New DI Governance Proposal – Where is the Faculty in COLLEGE Athletics Governance?

Josephine (Jo) R. Potuto, Richard H. Larson Professor of Constitutional Law and Faculty Athletic Representative, University of Nebraska

            The NCAA Division I Steering Committee proposal for a new governance structure has an all-Division I part that will have a Council of 38 members to do the heavy lifting in policy articulation and bylaw adoption.   The Council will have 60 percent ADs plus other campus and Conference athletic administrators.   That leaves very little room for Faculty Athletic Representatives (FARs). 

           

            Ever since Adam and Eve ate that apple, we humans have lost the opportunity to do perfect.   If we’re thoughtful, diligent – and lucky – we achieve optimum policy.  To get to optimum, we need to be clear what our policy goals are and then do our best job to identify consequences, pros and cons.  We do that best by having different perspectives at the policy-development table.  Faculty, by training and often by inclination, ask a lot of questions and seek data before acting.  (I have not looked, but I doubt there were FARs on the Football Committee that attempted to prohibit offenses from snapping the ball until 29 seconds are left on the 40-second play clock on the claim that this would decrease the incidence of injuries.)  These are important foundations for the development of policy. 

            The Big 5 Conferences (ACC, B1G, Big 12, PAC 12, SEC) will have a representative from each Conference in the new DI governance structure.  They will have weighted voting, equal to about 38 percent of the total DI vote.  The 1A FAR Board of Directors (representing FARs from each of the ten FBS conferences and 125 FBS institutions) urged the Steering Committee to include 2 members from each of the 5 Conferences, one AD and one FAR.  This would substitute for weighted voting.  It would assure a substantial faculty voice and enhance overall discussion.  The presidents and chancellors of the Big Ten conference unanimously supported this plan.  The DI Steering Committee, however, said no.  Apparently for two reasons.

            First, it believed that a Council of 43 rather than 38 was too large and unwieldy for effective discussion.  Here I simply disagree.  From my experience, the change in tenor, level of participation, and breadth of discussion happens when a group exceeds 20 or 25.  The difference between 38 and 43 is negligible. 

           

            Second, it appears that the Steering Committee believed that ten members from the 5 Conferences would have too much influence on discussion even though their voting weight would be the same, or even a little less.  If true, this means the Steering Committee is comfortable with a much smaller faculty voice and less faculty impact on the scope and substance of policy.  If true, it also is a remarkable claim in a democracy.  Translated, it means you should not have as much influence as your voting weight gives you.  On this theory, we should decrease the numbers in the delegations from Texas (36) New York (27) and California (53) to the US House of Representatives because Alaska, Delaware, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming  are disadvantaged by only having one vote apiece.