Date Posted:12:12:46 05/12/04 Wed Author: NTKHC64 Subject: Role of the Athletic Director by Myles Brand
This deals with 1A athletics but certainly has some relevance to 1-AA.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 14, 2003
NCAA PRESIDENT, MYLES BRAND SAYS DIVISION 1A AD'S "...SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE UNIVERSITY LEADERSHIP TEAM"
Dallas, TX. NCAA President, Myles Brand, speaking on the role of the Division 1A AD at the Annual Meeting of the Division 1A Athletic Directors' Association held recently in Dallas called the AD's position one of importance to the entire University community.
In making his presentation to over 175 Division 1A AD's, faculty members and Conference officials, Dr. Brand stated that, "the athletics director should advocate for the strategic goals of the university and help carry the president's message to the community.
In this role, "the athletics director helps bridge the perceptual gap that may exist between athletics and the rest of the campus."
Dr. Brand's comments were candid, insightful, and directly compatible with the Code of Ethics and Core Values of the Division 1A Athletic Directors' Association. Dr. Brand emphasized the role of the 1A Athletic Director is critical in shaping the future of intercollegiate athletics and in executing decisions that are made. In dealing with the challenges that face intercollegiate athletics, Dr. Brand stated: "College Presidents and athletics directors have stepped up to investigate the allegations, taken swift action to rid their programs of bad actors, and set new courses for accountability-based standards."
He went on to say, "athletics directors are not in this effort alone - although at times, I expect it must seem so. In fact, I believe that your role increasingly is to align athletics with the other functions of the university so that college sports is valued as part of the educational process."
Brand also advocated for a direct line reporting relationship between the AD and the University President, similar to other senior university officials, suggesting that the AD be a prominent player within the hierarchy of the university governance structure. "From the point of view of a university president, the athletics director should be a member of the university leadership team. In this regard, he or she should report directly to the president. In some cases, certainly, the AD may work with a vice-president on a daily basis. But on all high profile and policy issues pertaining to athletics, the athletics director and the president must communicate regularly and directly. If the athletics director is to advocate for alignment of athletics and the rest of the campus, he or she must understand the goals and strategies of the entire university."
Further, Dr. Brand identified other key responsibilities of the athletics director including, oversight of the budget and operations of the athletics department. "With the possible exception of the dean of the medical school, the athletics director has responsibility for the most visible and complex unit on campus", said Brand. "There are at least four areas of responsibility for the athletics director in terms of operations - financial, personnel, fundraising and marketing."
Dr. Brand went on to say that direct subsidization of athletics programs by the central university would help bridge the gap between athletics and academics on some campuses. In this regard he does not favor financial self-sufficiency for athletics departments.. "Personally, I do not favor this principle, said Brand. "I believe it has harmed the concept of amateurism and it can lead to bad decision-making."
To make his point, he cited the results from a study commissioned by the Division I Board of Directors to examine the effects of spending in college sports. "The good news from the report is that intercollegiate athletics is not the tail wagging the dog. In fact, athletics is largely in line with other major units on campus. On average, the operating budget for athletics is about 3 to 4 percent of the entire university budget. College sports are not leading the university down the path to financial ruin. Most importantly, analysis of the data on operating budgets cannot find compelling evidence that increased operational spending at one institution triggers increased operational spending at another. That is an arms race, and from an operational budget perspective, it is not occurring widely."
The study results clearly indicated that no correlation exists between increased spending and increased winning. Dr. Brand added, "The value of athletics to the institution is measured in terms of pride and community building, in name recognition and national standing. In my view, the university should be prepared to cross-subsidize the program. Given these gains for the university and the value athletics brings to the campus, I hold that it is reasonable for overt subsidy of intercollegiate sports. This is not a substitute for sound fiduciary responsibility, but for most programs in Division 1A, self-sufficiency is not an achievable goal, and that should not be considered a negative factor in evaluating the merits of an athletics program. Cross-subsidy is more acceptable to the campus and others when intercollegiate athletics is integrated into the institution in terms of budget and mission. Separation from the campus' goals and processes can put an athletics department at risk."
With regard to the recent reorganization of intercollegiate athletics at Vanderbilt University, Dr. Brand emphasized, "I do favor integration of athletics into the academic mission of the university." He cited the model at Notre Dame and California, Berkeley as good examples where athletics has been successfully integrated into the academic mission of the university, however, he pointed to the fact that, "But in both of these cases, the leadership is provided by an experienced athletics director." He supports the integration of athletics into the academic mission of a university as a move that raises the level of importance and responsibility of an athletics director.
In making these points, Dr. Brand challenged the 1A AD's to be sure the athletics department does not look like a separate entity from the university. The challenge, regardless of the management model employed, is to advance a higher value of athletics to the university and a deeper appreciation of the institution's mission and education values within the athletics department.
