Where the Constitution Committee Could Focus in Reassessing Values & Principles Around College Athletics and Proposing a New Governance Model
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.
The NCAA Makeover: Where the NCAA Constitution Committee Could (and Should) Focus in Reassessing Values & Principles Around College Athletics and Proposing a New Governance Model
Executive Summary
The NCAA announced a 28-member Constitution Committee comprised of current and former university presidents, commissioners, athletic directors, faculty athletic representatives and student-athletes
All three NCAA divisions are represented on the committee
32% (9 of 28) of the committee have direct affiliation with Power 5 Division I member institutions
The Board of Governors will convene a special constitutional convention in November, with action expected to be taken at the NCAA Convention in January
The special constitutional convention is intended to propose dramatic changes to the NCAA constitution and reimagine aspects of college sports so the association can more effectively meet the needs of current and future college athletes
Membership will have an opportunity to provide feedback on the working draft of proposals at the special convention, which will convene no later than Nov. 15. The final proposals will be provided to the NCAA Board of Governors by Dec. 15 and scheduled for votes in January by the full membership at the NCAA Convention
AV poses several key questions, themes, and recommendations that may be part of the Committee’s future work
Part I
A Special Convention Called
The Board of Governors recently announced its historic decision to convene a special convention in November, with action expected to be taken at the NCAA Convention in January. The special constitutional convention is intended to propose dramatic changes to the NCAA constitution to reimagine aspects of college sports so the Association can more effectively meet the needs of current and future college athletes.
Per the NCAA press release, the Constitution Committee will identify the core principles that define college sports and propose a new governance model that allows for quicker change without sacrificing broader values, while either reaffirming or redefining those values. The committee will be chaired by former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, one of five independent members of the Board of Governors and former president at Texas A&M.
"Each of the appointees offers important insight on the transformation that's needed for the future," NCAA President Mark Emmert said. "The time is now for substantive change. And future change must focus on serving student-athletes."
Leadership bodies from all three NCAA divisions provided nominations for the review committee. From those nominees, the board appointed university presidents, conference commissioners, athletics directors and students from Divisions I, II and III, and independent members of the Board of Governors.
In this multi-part series, the AV team raises several questions, themes and offers a few recommendations to address a variety of macro and micro-level challenges and the crisis in confidence that currently coats the current NCAA governance and regulatory landscape.
These reconstruction themes are certainly not exhaustive and reflect only a portion of the breadth of issues the Constitution Committee may explore and address.
The NCAA’s Clear Line of Demarcation between Intercollegiate Athletics and Professional Sports Needs a Simpler and Modernized Paint Brush
The long-standing NCAA principle of amateurism – often captured as “the clear line of demarcation” between college sports and pro sports -- is neither clear nor a consistent line. Sometimes the line is dotted, sometimes the line zigs and zags, and sometimes it is simply not there.
Through this Committee and the Special Convention process, the NCAA membership may rightfully keep distinctions between pro and college level athletics as it pertains to a revamped set of amateurism rules, but this can be done without the legislative contortionism that reflects the hodge-podge of NCAA amateurism rules that exist today.
The NCAA membership has an opportunity to more clearly define “competitive fairness” and eliminate the legislative whittling and special-interest exceptions that have come to define NCAA amateurism rules in the twenty-first century.
It would be worth moving amateurism rules down the ladder of membership priorities and moving up academic, enrollment opportunities, and graduation priorities including for those who may have dabbled in professional sports.
For example, an individual pursuing professional soccer may, as a teenager, sign with an agent and agree to a one or two year contract with a pro soccer club to play mid-level professional soccer for less than $50,000 a year. A promising start to young soccer player’s dream of soccer stardom, but not necessarily a made career. If that individual’s contract runs out and is not renewed or picked up by another pro team (reflecting that pro teams don’t see that individual as pro ready), suddenly you have an individual who is 18 or 19 years old that can’t be recruited by NCAA schools because the binary amateurism rules in existence today would cancel out that individual’s chance to be recruited and receive an athletics scholarship and pursue college soccer and a degree because the individual signed a pro contract and signing with an agent.
In reality, this individual’s soccer talent level is likely on par with their 18 or 19-year old peers that are eligible to play college soccer at an NCAA member institution. This individual’s life would be changed forever if more doors were open to pursue a college degree with the help of a soccer scholarship.
