A Message from the NCAA Executive Committee The complexity

A Message from the NCAA Executive Committee The complexity of intercollegiate athletics has increased enormously over the past decade. The NCAA has more member schools and more studentathlete participants than ever before. We can point to increasing numbers of academic success stories, but at the same time we must acknowledge important areas in which we are not meeting our educational obligations. We have more revenue, but we also contend with higher expenses. We have public backing, as indicated by attendance and the zeal with which fans follow their teams, but we endure widespread skepticism about the link between our stated purpose and our actions. There is nothing wrong with this complexity. In fact, it may be regarded as a healthy byproduct of growth. However, as our enterprise continues to evolve, we have a clear responsibility to maintain focus on our historic values and to ensure that our Association continues to advance in the right direction. Recognizing this fact, NCAA President Myles Brand stressed the importance of developing a comprehensive strategic plan for the Association in his first State of the Association speech. On January 12, 2003, President Brand told the membership that our plan would be developed through a timely, value-driven process and that it would be shaped by fundamental principles of advocacy and reform. In February, the NCAA retained the professional services of Tecker Consultants LLC, a New Jersey firm specializing in strategic planning for not-for-profit associations. In April, earnest work began as the membership became engaged in extensive data collection. Between April and August, all stakeholder groups – from student-athletes to institutional chief executive officers – were asked: • What does the Association stand for? • What should the Association seek to be over the long term? • What near-term objectives will help the Association achieve its goals? This data-collection underscored our Association’s diversity. Different groups envisioned distinctly different futures. Goals viewed as vital to one constituent seemed unimportant to another. But through the process, we saw a consensus begin to emerge. We created drafts of our strategic plan and circulated them to Management Councils, divisional presidential governing bodies and the NCAA Executive Committee. Those groups used the cumulative feedback to develop new drafts, which in turn were considered by chief executive officers and other constituent groups from outside the NCAA governance structure. The result is the document that follows. It includes goals relating to academics, the student-athlete experience, informed governance and decision-making, effective national office administration, and perceptions of the Association and intercollegiate athletics. This strategic plan provides us with general direction. We must yet identify the ways in which we will meet our objectives. But this document represents important progress in re-establishing the proper direction of our Association. The feedback we received from the membership was useful in framing this plan. However, we have chosen not to include one most common response: “I applaud the effort, but I don’t think it will do any good.” While we understand such skepticism, we passionately disagree. Not only do we believe that this plan can benefit the Association, we know that it must. The NCAA – the member schools, conferences and the national office staff – has an absolute obligation to make certain that intercollegiate athletics is successfully woven into the fabric of higher education. That key principle is stated clearly in the core purpose of this plan. It is the foundation upon which our enterprise rests. It is our future. Thank you for your involvement. We ask for your partnership, and we look forward to moving forward – together. –1– NCAA Executive Committee Carol A. Cartwright, chair Kent State University Donald L. Beggs Wichita State University Susan Bassett Hobart and William Smith Colleges Myles Brand NCAA Tony Capon University of Pittsburgh, Johnstown G. Wayne Clough Georgia Institute of Technology Mary Sue Coleman University of Michigan Ronald G. Eaglin Morehead State University Carol C. Harter University of Nevada Robert Hemenway University of Kansas John P. Keating University of Wisconsin, Parkside Peter Likins University of Arizona John M. McCardell Jr. Middlebury College Mark A. Nordenberg University of Pittsburgh Christine Plonsky University of Texas at Austin Linwood H. Rose James Madison University Kay Schallenkamp Emporia State University Phillip C. Stone Bridgewater College (Virginia) Randall J. Webb Northwestern State University John White University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Process Overview The NCAA has embraced a long-range strategic initiative that will reform and guide our enterprise using a new mode of thinking and planning. We will base our actions on our Association’s core values, crafting them on a foundation balanced between • Historical strategies that will not change (these being timeless principles supported by the organization’s historic purpose), and • Transformations that our Association must undergo to stimulate or accommodate changes vital to our successes over the next three decades. Critical factors. Our Association’s policy decisions and actions will be guided within a framework of four horizons. Our envisioned