NCAA President Mark Emmert Reform Movement---An Ongoing Leadership Case Study

Over the next month the NCAA member schools will vote on two override issues that were approved by the Board of Directors last summer. Both are being positioned as student-athlete welfare issues, but many long time athletic directors wonder if this is the first step in the creation of a “Super Division”. As the non-BCS schools struggle to financially support their programs and find alternative revenue sources (mostly student fees), the huge television deals and bowl payouts provide significant revenue streams for the Big 6 conferences.

The Board has passed legislation where athletics departments can provide an annual supplement of $2,000 above the normal athletic scholarship. However 161 of the 355 Division 1 schools signed an override measure against the stipend, enough to suspend the measure for now. The reality of this movement is that this legislation will divide the Association into haves and have-nots. NCAA President Mark Emmert says that this is permissive legislation. No school has to provide the stipend to its athletes. However, the reality is that a school will quickly be classified as to whether they provide the stipend or not. Those programs that cannot afford to provide the stipend, will quickly be stigmatized as not committed to “big time” athletics.

To many Athletic Directors who have been in the game for a long time, they perceive President Emmert ‘s reform movement as the early stages of the ultimate move to a “Super Power” Division with different rules and different agendas. Typically this is an example of a leadership style (used frequently in Higher Education) where different scenarios are created over a long period of time that ultimately lead to a major desired outcome. Compare that leadership style to the one where leaders just deal with the main issue and explain the pros and cons of the big issue and the implementation process.

So President Emmert and the NCAA Board has two options:

1. Pass many pieces of legislation that ultimately demonstrate the extreme differences in the 355 Division 1 members so there is no doubt there is a need for the creation of a new “Super Power” Division.
2. Deal with the inequities in college athletics right now and develop a plan (based on input from all levels of the Division 1 membership) that outlines how this “Super Power” Division would operate and then present that concept.

With the huge amount of money that is at stake here, it is really hard to fathom that sooner or later the big boys won’t want both a bigger share and more control. The next 6 months should provide interesting as President Emmert pushes his agenda. Will his leadership provide a strong unified Division 1 or will college athletics turn into a bifurcated system of have and have-nots. Stay tuned to see where President Emmert’s reform movement and leadership takes Division 1.

Boise State---A Dream with a Price

In 1996 Boise State was a new member in Division 1A football.  Just like numerous other programs that had made the move to the current FBS classification, the Broncos dreamed of the glory, recognition and national exposure of competing at the highest level.  The majority of college athletics  viewed BSU as just another wannabe with no real reason to expect them to be any more than numerous other schools with lofty aspirations but no ability to elevate their program to a top 10 status.  Many schools with more resources and tradition could not maintain a nationally competitive program.  But Athletic Director Gene Bleymaier  (who became AD in 1982) accepted the credo, "The difference between a dream and a goal is a timeline."  So the vision became the goal and the Broncos have built and maintained a football program that has become the main target for expansion by the Big East.  If Bleymaier would have told someone in 1996 that Boise would be highly sought after by the Big East and be crucial to the Big East long term survival, people would have laughed in his face.  Realizing the Broncos had to create their own plan and model for success, Bleymaier created a strategy different from everyone else typified  by constructing "the blue", the only field in the BCS that is not green.  He managed the success through three different conference and two BCS bowl appearances.  Without his vision and confidence to follow the dream,  Boise State might still be in the Big Sky without the national reputation and name recognition.  As leaders,  understand that dreams do happen when you are willing to take action and perservere through the rough waters.  Bleymaier did not let the naysayers interfere with his dreams and goals.  Unfortunately in the last few months the president at Boise State terminated AD Gene Bleymaier because the Broncos had been found to have violated NCAA rules in five sports.  While the response from Bleymaier and Boise State was commended by the NCAA, Boise State president Bob Kustra "lost confidence" in Gene's ability to handle the compliance function and fired him immediately.  While the incredible success of the Boise State Broncos is totally the efforts of Gene Bleymaier, everyone must realize that every aspect of leadership becomes a potential source of trouble.  Leaders need to make sure that they leave no area vulnerable or even with incredible success, the  leader becomes expendable.  So two great lessons to be learned from a Boise State case study are:

1.  Dreams can be true if you have an unflappable determination and a strategy to turn that dream into a goal.

2.  Even when everything in your dream is coming together, you must pay attention to every aspect of reaching your goal.  One mistake or omission of responsibility can bring you down.