In fairness, amateurism does have its place in the college sports regulatory landscape. The NCAA’s Bylaw 12 amateurism rules are one of the trickiest and convoluted sections of the entire NCAA manual---ripe with outdated premises and sport-specific carve outs and exceptions. What may be needed is a simpler version that focuses only on restricting outcomes that would be fundamentally unfair to the notion of on-field, competitive fairness should drive policy changes in this area. Perhaps a mixture of age and number of years where an individual was “professionalized” in combination should be restricted.
Amateurism, though, can no longer be a binary assessment of whether you are an amateur or you are not. Sports (and life) are not that simple. Amateurism lives in the gray. The NCAA’s amateurism policies should be more customized by the unique dynamics and progression of each sport -- something that has been trending for years as sports like baseball, ice hockey and tennis have sport-specific amateurism rules and exceptions already in place. Add the fact that student-athletes can hire agents for NIL transactional purposes now, the clear lines of demarcation are simply vanishing.
To contextualize, NCAA Division I Bylaw 12 encompasses a myriad amateurism rules surpassing 15 printed pages. Bylaw 12.1.2.4 is of particular note and entitled “Exceptions to Amateurism Rule.” Under this section heading, there are more than a dozen exceptions to the amateurism rule spelled out in great detail – with each exception usually 50+ words or greater. The moral to this story is that the amateurism rule is full of bullet holes and carve outs that reflect the legislative version of Twister.
Fastening a simple and clearly measurable set of amateurism rules would create more opportunities for individuals who “lightly” professionalize at an early age and would like to pursue college sports and degree as an alternative option in life.
This simplification of the rule would reduce the amount of time and resources expended by the NCAA Eligibility Center, coaches, and institutional compliance staff running down nuanced historical details on what a prospect did when they were 15 or 16 years old that may or may not have some vague connection to amateurism – activities that, for the most part, don’t create an uneven playing field by the time the prospect is 18. The amateurism bylaws are from a bygone era and need a demolition expert.
The Front Line of College Sports Could add Value to the Constitution Committee
Although many NCAA principles are universal to all three divisions, the make-up of the Constitution Committee reflects the reality that most of the attention in this NCAA governance reconstruction exercise is centered around Division I.
One of the core topics needing attention is what the NCAA membership believes a modern collegiate model should be defined including what to do with “amateurism” (as noted in section above) and bringing the proverbial mop and bucket to deal with the labyrinth of patch-work legislation that was mostly built on a one-Division I size fits all Division I premise. This premise is outdated as the Autonomy 5 (aka Power 5) continues to press for separation.
According to the NCAA’s recent press release, one of the express reasons for convening this Committee was to review and potentially redefine the NCAA’s constitutional principles at the macro level. Many of those principles revolve around academics, eligibility, and graduation as well as compliance, amateurism, integrity, and competitive equity and fairness.
In addition to the commissioners, athletics directors, presidents and other esteemed individuals appointed to the Committee, it would make sense to add to the Committee experienced administrators who manage academics, compliance, amateurism, agents, NIL or other eligibility provisions on a day to day basis at an NCAA Division I campus, a Division I conference office, or the NCAA national office including the NCAA Eligibility Center.
Although the governance structure itself will be a critical focal point for the Committee including themes ranging from voting rights to committee representation, reverse engineering the problems that are the by-product of the NCAA’s current governance structure may be a pragmatic path to distill the problem(s) and craft workable solutions.
In other words, part of the conversation on what principles matter to college athletics in 2021 and beyond should account for the front-line realities, resource limitations, time and energy expenditures for managing, monitoring, executing, and enforcing the very rules the current governance structure produces – perspectives best viewed from those who manage on a daily basis.
There is consensus to holistically assess what principles and rules matter most to NCAA membership and what might not matter as much anymore. Not having any individuals who currently manage and administer the 300+ page regulatory gumbo known as the NCAA manual could be a missed opportunity.
A common lament about dealing with the NCAA governance and regulatory morass has been captured at the presidential level in years gone by this way; “We needn’t spend our time worrying about the minutia… we need to be worried about big picture issues only.”
The strategy of ignoring the “minutia” has only enabled the shortcomings of the NCAA’s current governance and regulatory challenges to pervade. Institutional, conference, and national resources continue to be drained by the regulatory minutia that thrives when it’s underestimated or overlooked.
The AV team will continue this multi-part series on the "NCAA Makeover" next week with more pressing questions and concepts to consider. As always, thanks for reading!
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.
