PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE ON THE FUTURE OF DIVISION I INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS – RECOMMENDATIONS – STATUS AS OF MAY 16, 2007.

(The most recent progress update are bolded.)

(Note: As the Oversight and Monitoring Group develops strategies for review of the Task Force recommendations; this document will be subject to change.)

Academic Values	Suggested strategy or referral	Progress to date/status	Fiscal Impact	Priority Level
a. Intercollegiate athletics must be fully integrated into the academic mission of universities and colleges. Academics must come first, and the success of student-athletes, both on and off the field, must be the defining characteristic of college sports.	Board review and possible sponsorship of legislation to modify the Division I Philosophy Statement set forth in the NCAA Manual.	The OMG recommended the development of an instrument that presidents could use to reflect on issues pertaining to integration. The OMG recommended more collaboration with other higher education associations to provide for more discussion about integration. The OMG also recommended that conferences discuss issues pertaining to integration with their membership.	No
b. Faculty members must participate in the guidance of intercollegiate athletics and help ensure the integrity of the student-athlete academic experience. Faculty members must also be as fully engaged in providing advice on planning and financial issues in athletics as in other parts of the campus and that advice should be weighed carefully by the athletics leadership and the president. Given this responsibility faculty members must make the effort to understand the intercollegiate athletics enterprise.	Refer for reactions to FARA, Division I-A Faculty Rep Assn and COIA.	COIA proposals being reviewed by national office staff, with appropriate referrals in governance structure. The OMG recommended seeking to enhance the relationships with faculty groups such as COIA, FARA and the Division I-A FARs’ Association.	No
Academic Values (con’t)	Suggested strategy or referral	Progress to date/status	Fiscal Impact		Priority Level
c. The FAR should be engaged in monitoring the successful integration of athletics and academics.	Same as b. above.	COIA proposals being reviewed by national office staff, with appropriate referrals in governance structure. The OMG recommended seeking to enhance the relationships with faculty groups such as COIA, FARA and the Division I-A FARs’ Association	No
d. Institutions should strive to have a well-functioning independent faculty athletics committee. (Such bodies are typically appointed through faculty governance.)	Same as b. above.	COIA proposals being reviewed by national office staff, with appropriate referrals in governance structure.	No
e. Academic advising should be connected to and be a part of the university academic units. Primary control over all academic advising should be vested in the institution’s chief academic officer. (Institutions may provide different means to that end).	Seek input through institutional survey. Refer to Committee on Athletic Certification (CAC) and CCA Working Group examining the compliance review template. Staff development of best practices document.	COIA proposals also address this issue. Work continuing with NYA and other academic advising units to develop best practices document. CAC has included a version of this value as a potential measurable standard for third cycle of athletics certification. (See MSOP 22#10) See note in paragraph a. of the values section regarding the OMG’s recommendations.	Yes (for survey)

Academic Values (con’t)	Suggested strategy or referral	Progress to date/status	Fiscal Impact	Priority Level
f. Institutions should examine the compliance area to determine if that area may benefit from a structural change. Consideration should be given to having a compliance director report directly to the president or an administrative officer who reports to the president.	Same as e. above.	See note in paragraph a. of the values section regarding the OMG’s recommendations.	Yes (for survey)
g. Institutions should ensure that compliance personnel outside the athletics department, such as the registrar, admissions officers and financial aid, always maintain their autonomy from athletics.	Same as e. above.	See note in paragraph a. of the values section regarding the OMG’s recommendations.	Yes (for survey)
h. Steps should be taken to foster integration in the admissions process. Specifically, campus administration and faculty senates should consider developing criteria for special admissions of scholarship athletes. As part of this process, a maximum annual number of such special admissions for athletics should be established, either for all sports programs or for individual teams.	Same as e. above.	The OMG asked the A/E/C Cabinet to seek to establish a data driven definition of “at risk”. The OMG also stressed the importance of gathering data on the academic profile of incoming student-athletes in an effort to identify “at risk” students. See note in paragraph a. of the values section regarding the OMG’s recommendations.	Yes

