NCAA Division III
Governance Update
and Open Forum
2010 Regional Rules Seminars
Agenda
• Identity Initiative
• Strategic Initiatives Program
• Drug Education and Testing Pilot
• 2010-12 Budget Priorities
• Academic Reporting Pilot
• Presidential Leadership
• Open Forum
Identity Initiative
•Goals
• Advance the NCAA Division III
positioning statement.
• Educate and engage membership.
• Support membership with national
activation resources.
• Reinforce and connect Division III values
with the NCAA’s collegiate model.
Identity Initiative
• Policy Activation
• Focus for every committee meeting.
• Haiti initiative - citizenship connection.
• Identity and Integration Symposiums.
• CoSIDA relationship.
Identity Initiative
• Other Activation
• Video library.
• Collateral Web site and credit.
• Toolkit.
• Championships presence.
• Revised Division III Web presence.
• Campus and event workshops.
Strategic Initiatives Program
• Division III Internship and Matching Grant:
new leadership.
• Conference grant program updates.
• FAR Faculty Institute Pilot.
• NCAA/NACWAA partnership.
• Conduct foul program expansion.
• ArbiterSports.
Drug Education and Testing Pilot
Purpose: Assess effectiveness of pilot and its
ability to deter substance use.
Two treatments: education and testing.
Focus: Street Drugs, Performance Enhancing
Drugs
Drug Education and Testing Pilot
CONCLUSIONS
The self-reported use of anabolic steroids, stimulants and
illegal street drugs, is present across experimental
groups, sports and years of the study.
Drug Education and Testing Pilot
CONCLUSIONS
Awareness, understanding and perceptions of the
processes in place to deter substance use are at less than
desired levels. Additionally, behavior has not been
measurably affected by the deterrence program
implemented during this pilot program.
Drug Education and Testing Pilot
CONCLUSIONS
Within the confines of this pilot program, drug education
and testing have not been measurably effective in
deterring substance use by Division III student-athletes as
indicated through findings of self-reported use.
Drug Education and Testing Pilot
CONCLUSIONS
There is no clear consensus among Division III student-
athletes that….
•Drug testing should be conducted either by their school or by
the NCAA.
•Drug testing by individual colleges and the NCAA has had a
deterrent effect on substance use.
•A team-penalty would be fair and appropriate when a single
member of that team tests positive for a banned substance.
Drug Education and Testing Pilot
OPTIONS
1. Retention in its current form of championships testing
for performance enhancing drugs and illegal street
drugs.
2. Enhanced educational programming.
3. Academic year-round drug testing (e.g. performance
enhancing drugs and illegal street drugs or
performance enhancing drugs only).
4. Optional funding for campus-based testing through a
new allocation to the existing strategic initiative
conference grant program.
Drug Education and Testing Pilot
NEXT STEPS
1. Full membership discussion of recommended
options is scheduled to occur at the 2011 NCAA
Convention.
2. Guiding principles for the discussion include:
student-athlete well-being, competitive equity,
health and safety, cost/benefit analysis, institutional
autonomy.
3. Final membership vote, if necessary, at the 2012
Convention.
DIII Budget 101
• Biennial Process
• 2010-11: $24 Million
• Old contract: $6 billion, 11 years, 7% annual
escalation
• New contract: $10 billion, 14 years, 2.5% annual
escalation
• DIII revenue guarantee is 3.14% of overall NCAA
revenues
• DIII policy: 75% championships, 25% other initiative
funding
2010-12 Initiatives with
new/enhanced funding
Identity Initiative: $600,000
Conference Grant Program: $2 million
FAR Institute: $75,000 plus overhead
Academic reporting stipend: $50,000
Campus-based student-athlete leadership
programming: $80,000
2010-12 Championships
new/enhanced funding
Men’s volleyball championship: $387,500 (beginning in
2011-12).
Per diem increase (five dollars over two years): $350,000
inflationary adjustment over two years.
Other initiatives: $683,600 over two years. Includes
formats, officials fees, field size increases
Academic Reporting Pilot
Voluntary two-year pilot program: spring 2010
and 2011
Designed to assess feasibility and burden issues
related to the data collection.
Pilot is embedded in the NCAA Graduation
Rates Data Collection System
Academic Reporting Pilot
Schools will submit the required student-body
graduation information to the NCAA during spring 2010
and 2011.
On each of those occasions, schools will have the option
to submit student-athlete information as well.
Reporting of graduation information will be done in
aggregate (e.g., no individual school public reports).
Fifty thousand dollar honorarium divided between
participating institutions.
Presidential Leadership
Background:
The 1997 Federation established emphasis for the NCAA, White Paper 1
clarified focus for DIII.
80% of Division III ADs do not report to a president.
PC and PAG have expressed a strong desire for the division to establish
a more strategic and selective leadership role for presidents.
At the 2010 Convention, the DIII membership voted unanimously to
amend the philosophy statement to specify the expectation for
presidential leadership and authority over intercollegiate athletics at
the campus, conference and national governance levels.
Presidential Leadership
2009 Actions:
Established a more focused “presidential
grouping” of proposals for Convention.
Established standing Wednesday night planning
sessions to be conducted in conjunction with
each quarterly Presidents Council meeting.
Presidential Leadership
2010 Concepts under review:
1. Eliminate the need for the Presidents Council to
serve as the sponsor for all of the governance-
sponsored proposals for Convention vote.
This change would allow the NCAA Division III
Management Council to develop and sponsor
operational legislation and will provide a clear
delineation of operational and strategic
responsibilities within the governance structure.
Presidential Leadership
2010 Concepts under review:
2. Establish a subcommittee of the PC and MC to
determine which concepts warrant review by presidents
and formalize the guidelines for such determinations.
Also, allow this group to approve the final legislative
drafts of Convention proposals.
Establishing objective review guidelines that focus on
clear, fundamental tenets of the philosophy statement
would set the proper framework for identifying issues
that warrant the Presidents Council's attention.
Presidential Leadership
2010 Concepts under review:
3. Add two athletics direct reports to the Management Council.
The addition of these two individuals could broaden the
perspective of the MC by including a voice that, while
responsible for managing athletics on campus, has not
historically been included in governance discussions. This
may be particularly helpful in legislative discussions, and
could smooth the transition of any greater legislative
authority being given to the MC. It may be appropriate for
these individuals to serve on the subcommittee described in
the previous concept.
Presidential Leadership
2010 Concepts under review:
4. Establish an expectation for conferences to demonstrate presidential
leadership.
Despite the current legislative requirement for conference
presidential oversight, it appears that presidents may not actively
lead some Division III conferences. The division will benefit from
clearly establishing the expectation of strategic leadership at the
conference level, and will establish a clear goal in the division’s
strategic plan as well as offer incentives to conferences exhibiting
leadership activity. Such an incentive could include financial support
of presidential meetings via the conference grant program.
Presidential Leadership
2010 Concepts under review
5. Propose key new legislative provisions be designated as
‘Division Dominant.’
The Presidents Council may use this existing legislative
tool in future years, after the initial package of
Presidential Leadership proposals has been voted on and
successful concepts implemented.
Questions