic values may not necessarily lend itself to legislative solutions; yet the members noted in some instances, a legislative approach may be necessary to effectuate the desired outcomes of enhancing presidential leadership and providing for more integration.

(e) Conferences. The group referenced the important role multisport conferences play in providing presidents with a network of peers to discuss issues pertaining to athletics. Assisting conferences in focusing discussions on the key leadership themes and encouraging conferences to strengthen presidential networks was a strategy identified by the group.

(f) Reflective Process. The group discussed the value of developing an instrument that presidents could use to reflect on issues pertaining to leadership and values. Such a reflective instrument could assist presidents in further examining these important issues in a thoughtful and thorough way.

(g) Faculty. The group recommended seeking to enhance the relationship with faculty groups such as Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA), Faculty Athletics Representatives Association (FARA) and the Division I-A FAR’s Association and encourage those groups to engage in discussions regarding presidential leadership and the integration of athletics and academics.

(2) Fiscal Policy.

(a) Financial data and dashboard indicators. The group was informed that as a result of the Presidential Task Force’s recommendations, financial data were collected from institutions under uniform reporting procedures developed in conjunction with the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO). This information along with a set of “dashboard” indicators or aggregate comparisons, which are intended to allow institutions to see how they rank with others, will be sent out as a pilot in the summer of 2007. The group was encouraged by the uniform collection of financial data along with development of dashboard indicators and noted this information will not only aid presidents in making financial decisions but will assist presidents in working with governing boards by ensuring all had accurate financial data when making financial decisions pertaining to athletics. It was noted that receiving information regarding facilities will be especially helpful to presidents as that information has been lacking historically. While such information could result in some competition regarding facilities and salaries, the hope is that it will help presidents evaluate how to “right size” an athletics program.

(b) Communication Plans for Rollout of the Dashboard Indicators. The group supported the dissemination of the pilot data along with the dashboard indicators in the late summer 2007 and asked that the dissemination include a roll-out plan whereby institutions are notified that the information will be sent out. Additionally, the group asked that supporting educational materials be provided to assist presidents in making better use of this tool. Last, the group asked that this information be shared with the 31 multisport conferences, noting that the conference structure provides a good forum for discussion of financial issues.

(c) Comparative Data. The group was informed that institutions will be able to receive anonymous comparative data on conference colleagues and peer institutions. The group asked that when the official financial reports and dashboard indicators are ready in April 2008, institutions be allowed to receive information on aspirational peers as well. The group acknowledged that allowing presidents to compare institutional athletic budgets with those of others will further presidents’ abilities to make fact-based decisions.

(d) Partnerships. The group again acknowledged the importance of strengthening partnerships with professional organizations, such as NACUBO, and noted the helpful role these groups can play in providing presidents with valuable decision-making tools such as best practices documents. Additionally, the group discussed the importance of providing more professional development opportunities for business officers relative to athletics.

(e) Division I philosophy statement. The group noted that legislation will be proposed in the upcoming cycle calling for the elimination of the self-sufficiency clause in the Division I philosophy statement.

(f) Model contract. Interest was expressed in ensuring that a model head coach contract be made available to presidents.

(3) Presidential Leadership.

(a) Educational programming for governing board members. The group recommended seeking to enhance education for governing board members regarding the proper fiduciary role relative to athletics and supported the idea of the NCAA working with Association of Governing Boards (AGB) to develop orientation and continuing education programming.

(b) Strengthen Partnerships. The group discussed the importance of strengthening existing partnerships with the AGB, the American Council on Education, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities or the National Association of System Heads as these organizations can help send appropriate messages about presidential leadership and about the important fiduciary role governing boards play relative to athletics. Additionally, the group supported the Presidential Task Force’s recommendation that AGB should be encouraged to use existing relationships with other organizations to disseminate messages regarding governing boards’ appropriate oversight role.

(c) Program of recognition. The group discussed the importance of highlighting strong leadership relative to athletics and suggested the NCAA’s higher education partners be encouraged to establish recognition programs acknowledging outstanding presidential leadership.

(d) Possible enhancements to the NCAA’s New CEO Orientation Program. The group discussed the importance of providing new presidents with background information regarding athletics given that many new presidents have not had opportunities to work closely with athletics prior to assuming their leadership roles. The group commended the NCAA on establishing the New CEO Orientation Program and expressed interest in learning more about the program to determine whether any enhancements were warranted to assist presidents.