future will guide our organization in achieving its goals. An initial 5- to 10-year foresight of issues, assumptions, opportunities and uncertainties suggests critical choices about potential hurdles the Association may face. Strategic planning. We will implement our four framework links beginning in the 3- to 5-year horizon, and continue through our formal, longrange plan, during which our Association will re- evaluate and re-articulate what it needs to achieve for members and stakeholders. We will carefully answer the following questions each step of the way: • How will the world change as a result of what our Association does? • Who will benefit, and how? Progress appraisals will assess our advancement toward each goal every year, appraising at defined milestones whether our resources have been and are designed to be used most productively. Our strategic, long-range plan will not substitute for an annual operating plan. It will not detail each specific initiative, program and activity the Association will undertake in serving its membership and the industry. It also will not foresee changes to all assumptions on which our key strategic choices have been based. But the plan will express any shortcomings the Association sees. The plan will identify what we are not doing today but must do in the future for success. The following report articulates our current consensus on essentials of the NCAA’s organization-wide strategic plan. Definition of Terms This plan involves all NCAA entities, defined as follows: • The “Association” is the “corporate entity” comprising member institutions, conferences, the governance structure (for example, boards, cabinets, committees) and affiliated entities (for example, coaches associations), as well as student-athletes, coaches and athletics administrators. • The “membership” of the Association is primarily the colleges and universities. It is campus-based. • The “national office” represents the employees in Indianapolis who make up the infrastructure of the Association. –2– Core Ideology Core ideology describes an organization’s consistent identity that transcends all changes related to its relevant environment. Core ideology consists of two notions: core purpose – the organization’s reason for being – and core values – essential and enduring principles that guide an organization. Core Purpose Our purpose is to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount. Core Values The Association – through its member institutions, conferences and national office staff – shares a belief in and commitment to: • The collegiate model of athletics in which students participate as an avocation, balancing their academic, social and athletics experiences. • The highest levels of integrity and sportsmanship. • The pursuit of excellence in both academics and athletics. • The supporting role that intercollegiate athletics plays in the higher education mission and in enhancing the sense of community and strengthening the identity of member institutions. • An inclusive cultur e that fosters equitable participation for student-athletes and career opportunities for coaches and administrators from diverse backgrounds. • Respect for institutional autonomy and philosophical differences. • Presidential leadership of intercollegiate athletics at the campus, conference and national levels. Envisioned Future Envisioned future conveys a concrete, but yet unrealized, vision for the organization. Envisioned Future Description • Intercollegiate athletics will be understood as a valued enhancement to a quality higher education experience. • Student-athletes will be better prepared to achieve their potential because they have participated in intercollegiate athletics. They will regard athletics endeavors as a valued part of their undergraduate education. • Chief executive officers of member institutions will lead intercollegiate athletics at campus, conference and national levels. • Members will view their Association as an essential partner in governing intercollegiate competition and enhancing the integration of academics and athletics. • Intercollegiate athletics will be perceived by Association members and the public as complementary to higher education. Academic success among student-athletes will enable the Association and its members to positively influence the perception of college sports. • Individuals at all levels of intercollegiate athletics will be accountable to the highest standards of behavior. • The public will view the Association as a trusted organization, and wholly support its purpose and practices. –3– Foresight About the Relevant 5- to 10-Year Future The Association’s strategic long-range plan must be based in part on a projected view of the future environment of intercollegiate athletics and the relevant world at large. Foresight about the relevant future is what will make the long-range plan strategic. Building foresight requires a look at three levels of future orientation – current conditions, which represent our view of what exists today; trends, which reflect what conditions we can see today and the predictions we can make about what direction the conditions will move; and assumptions, which reflect our beliefs about what will happen or how things might be in the future, not necessarily based on what we see today. When conditions change, strategy needs to be adjusted. An annual review of this thinking will help the Association ensure the ongoing relevance