LA 24 Predators Suit Sent Back To NHL Arbitration Ross: Dolphins' Stadium Ready By Sept. 1 Blazers Renew With Three Long-Time Sponsors "Gleason" Premieres Nationally On Friday BC Launches Campaign To Raise Local Profile ROCOG Hints At Sabotage By Village Workers Rams' Robert Quinn Purchases New $4.25M L.A. Home CFP Changes Semifinal Schedule After Ratings Drop Redskins Won't Announce Camp Attendance
SBD/October 30, 2013/CollegesPrint All
Division I ADs yesterday in Indianapolis made a presentation to the NCAA BOD that "laid out a new governance system that would return much of the influence over the day-to-day operation of college sports back to ADs," according to Dan Wetzel of YAHOO SPORTS. The plan would "even call for athletic directors to be placed on the Board of Directors itself." That group is "currently made up solely of university presidents." Purdue AD Morgan Burke and Missouri AD Mike Alden "made the presentation on behalf of the Division IA Athletic Directors Association and the National Association of College Directors of Athletics." The BOD is "set to discuss the merits of the proposal" today. The BOD, as part of "an ongoing open conversation over the future of college athletics spurred by president Mark Emmert, invited various groups to come to Indianapolis and make a presentation." Nothing would be "enacted this week and there would be further opportunity for discussion at the NCAA's annual convention in January." The ADs' proposal is "considered particularly influential because of their roles of running the on-campus operations of some 350 schools of all shapes and sizes." A source said that the proposal made by the ADs is, "in general, similar to one made by the conference commissioners, easily the other most influential group in college athletics." A source said that the ADs' "proposed administrative group might also include student-athlete representatives" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 10/29).
TOGETHER AS ONE: Wake Forest President and NCAA D-I BOD Chair Nathan Hatch said that he "did not envision the process resulting in a new subdivision for the wealthiest football-playing schools." Hatch: "From what I've heard in the association, I think people would like to have one Division I, but, in some ways, a structure that will make certain differentiations between small conferences and big conferences. I think people like having one division." USA TODAY's Dan Wolken reports the NCAA expects to have "a new, more nimble structure ready for implementation by August." Hatch's assertion that D-I schools "won't be subdivided between those who have big-time football programs and everybody else runs counter to the rhetoric that spread throughout college athletics this summer." It appears the BOD "favors a system in which a federation of big schools within Division I could make rules that allow them to use more of their resources, while other conferences can choose whether or not to follow suit." For example, if "wealthier schools decided to deregulate how many meals they could feed athletes, smaller-revenue schools in Division I would theoretically be able to operate with the same freedom if they could afford it." The question becomes "where those lines get drawn." Hatch said, "That's the kind of thing we're going to wrestle with" (USA TODAY, 10/30).