Project 5: What’s at our core? NCAA Division I Voting Patterns vs. Student-Athlete Well-Being, Academic Standards, and the Amateur (Collegiate) Model Josephine (Jo) R. Potuto Richard H. Larson Professor of Constitutional Law University of Nebraska Connie Dillon, Professor Emerita of Adult and Higher Education, University of Oklahoma David E. Clough, Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of Colorado This slide will be displayed as we are introduced. As soon as Jo begins, we will move to the next slide. Knight Commission On Intercollegiate Athletics Washington, DC, October 9, 2012

Questions Addressed By This Study NCAA Core Values Amateur (Collegiate) Model Student-Athlete Well-Being Academic Standards Questions Addressed By This Study Does NCAA Division I vote these core values? Does Division I all-division voting combined with subdivisional diversity impede the advancement of these core values? Jo will speak. This should be a brief discussion to set the context of our study. Jo will transition to Connie at the end of the slide.

The Legislative Database for the Study Years of Study: 2004-05 through 2010-11 Two Governance Structures 2004-05 – 2007-08 “Management Council” 2008-09 – 2010-11 “Legislative Council” Legislative Proposals 1013 proposals, 587 reviewed 345 proposals coded for analysis Non-controversial and emergency proposals were excluded from review NCAA Division I [ 31 conferences / 340 institutions ] Football Bowl Subdivision [ 11 / 120 + Notre Dame ] (“BCS FBS” and “nonBCS FBS”) Football Championship Subdivision (“FCS”) [ 11 / 122 ] No-Football Subdivision (“noFB”) [ 9 / 98 ] Connie will discuss this slide. Note: For context, there are 1,066 member institutions in the NCAA, 340 in DI, 290 in DII, and 436 in DIII. There are 6 BCS FBS conferences and 5 nonBCS FBS conferences. We don’t have an exact count of the number of institutions in this breakdown of FBS. I estimate 65-70 in the former, 55-50 in the latter.

Analyzing and Coding the Legislative Proposals Why we excluded certain proposals: non-controversial emergency Coding methodology based on relevance to core principles researchers coded independently then resolved differences Difficulties encountered proposals unrelated to core values complicated proposals with subparts understanding other influential factors Connie will take the lead here, and Jo will offer a comment or two. The two of them will interact.

The Database and Statistical Analysis Legislative proposal characteristics vis-à-vis NCAA core values and economics coded and combined with Division I subdivision and overall voting records. Database created in an Excel spreadsheet and transferred to a Minitab project worksheet. Extensive analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the database using the general linear model. Exploration of relationship between variability in voting patterns and NCAA core value characteristics. Dave will present this.

What We Learned From the Statistical Analysis It is not apparent that the core values of student-athlete well-being and academic standards significantly affect Division I overall or subdivisional voting patterns. The economic impact of proposals is significant in determining the voting outcomes, except for the FBS BCS conferences during the earlier “Management Council” years of the study. There were not enough proposals that were relevant to the amateur (collegiate) model to allow statistical analysis. Dave can present the results of the statistical analysis.

What We Learned From the Statistical Analysis (continued) Legislative proposals that advance student-athlete well-being or academic standards and have no economic nor competitive impact are supported throughout Division I with greater majorities than other proposals. Other factors, not analyzed, that may affect voting patterns: Institutional autonomy Compliance concerns Impact on other NCAA core values Perceptions that a proposal cannot achieve goals Difficulty in understanding the import and impact Dave will continue with the first part. Jo will discuss Other factors ...

What We Also Observed There were 21 proposals related to the amateurism (collegiate model) principle. 7 of these were adopted unanimously or nearly so Of the remaining 14, 9 were related to professional opportunities 5 had to do with promotional activities adopted proposals were limited in scope all subdivisions supported expanding promotional activities subdivisions generally supported expanding professional opportunities some support shown to liberalize the amateur (collegiate) model Connie and Jo will team up here.

Observations and Questions Regarding Division I Governance Lack of rigor and consistency in the NCAA legislative process Should this be addressed in a new governance structure? FCS and noFB subdivisions do not have distinguishable voting patterns Should these subdivisions be merged? Jo will do the first bullet. Connie the second. And Dave the third. We will then entertain questions. Jo can direct questions to be answered by Connie or Dave, as appropriate; otherwise Jo will handle them. We can provide references to the full report, as needed. BCS FBS and nonBCS FBS conferences are significantly different Should or will a “super conference” subdivision be formed from BCS FBS?