of its strategy. Demographics Changing demographics will affect participation in college sports. This changing participation in turn will influence the sponsorship of collegiate sports. • Women probably will be more interested in and qualified for a college education than men. Intercollegiate athletics will be called upon to create more opportunities for this growing population of female college students to participate. This responsibility will carry with it the obligation to attract more fans and to engage more alumnae. If more professional opportunities are provided to women, they will be more likely to compete in sports. • The rising Hispanic population will require that athletics reflects their interests. • As older students populate the traditional college enrollment, we will see revised interest in sports events. Nontraditional students will become more important as they are sought to support and participate in intercollegiate athletics. Without successful efforts to attract young people, football and basketball attendance will decline because of an aging fan base. –4– Business and Economics Economic conditions may affect competition within intercollegiate athletics. The gap between expenditures and revenue may widen. • Funding for intercollegiate athletics may be meager during economic downturns; further, funding may not reach previous levels, even in future “up” cycles. • Institutions will be pressured to increase funding subsidies for intercollegiate athletics. • Government funding for higher education may diminish, affecting the support of college athletics. Athletics departments may rely increasingly on private support. Consumers, rather than government, may bear a greater share of the costs associated with higher education. • Programs within institutions – and institutions themselves – may merge to maximize existing resources. • Economic “haves” and “have nots” in intercollegiate athletics may be more clearly identified, a circumstance that may affect competition, sports sponsorship and rules compliance. • Public and private institutions may have increasingly different perspectives on economic issues involving athletics. • Professional sports may offer alternative systems for player development. • Traditional academic institutions will be challenged in the marketplace by nontraditional alternatives, such as “for-profit” institutions, online colleges (and courses) and other education providers. Such economic challenges likely would decrease traditional funding for athletics programs. Economic conditions could increase the pressure for institutions and athletics programs to become more commercial and entrepreneurial. • The nature of contests may move away from the competition itself and increasingly focus on the events surrounding the contests. Colleges may compete to produce increasingly complicated athletically related events. • The number of students who can afford college could decrease. Those who do attend may require increasing amounts of financial aid. Students may have to make more sacrifices, such as taking on full-time jobs or greater debt burden, to attend college. Legislation Legislatures and courts at state and federal levels will be more inclined to intervene and to regulate intercollegiate athletics issues if they perceive that discriminatory, exploitative or unsafe practices exist. • Institutions of higher education will be held more accountable for their athletics practices. Gender-discrimination and affirmative-action issues will continue to be of special interest on the federal level. • Litigation will increase if stakeholders perceive that elements of the college athletics structure are not fair. • Federal and state financial assistance may diminish as higher education is perceived as being more about individual good than public good (see the Business/Economics section). • The overall purpose and value of intercollegiate athletics may be questioned as fiscal challenges grow. Governments may encourage academic performance by tying funding to graduation rates. College athletics will be pressured to create academic eligibility standards that help ensure graduation. Science and Technology Science and technology will have a continuing and increasing influence on higher education and intercollegiate athletics. • Science and technology will affect athlete performance in the future. Factors that may enhance performance include equipment, a better understanding of exercise science and physiology, and drugs and dietary supplements. Safety concerns will accompany performance advances. Enforcement of drug and safety violations will become more difficult, even as expectations of the public grow higher. • Technology will continue to fragment the media and the audience for intercollegiate athletics events. Athletics programs will be challenged to use communica- tions technology to their advantage. In some cases, technology may actually discourage attendance. Media will continue to feed the desire for instant gratification. Coaches and student-athletes will need to be educated about the public nature of their positions as media seek provocative stories. • Technology will affect the delivery of education. Technological changes will permit classroom instruction to become more individual, which in turn will permit all students — including studentathletes — to have more customized curricula. Learning that occurs outside of a classroom will become more common. Political