Key Takeaways From The Recent Association-wide Survey on the Future of NCAA Structure
Athletics Veritas is a weekly series aimed at helping higher education executives, faculty, and other stakeholders stay tuned in on trending national issues impacting college athletics, especially NCAA Division I. Athletics Veritas is created by senior DI athletic administrators around the nation.
Key Takeaways from the Recent NCAA Association-wide Membership Survey on the Future of the NCAA Structure
Executive Summary
Survey was conducted by NCAA Research Department with purpose of informing the work of the NCAA Constitution Committee
Over 1,300 student-athlete leaders and 3,400 campus, conference, and coaches association leaders completed the survey representing all three NCAA divisions
Athletic Directors and Conference Commissioners had the highest response rate.
23 Coaches Association Directors participated in the survey
Increased accountability around health care and diversity and inclusion were supported
Student-athlete leaders called for an increased focus on the holistic student-athlete experience and student-athlete mental health
Administrators in Division II and Division III voiced concern that the Constitution Committee will impact their work but that they would have little voice in the process
Maintaining a model that focuses on amateurism was frequently expressed; however, some, particularly in Division I, noted that amateurism may need to be redefined
Over 80% of presidents and chancellors endorsed presidents and chancellors retaining primary oversight of college athletics
Only half of athletics directors and conference commissioners supported presidents and chancellors retaining primary oversight of college athletics and even fewer SWAs, diversity and inclusion officers, and compliance administrators supported this premise
An SEC President responded that the autonomy five conferences should be an organization unto itself— leaving the NCAA to manage everyone else
The majority of presidents, FARs, and athletic directors supported managing the allocation of athletics department resources at the campus level
Support for redrafting certain NCAA principles including amateurism, diversity and inclusion, gender equity, student-athlete development and student-athlete mental well-being
Several non-negotiables including amateurism, primacy of academics, diversity and inclusion, and health and safety cited by respondents
Revealing statements from student-athlete, faculty, and president survey participants highlighted
Survey Findings: Principles Central to the NCAA
Across the membership, a substantial majority (over three-quarters) within each role by division agreed that the following principles were central to the future of the NCAA as a governing body: conducting national championships, the primacy of the academic experience in policy and decision making, sport-specific rules for competition and participation, standards for allocating national revenue, standards for college athlete eligibility, and standards for college athlete health and safety.
Over 90% of student-athlete leaders within each division agreed that standards for inclusive and equitable environments were central to the future of the NCAA. Such standards also received over 70% agreement within each administrative role and division, with the exception of Division II and Division III conference commissioners at 57% and 64% respectively.
Survey participants were able to suggest additional principles the committee could consider during redrafting. Suggestions included amateurism, diversity and inclusion, gender equity, student-athlete development and student-athlete mental well-being. In addition, over 75% of student-athlete respondents endorsed each of the subprinciples of the current constitutional principle of student athlete well-being: overall educational experience (2.2.1); cultural diversity and gender equity (2.2.2); health and safety (2.2.3); student-athlete/coach relationship (2.2.4); fairness, openness and honesty (2.2.5); and student-athlete involvement (2.2.6).
Setting Standard Minimum Requirements
Across divisions, administrators and student-athlete leaders were most likely to endorse setting standard minimum requirements at the national level for health and safety, student-athlete eligibility, inclusion and equity, and sport-specific rules of play.
Over 70% of athletics health care administrators indicated a preference for national standards for health and safety.
Over 70% of athletics diversity and inclusion designees indicated a preference for national standards for inclusion and equity.
Standards for the allocation of athletics department resources were most likely to be endorsed at the campus level. Preferences were mixed regarding whether standards should be set at the national, divisional, conference or campus level for the other principles of conduct outlined in the survey: athletics aid and institutional benefits, benefits and compensation from noninstitutional sources, championship opportunities, initial and collegiate academic eligibility, divisional membership requirements; playing and practice seasons, and recruiting.
Division I and Division II were more likely to recommend accountability be set at the national level for championships, health and safety, inclusion and equity, and sport-specific rules of play, while Division III respondents were more mixed between divisional and national accountability.
Assessing the Need To Change the Current Divisional Structure
Approximately one-third of Division II and Division III leaders surveyed agreed that the current divisional structure needs to change. This sentiment was higher in Division I, with a slight majority of respondents endorsing such a change. However, when breaking out responses by those in Division I autonomy and nonautonomy conferences, over two-thirds of autonomy conference administrators supported such a change to the structure as compared with approximately 45% of nonautonomy conference administrators in Division I.