(e) NCAA Athletics Certification Program. The group discussed ways in which the athletics certification program could better assist presidents in leading institutions’ athletics programs. The group suggested a closer examination of the athletic certification program to determine if there were ways to require more evidence of presidential leadership as part of the review process. The group also discussed but did not reach consensus regarding whether there was value in having governing board members become more involved in the certification process either as peer reviewers or as committee members. The group supported the recent addition of more presidents on the Committee on Athletic Certification.

(f) Enhanced multisport conference involvement. The group supported the Presidential Task Force’s recommendation that AGB’s document entitled “Statement of Board Responsibilities for Intercollegiate Athletics” should be updated and recirculated as a valuable tool in educating governing boards. The group discussed the task force’s recommendation that a form should be circulated whereby the chair of each institutional governing board would be asked to attest that all governing board members received and reviewed AGB’s statement. The group thought that the multisport conferences could play a valuable role in this review process and suggested that conferences should be encouraged to develop the supporting verification process. Further, the group suggested that conferences should also be encouraged to discuss the proper fiduciary role for governing board members that focuses on Board members who wish to do the right thing.

(g) Consultative Role. The group discussed the fact that the Division I Athletic Certification Program by its very nature is not designed to be proscriptive or penal. Further, the group noted that given the general reluctance to discuss difficult president/trustee relationships it is difficult to identify presidential leadership challenges as part of the athletic certification process. Therefore, the group suggested it may be more helpful for the athletics certification and peer review processes to serve more of a consultative role whereby challenged presidents are offered assistance rather than a penal one where the Committee on Athletic Certification would issue final certification decisions “with conditions” when there is evidence of challenges to presidential leadership.

(4) Diversity. The group was informed that the Diversity Leadership Strategic Planning Committee (DLSPC) proposed a number of recommendations intended to enhance diversity and inclusion in intercollegiate athletics and that the Executive Committee Subcommittee on Gender and Diversity Issues has been charged with developing strategies for consideration and possible implementation of those recommendations. Given that a number of the DLSPC’s recommendations are related to those included in the Presidential Task Force report regarding diversity and inclusion, the group recommended that an analysis be conducted of both reports to determine how the recommendations compare to one another and that the group receive reports regarding the status of the DLSPC’s recommendations.

(5) Student-Athlete Well-Being.

(a) Definition of “at risk.” The group supported the idea that the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet (A/E/C) should seek to establish a data-driven definition of “at risk” student-athletes. In supporting this idea, the group also stressed the importance of gathering data on the academic profiles of incoming student-athletes and suggested that each institution analyze the academic success of its student-athlete in an effort to identify the profile of prospective student-athletes who appear to be at risk of not progressing toward and obtaining a degree from that institution. Additionally, the group charged the A/E/C Cabinet with developing best practices regarding special admits. The group suggested that the A/E/C group looking at these issues include ex officio members to add to the depth of the conversation.

(b) Comparison to student population. The group stressed the importance of being able to compare the academic profiles of student-athletes with that of the general student body in order to allow for disaggregation of the data. The group noted it would be interesting for institutions to identify a profile of the students recruited by the institution both in terms of admissions standards and academic support.

(c) Academic Support and Life Skills. The group suggested that institutions should evaluate the levels of academic and life-skills support provided to “at risk” student-athletes. During the course of this discussion, the group noted there currently does not appear to be a truly effective way of evaluating life skills programming. Accordingly, the group suggested that the A/E/C group charged with developing a definition of “at risk” also seek to create a life skills assessment tool. The group suggested that the NCAA Education Services Department be included in this conversation.

(d) Financial Aid. The group recommended that the A/E/C Cabinet consider whether student-athlete financial aid should be awarded for more than one year or automatically reviewed from year to year, based on established criteria.

(6) Commercialism. The group discussed the fact that commercialism in and of itself is not bad provided the commercial activities are consistent with core institutional/organizational values. Accordingly, depending on where the commercial activity is being considered, it is imperative that the involved campus, conference or the NCAA examine the proposed activity to determine whether it properly aligns with its values.

(a) Institution. Given that all of higher education is involved with commercialism, the issue should not be viewed as unique to intercollegiate athletics, rather institutions should examine whether their decisions pertaining to commercial activities in athletics are consistent with the values and practices of the institution as a whole.