and Social Values Evolving social priorities will require intercollegiate athletics to adjust in an appropriate and effective fashion. • Intercollegiate athletics will be faced with a conflict between financial opportunities and the welfare of student-athletes. Conflicts are possible as coaches, driven by the pressure to win, demand more of student-athletes while most student-athletes seek to take greater advantage of their educational opportunities. • Continued threats of terrorism may mean less personal freedom, more potential for violence at sports events and increased costs. Colleges may be required to confront an attendant decrease in civility. Students of the future are more likely to have an activist bent than current students. • The public may become increasingly concerned about the treatment of student-athletes. • Media will continue to shape public expectations. This may affect college athletics as decisions are driven by public perception. This scenario will heighten the challenge to resist traditional corruptive attitudes in college athletics (“win at all costs,” “get mine now,” etc.). • Athletes will become more specialized, affecting pre-college development of athletes as they choose a sport at earlier ages. • Access to sports development and participation will depend more on socioeconomic factors. Ath–5– letes participating in multiple sports in college will become more rare. College athletics may move more toward participation-centered, rather than audiencecentered, contests. • The distinction between college and professional athletics will continue to blur as athletes turn professional before their college education is complete or, in some cases, before it has even begun. • Faculty governance may become more actively involved in campus athletics issues and may challenge the perceived intrusion of athletics on academic interests (budget, student-athlete time demands, facilities, capital expenditures, salaries). • Third-party efforts at organizing or “unionizing” certain student-athletes will increase as certain student-athletes perceive that their needs, rights or values are being compromised. Legislators, especially at the state level, will take up these causes. 3- to 5-Year Outcome-Oriented Goals Goals are outcome-oriented statements that represent what will constitute the organization’s future success. The achievement of each goal will move the Association toward the realization of its vision. Each goal will be accompanied by a set of objectives, which represent key issues affecting the Association’s ability to achieve the goal. The national office, in consultation with the governance structure, will develop strategies to accomplish each objective, as well as measurements. 1. Athletics as Integral to Higher Education Student-athletes will be better educated and prepared for increased and life-long achievement and success. Objectives 1.1 Increase support of reform efforts that emerge from the governance structure. –6– Primary responsibility: governance structure and national office. Secondary responsibility: member institutions. 1.2 Increase the number of student-athletes who succeed academically. Primary responsibility: member institutions. Secondary responsibility: member conferences and governance structure. 1.3 Increase opportunities for student-athletes to integrate their academic, athletics and social interests. Primary responsibility: member institutions. Secondary responsibility: member conferences and governance structure. 1.4 Enhance the leadership role of athletics administrators and increase the role of coaches as advocates for the values of intercollegiate athletics. Primary responsibility: member institutions. Secondary responsibility: member conferences, affiliated organizations and national office. 2. The Student-Athlete Experience Student-athletes will be enriched by a collegiate athletics experience based on fair, safe and reasonable standards, and a commitment to sportsmanship. Objectives 2.1 Increase the application of fair, safe and flexible regulations that favor student-athletes. Primary responsibility: national office and governance structure. Secondary responsibility: member institutions and conferences. 2.2 Increase the opportunities for women and minorities to participate in intercollegiate athletics at all levels. Primary responsibility: member institutions. Secondary responsibility: national office, governance structure and affiliated organizations. 2.3 Increase sportsmanship in intercollegiate athletics among student-athletes, coaches and fans. Primary responsibility: member institutions and conferences. Secondary responsibility: governance structure, affiliated organizations and national office. 3. Informed Governance and Decision-Making Member institutions and conferences will have access to data, research and best practices that assist governance and management of intercollegiate athletics. Objectives 3.1 Increase opportunities and support for chief executive officers to participate and make more informed decisions about intercollegiate athletics. Primary responsibility: governance structure, national office and member conferences. Secondary responsibility: member institutions. 3.2 Increase opportunities for member institutions and conferences to share best practices in support of the Association’s core values (for example, managing commercialism, risk management, crisis management, sportsmanship). Primary responsibility: national office. Secondary responsibility: member institutions and conferences. 