Updated: Restructuring moves forward; Indiana State voted against

WANTED: Passionate Sycamore Fanatics. That You?

Register NOW to join our community of die-hard Sycamore fans.

Jason Svoboda

The Bird Level
Administrator
Division I moves closer to new structure

<time>July 18, 2014, 8:54am by </time>Michelle Brutlag Hosick

As Division I moves closer to changing its governance structure, the Division I Steering Committee on Governance today released an updated governance model to the membership. The updated model and legislative proposal reflect the feedback from campuses and conferences that guided the committee’s decisions.

The restructuring effort aims to preserve and improve the model of collegiate athletics that has helped millions of student-athletes gain access to higher education and pursue a degree. Most importantly, committee members said, the changes will allow the governance structure to more efficiently and effectively meet the needs of student-athletes.

“We will begin to focus on student-athlete welfare in ways they will feel as early as next year,” said Michael Drake, president of The Ohio State University and steering committee member.

The final model represents the latest work of the steering committee and the membership as a whole. NCAA President Mark Emmert praised the membership for expending the effort and compromise required to build the new model.

“The Division I membership overall and the steering committee in particular worked hard to create a structure that will allow the division to operate more simply and inclusively,” Emmert said. “It shows a clear commitment to support student-athletes and allow them not only a place at the table but a voice in the process.”

The board will vote on the complete model Aug. 7. Between today and Aug. 7, the steering committee members will reach out to their presidential colleagues to discuss the new model and the committee’s reasoning and process.

The final model establishes a 24-member Board of Directors charged with ensuring the division adheres to appropriate values and principles as well as overseeing the workings of the substructure. The change in board composition and membership is the result of the steering committee members carefully considering the input offered by the membership and believing that the final model represents the best compromise.

The steering committee increased the size of the Council to include two additional faculty athletics representatives. In the new model, the Council would be responsible for day-to-day operations of the division, assisted by a three-group substructure focused on academics, championships and legislation, respectively. Athletics directors would comprise the majority of the council, and two student-athletes will vote.

Autonomy saw some changes as well, including: a refinement of the list of items over which the five major conferences would have autonomy, codification of how items will move from shared governance to the autonomous area and definition of how the five major conferences will conduct business.

The steering committee agreed to allow the Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big 12 , Pacific 12 and Southeastern conferences until October 1 to put together their first proposals that would be considered and possibly adopted when the five conferences conduct a business session at the 2015 NCAA Convention.

The steering committee also provided more detail requested by the membership about the structure of the governance bodies reporting to the board and council.

The proposed governance redesign legislation will be subject to a 60-day override period. At least 75 schools must request an override to require the board to reconsider a rule change. If 125 schools request an override, the rule is suspended until the board meets to reconsider. If the board members decline to change their mind, the full division will vote on the change through an online system. At least a five-eighths majority must vote for an override for the rule to be rescinded.

The changes will be voted on as one package, not individually.

HIGHLIGHTS

Board composition

The 24 members would consist of:

  • Five presidents from the five major conferences (Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pacific 12 Conference and Southeastern Conference)
  • Five presidents from the remaining five Football Bowl Subdivision Conferences (American Athletic Conference, Conference-USA, Mid-American Conference, Mountain West Conference and Sun Belt Conference)
  • Five presidents from the Football Championship Subdivision
  • Five presidents from Division I schools without football
  • Chair of the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, Chair of the Council (the governance body charged with the day-to-day work of the division, intended to be an athletics director), a Division I member of the Faculty Athletics Representatives Association appointed by the group’s executive board and a campus senior woman athletics representative chosen by the executive committee of the National Association for Collegiate Woman Athletics Administrators.
The FCS and Division I conferences would determine the rotation of conferences with representation on the board.

Council operations

The increase in size would make the weighted voting totals on the Council:

  • 37.5 percent for the five major conferences
  • 18.8 percent for the five remaining FBS conferences
  • 37.5 percent for the FCS and Division I (no football) conferences
  • 3.1 percent for the student-athletes
  • 3.1 percent for the designated faculty athletics representatives

Autonomy

<figure class="media media-element-container media--view-mode--media_original" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 4px; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">
Bs1Yl-CIIAAN8jQ.png:large

<figcaption class="field-item field field-name-field-description-caption field-type-text-long field-label-hidden even" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 10px; line-height: 1.5em; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">The proposed governance model includes the ability for five conferences to make decisions autonomously. The five conferences have outlined how they will vote on rule changes. Click on the image for a larger view.</figcaption></figure>

  • The steering committee removed transfers from the autonomy list – with a caveat. The five conferences requested autonomy over transfers if substantial change isn’t accomplished within the new structure’s first two years.
  • In order to be granted autonomy over an area, three of the five major conferences would have to agree. If 12 of the 20 presidents or chancellors on the board approve, the item can be moved to the autonomy list. The steering committee chose to lower these thresholds because feedback from within the five conferences indicated that the previous standard could impede the ability of the conferences to advance an agenda to support student-athletes.
  • To conduct business within the autonomy category, each of the five conferences would appoint one representative from each of the 65 member schools and three student-athlete representatives from each conference to cast votes, for a total of 80 votes. Items could be approved in two different ways:
  • 60 percent of all votes (48 votes) and a simple majority support from schools in three of the five conferences, or
  • A simple majority of all votes (at least 41) and simple majority support from the schools in four of the five conferences.

Substructure


  • The substructure would include a Committee on Academics, which will report to the board of directors while still maintaining a close relationship with the council and other groups that will address legislative and championship/competition/student-athlete well-being issues.
  • The substructure for shared governance will not be prepared to consider and adopt legislation until the 2015-16 legislative cycle.