Academic Values (con’t)	Suggested strategy or referral	Progress to date/status	Fiscal Impact	Priority Level
i. There must be concrete and substantive programs in place to monitor and assist those special admits.	Same as e. above.	CAC has included a version of this value as a potential measurable standard for third cycle of athletics certification. (See MS OP 2.1 #3) The OMG recommended that institutions evaluate the levels of academic and life skills support provided to at risk student-athletes. The OMG also asked the A/E/C Cabinet to seek to develop an assessment tool for life skills programs. Further, the OMG asked the A/E/C Cabinet to develop “best practices” regarding special admits.	Yes
j. Campus athletics boards should receive information on all scholarship-athlete special admits.	Same as e. above, except no institutional survey.	The OMG asked the A/E/C Cabinet to develop “best practices” regarding special admits.	No
k. Where appropriate, consideration should be given to value-based budgeting. In that budget model, which is on the value athletics brings to the institution; athletics assumes greater integration with the rest of the university by virtue of the reporting lines and budgetary review through the normal academic process.	Board should develop Division I model and principles along with best practices.	See note in paragraph a. of the values section regarding the OMG’s recommendations.	Yes

Academic Values (con’t)	Suggested strategy or referral	Progress to date/status	Fiscal Impact	Priority Level
l. Institutions must ensure that both in principle and in fact athletics is richly integrated with the rest of the campus and that athletics serves the educational mission of the institution, which is to provide the most complete, well-rounded and comprehensive education possible. Presidents must therefore provide bold and creative leadership to further the collegiate model on their respective campuses and must be willing to make those sometimes unpopular decisions that will, in the long run, unite the campus community behind a fully integrated athletics program.	Same as k. above.	See note in paragraph a. of the values section regarding the OMG’s recommendations.	Yes

Academic Values (con’t)	Suggested strategy or referral	Progress to date/status	Fiscal Impact	Priority Level
m. Institutional education for athletics booster clubs should be reinforced to make it abundantly clear that improper acts by such individuals or clubs will not be tolerated. That information should explain limitations applicable to such individuals and clubs under NCAA rules.	Board should consider sponsoring legislation to require annual signed compliance statement by chair of booster clubs. Issue should also be referred to the CAC and the working group examining the NCAA compliance review template.	CAC has recommended strengthening measurable standards regarding rules education for the third cycle of athletics certification. (See MS OP 1.2 MS #9)	No

Fiscal Policy	Suggested strategy or referral	Progress to date/status	Fiscal Impact	Priority Level
a. The Task Force recommends that the self-sufficiency clause in the Division I philosophy statement be eliminated.	Board review and possible sponsorship of legislation to modify the Division I Philosophy Statement set forth in the NCAA Manual.	Legislation has been drafted and it will be included in the next legislative cycle. The OMG supported that legislation be drafted for the next Division I legislative cycle.	No	1
b. Require a fiscal-impact statement detailing the cost incurred by institutions to comply with any proposed NCAA legislation as a way to prevent unintended budget consequences.	Done in Division I. Confirm with staff that what is currently being provided in Division I is sufficient.	Completed.	No	___

Fiscal Policy (con’t)	Suggested strategy or referral	Progress to date/status	Fiscal Impact	Priority Level
c. Adopt clear and consistent definitions of the various categories of revenues and expenditures to help create clarity so that decision-making based on comparative data can be greatly improved.	Refer to NCAA finance and research staffs	Campus business officers, athletics business officers and accounting audit firms have partnered to develop improved definitions. An advisory committee will be formed that includes presidents, campus business officers, and athletics directors and athletics business officers to monitor and modify financial data definitions on an annual basis. The OMG was informed and is supportive of this development.	Yes (Staffing)		1
d. The Task Force recommends the following reporting process: All Division I institutions shall be required to submit operating and capital financial date annually as part of the requirement for NCAA membership. Some of the information will require access to data maintained outside of the athletics department, which means institutions must engage institutional research, the university controller, human resources or other university departments to help with the report or with the operating allocations required as part of the reporting. Ultimately, the university president or chancellor must certify the financial reports.	Refer to Board for evaluation and possible sponsorship of legislation	Legislation drafted. The OMG was informed and is supportive of this development.	Yes (Staffing on campus)	2