3.3 Increase the number and quality of research initiatives on relevant issues (for example, academics, finances, health and safety) to help member institutions and conferences make informed decisions. Primary responsibility: national office. Secondary responsibility: governance structure, member institutions and conferences. 3.4 Increase opportunities for affiliated organizations to provide input for more informed decision-making. Primary responsibility: governance structure and affiliated organizations. Secondary responsibility: member institutions and national office. 3.5 Enhance hiring practices for administrators, coaches and other athletics personnel, resulting in more inclusive leadership in intercollegiate athletics. Primary responsibility: member institutions. Secondary responsibility: member conferences and governance structure. 4. Effective National Office Administration The national office will be operated in an accountable, effective and efficient manner. Objectives 4.1 Increase partnerships with the membership. Better define the national office’s role. Primary responsibility: national office and membership. Secondary responsibility: governance structure and member conferences. 4.2 Increase flexibility, responsiveness and efficiency of interpretations, enforcement and appeals processes. Expedite investigatory processes for major infractions. Primary responsibility: national office and governance structure. Secondary responsibility: member institutions and conferences. 4.3 Increase the timeliness, clarity, conciseness and effectiveness of membership communication. Primary responsibility: national office. Secondary responsibility: governance structure, member institutions and conferences. 4.4 Increase use of technology to improve the effectiveness and efficiencies of Association processes. Primary responsibility: national office and governance structure. Secondary responsibility: membership and conferences. 5. Perceptions of the Association and Intercollegiate Athletics The public will gain a greater understanding of and confidence in the integrity of intercollegiate athletics and will more readily support its values. Objectives 5.1 Increase awareness of and advocacy for the positive values of intercollegiate athletics among the media and the public and within the membership. Primary responsibility: member institutions and conferences. Secondary responsibility: national office. 5.2 Increase the public’s confidence in the Association as a whole. Primary responsibility: national office. Secondary responsibility: member institutions and conferences. –7– NCAA Strategic-Planning Data-Collection Sessions Division II Strategic-Planning Advisory Committee, March 23, 2003 Selected members of the Division II Presidents and Management Councils. Division III Strategic-Planning Advisory Committee, March 28, 2003 Selected members of the Division III Presidents and Management Councils and at-large chief executive officers. Division I Strategic-Planning Advisory Committee, April 5, 2003 Selected members of the Division I Board of Directors and Management Council and at-large chief executive officers. NCAA Leadership Advisory Board, April 5, 2003 Members of the NCAA Leadership Advisory Board (a group of 26 citizen leaders from the fields of athletics, business and education). Faculty Athletics Representatives Association, April 17, 2003 Members of the FARA Executive Committee. NCAA Staff, April 25, 2003 NCAA management-level staff. Divisions II and III Conference Commissioners, June 12, 2003 Divisions I, II and III Athletics Administrators, June 16, 2003 Selected athletics administrators attending the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics convention. Coaches Association Leadership, June 16, 2003 Executives and coaches associations leadership The Leadership Institute for Ethnic Minority Males, June 25, 2003 All participants in a program designed to develop minority male administrators in intercollegiate athletics. Student-Athlete Advisory Committees, July 20, 2003 All members of the Divisions I, II and III NCAA Student-Athlete Advisory Committees. Division I Management Council, July 21, 2003 Division II Management Council, July 21, 2003 Division III Management Council, July 21, 2003 –8– First Presidential Planning Session, August 7, 2003 All members of the Division I Board of Directors and the Divisions II and III Presidents Councils. Web survey, September 2003 An Internet survey of more than 5,000 NCAA stakeholders. NCAA Strategic-Planning Validation Sessions Division I Conference Commissioners, September 24, 2003 Leadership Summit, September 30, 2003 Leadership representatives from NCAA constituent groups, including institutional CEOs, athletics administrators, faculty athletics representatives, conference commissioners and coaches association executives. Management Council Update, October 20, 2003 All members of the Divisions I, II and III Management Councils. Second Presidential Planning Session, October 30, 2003 All members of the Division I Board of Directors and the Divisions II and III Presidents Councils. NASULGC, November 16, 2003 Institutional CEOs attending the national conference of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. AASCU, November 23, 2003 Institutional CEOs attending the national conference of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. NCAA 18032-5/04