 
Last edited:

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
So basically you'll have the Big 5 muscle the remaining FBS conferences into obscurity. At what point does it make sense to field a FBS program for football if you're outside of the Big 5?
 
At this point it seems like it's only a matter of time before the big 5 conferences make their move. Now, what happens to the other FBS conferences will be interesting. While I agree that moving up to FBS is ludicrous with all these dominoes falling. I however just want Indiana State to put a competitive team on the field year in and year out. So when all the shuffling happens, we are in position to be in the same tier as the MAC, Sun Belt, Mountain West, Conference USA, etc. teams.
 
At this point it seems like it's only a matter of time before the big 5 conferences make their move. Now, what happens to the other FBS conferences will be interesting. While I agree that moving up to FBS is ludicrous with all these dominoes falling. I however just want Indiana State to put a competitive team on the field year in and year out. So when all the shuffling happens, we are in position to be in the same tier as the MAC, Sun Belt, Mountain West, Conference USA, etc. teams.


Take away the extra scholarships these conferences have on us and you will find that we are on the same tier, now.
 
Prettyman wants ISU to be prepared for potential NCAA changes

Against a rising tide of media, public and institutional sentiment that would suggest otherwise, Indiana State Director of Athletics Ron Prettyman believes that the current model of college athletics still works.


More...
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
At this point it seems like it's only a matter of time before the big 5 conferences make their move. Now, what happens to the other FBS conferences will be interesting. While I agree that moving up to FBS is ludicrous with all these dominoes falling. I however just want Indiana State to put a competitive team on the field year in and year out. So when all the shuffling happens, we are in position to be in the same tier as the MAC, Sun Belt, Mountain West, Conference USA, etc. teams.
If they get the autonomy structure, they don't have to make any moves. They'll just create the rules they want an basically spend everyone else into obscurity especially as their media contracts continue to grow and the other conference media deals don't.
 
I don't see how ISU will ever be able to close the gap completely in these areas without divine intervention.

I just posted my thought or some info on the football forum..(fair or unfair) but Uncle Sam will step in if it gets carried away, they're already watching! So hope these men of the times can solve it for everyone and create a model everyone can live with!
 
So basically you'll have the Big 5 muscle the remaining FBS conferences into obscurity. At what point does it make sense to field a FBS program for football if you're outside of the Big 5?

If people still attended college football games at the lower levels like they did in the past then sure keep them, but they don't. Won't happen over night, but I see most schools shuttering their football programs over the next 20-30 years. Hate to see it at ISU because I'm big fan, but what other options are there? Even winning and suddenly filling the stadium might not be enough.
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
Is there anyway we can afford non-scholarship football? It would be better than no football.

I don't see how. You negate the money games, will likely lose attendance because of lowered competition and you still have to provide equal opportunities to comply with Title IX compliance.

The NCAA wants to allow this to happen. Fine. They need to end the charade and allow schools to determine what sports they wish to compete in and they need to get rid of Title IX. Schools should be able to spend the money where they wish, especially small schools. How about special rules for us teams that don't get $25m from ESPN like SEC schools do?
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
Title IX still bites you though the sport(s) are non-scholie?

Well if that is true; we have no choice but to shutter the football program. Period.

I'd like to see us keep it BUT if we can't make a financial go of it with non-scholie football and playing in the Pioneer League; so be it. Those 63 scholies can be plowed into other smaller, 'winning sports'...

The salaries would be a wash OR we could be money ahead... the current FBall staff has 11 coaches, 63 players and who knows how many additional staffers...

Could be add lacrosse and be money ahead? the UMaryland Men's Lacrosse team has a coaching staff of 4 and a roster of 48 players... a div II lacrosse team has ~25-30 players...

Let's ADD Wrestling... Men's Golf and Men's Tennis... shoot, we could add Women's Tennis and we'd STILL be ahead of the title IX requirements...

What about adding Men's Soccer?
 
Last edited:
Title IX still bites you though the sport(s) are non-scholie?

Well if that is true; we have no choice but to shutter the football program. Period.

I'd like to see us keep it BUT if we can't make a financial go of it with non-scholie football and playing in the Pioneer League; so be it. Those 63 scholies can be plowed into other smaller, 'winning sports'...

The salaries would be a wash OR we could be money ahead... the current FBall staff has 11 coaches, 63 players and who knows how many additional staffers...

Could be add lacrosse and be money ahead? the UMaryland Men's Lacrosse team has a coaching staff of 4 and a roster of 48 players... a div II lacrosse team has ~25-30 players...

Let's ADD Wrestling... Men's Golf and Men's Tennis... shoot, we could add Women's Tennis and we'd STILL be ahead of the title IX requirements...

What about adding Men's Soccer?

If the facilities are in place, swimming could be reserected. Add rugby? ISU had and gave up good programs in wresting, gymnastics, swimming and tennis. These included some nationally recognized programs/athletes in some sports. I'm not sure that giving up football or scholarship football would be the answer. But it might be somthing to consider.
 
Personally, I don't think it will be the death nail everyone thinks its going to be for those teams outside of the power 5. Yes, there's certainly going to be a rough transition period, but what's developing is a college level, a semi-pro level, and a pro level. College Football, and college sports in general, have gotten ridiculous. I personally want the larger schools out, so that real college sports can happen once again. I love college sports: not boring pro-sports. If the powers to be are wise enough, they'll form an entirely different institution and have nothing to do with the 5 conferences. They need to form their own t.v. network and have nothing to do with ESPN. They need to market the new institution as "real college athletics" and crown their own champions. ISU will be able to fund football if they have to compete with Ball State's athletic budget, not Texas's. And an alternative institution will add competition to the greater college level, and you'll see changes thsy will benefit the audience.
 
Back
Top