Those who agreed that the current divisional structure was in need of change received an open-ended prompt asking them to describe their vision. Comments included calls to increase the number of divisions (often calling for an expansion of Division I, or in some cases Division III); break the autonomy conferences out of Division I and permit self-governance; reconsider Division I subdivisions by extracting FBS football from NCAA oversight; and restructure divisional membership, taking into account geography, campus enrollment or resource level.
Presidential Oversight of College Athletics
Administrators also were asked whether presidents and chancellors should retain primary oversight of intercollegiate athletics in the future. While over 80% of presidents in each division endorsed this concept, half of athletics directors and conference commissioners supported this model, and about a third of administrators in the other roles surveyed across the three divisions felt similarly. Those who left comments about their vision for a new structure suggested increasing the role of athletics directors and conference commissioners in national oversight, and many also suggested that NCAA governing bodies should include broader representation across a range of roles in athletics (e.g., compliance, coaches, conference personnel, etc.).
Responses to Open-Ended Questions
The administrator survey included 11 open-ended questions and the student-athlete leader survey included five. While nearly 3,500 administrators took the survey, each open-ended question typically received responses from 15%-25% of administrators; 1,975 participants (57%) responded to at least one open-ended question. Among student-athlete leaders, open-ended questions typically received responses from 20%-30% of participants; 658 participants (48%) responded to at least one open-ended question. The comments were grouped thematically for committee consideration. However, because of the response rates cited above, the themes identified may not be representative of the membership as a whole.
Overarching Themes in Open-Ended Responses
Administrators in Division II and Division III voiced concern that they will be heavily impacted by the work of the Constitution Committee but will have little voice in the process. Many who expressed contentment with their current divisional model were wary of a constitutional overhaul. Among those who do want change, some noted that they would like to see greater equity in terms of divisional representation in decision-making and more revenue shared with Divisions II and III.
The current principles outlined in the NCAA constitution have strong support across the Association. Comments often focused on requests, or suggestions regarding how to uphold and enforce these principles. Health and safety, access to championships, competitive equity and a focus on the student-athlete collegiate experience are high on the list of priorities and non-negotiables moving forward.
The survey findings noted the following frequently expressed non-negotiables:
Amateurism model
Primacy of academics and the student-athlete educational experience
Championship access
Standards for competitive equity
Standards for student-athlete health and safety
Eligibility standards
Revenue distribution models (maintain or increase)
Current structure (particularly for Division II and Division III)
Principles of diversity, equity and inclusion— with special attention called toward gender equity
Numerous respondents— both administrators and student-athlete leaders— indicated that principles of diversity, inclusion and equity need to be central to a constitutional redrafting. However, there was a smaller number of administrators who felt strongly that the NCAA should “stay in its lane” as an athletics association, focusing on rules of competition and conducting national championships— not responding to or addressing matters perceived as social, cultural or political issues.
Student-athlete leaders called for an increased focus on the holistic student-athlete experience and student-athlete mental health. Many advocated for additional avenues to include the student-athlete voice in decision making. Student-athlete leaders also wove calls for equity into their responses across the survey, including both attention to gender equity and equitable opportunity and recognition for athletes regardless of division or sport.
Other notable open-ended responses from survey participants:
The NCAA should be more centralized and student-focused. Students should have a bigger voice in decisions that the NCAA makes. -Division I conference SAAC, Atlantic 10 Conference
You should have more than just one student athlete voice to amplify student involvement and allow for more representation across different demographics -Division I campus SAAC, Pac-12 Conference
The (NCAA) mission must put the student athlete first, making certain that their health, both mental and physical, and their identity is nurtured. -Division I faculty athletics representative, Southland Conference
I am concerned that we are empowering student athletes too much in decisions they do not have the sophistication to be involved with or which represent a conflict of interest. Do we have students involved with the creation of class syllabuses? Of course not. So why are they increasingly involved with athletic decision making? Don’t hear me wrong; their voice is valuable as an advisory adjunct but that’s where I’d draw the line. -Division I president, Summit League
Athletics Veritas is presented for information purposes only and should not be considered advice or counsel on NCAA compliance matters. For guidance on NCAA rules and processes, always consult your university’s athletics compliance office, conference office, and/or the NCAA.