Fiscal Policy (con’t)	Suggested strategy or referral	Progress to date/status	Fiscal Impact	Priority Level
e. Financial data related to athletics departments and programs shall be collected in a timely manner using uniform and common definitions. In this light, dashboard indicators will be created to enable presidents and chancellors to track financial trends and aid in decision making by providing simple comparisons. Dashboard indicators include: · Athletics expenditures as a percent of institutional expenditures; · Total athletics revenues and percent change fro the previous year; · Allocated revenues as a percent of total expenditures. Dashboard indicators are a work in progress and will evolve and improve over time.	Refer to NCAA finance and research staffs to design.	Dashboard indicators have been programmed and will be sent to Presidents in the summer or early fall. The initial year submission will be sent in draft so that numbers can be verified by the institution. The NCAA is sensitive in having accurate and consistent numbers for the reports to have value to campus decision-makers. In addition, input will be solicited from presidents on the value of the dashboards indicators. The OMG was informed and is supportive of this development. The OMG asked that the dissemination include a roll-out plan whereby institutions receive notice and education materials.	Yes	1

Fiscal Policy (con’t)	Suggested strategy or referral	Progress to date/status	Fiscal Impact	Priority Level
· Collected data shall be codified and presented in a manner that protects institutional and individual privacy. Additionally, presidents/chancellors and athletics directors should be able to easily access these indicators annually on the NCAA Web site or via e-mail.
f. The Task Force recommends the following reporting process: The value of endowments at fiscal year-end, dedicated to the sole support of athletics, will be reported along with the present value of all pledges that support athletics. Athletics departments also will report their ending-year fund balance.	Refer to NCAA finance and research staffs to design.		Yes (Staffing)	2
g. The Task Force recommends the following reporting process: Capital expenditures shall be reported in the aggregate for athletics facilities. Specific categories include capitalized additions and deletions to facilities during the current reporting period, total estimated book value of athletically related plant and equipment, net of depreciation, total annual debt service on athletics and university facilities, and total debt outstanding on athletics and university facilities.	Refer to NCAA finance and research staffs to design.	Data have been collected. However, because capital expenditure reporting is a new process with new definitions, several institutions have not submitted consistent data. Staff will send the last three years of capital data submissions back to campus presidents and chancellors for verification.	Yes	2

Fiscal Policy (con’t)	Suggested strategy or referral	Progress to date/status	Fiscal Impact	Priority Level
h. The Task Force recommends the following reporting process: An annual salary and benefits survey shall be conducted for athletics positions. Collected data must include base salary, bonuses endorsements, media fees, camp income, deferred income and other income contractually guaranteed by the institution. The abstracted data from the survey will be made available to each institution in a confidential manner that campus decision-makers can access on a real-time basis.	Done in Division I.	Completed. In the fall of 2006, all Division I institutions were provided an opportunity to participate in a salary survey process.	Yes	___
i. Require the Division I Board of Directors to monitor and conduct a regular analysis of the trends in intercollegiate athletics financing and provide those data to appropriate constituencies.	Refer to NCAA staff for periodic reports to the Board.	Financial data, using the new definitions and categories are being collected. Several years of data, (three to four years) need to be collected before meaningful analysis can occur.	Yes	2
j. An independent third party will use “agreed-upon procedures” to verify the accuracy and completeness of the data before submission to the university president and the NCAA.	Refer to NCAA finance staff.	Completed. Procedures developed in cooperation with NACUBO, CABMA and public accounting firms.	Yes (Staffing	___
k. Presidents must use these financial data to align athletics budgeting with institutional mission to strengthen the enterprise and be willing to exert leadership and be actively engaged as champions of fiscal responsibility.	Refer to institutions for decisions based on data.		No	1

Fiscal Policy (con’t)	Suggested strategy or referral	Progress to date/status	Fiscal Impact	Priority Level
l. Solicit recommendations from appropriate higher-education associations on best fiscal practices. In addition, the NCAA and other appropriate associations should monitor continuously and periodically refine the financial reporting definitions to adhere to current practices.