Commissioners: Time for 'transformative' change in NCAA

• ACC%27s John Swofford and Big 12%27s Bob Bowlsby said it is time for %27transformative change.%27
• Commissioners want to stay under the NCAA umbrella%2C possibly in a %27super division%27
• Swofford said the next six months are %27very important%27 to the future of the NCAA

Secession from the NCAA isn't on the way – but separation within the NCAA is a strong possibility, based on comments Monday by commissioners of two major conferences. ACC commissioner John Swofford and Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, speaking with reporters at their leagues' respective football media days, said it is time for "transformative change."

Swofford said the next six months are "very important" to the future of the NCAA and predicted significant structural and governance changes could be implemented at the college sports governing body's annual convention in January. Bowlsby went one step further, suggesting a special convention might need to be called. He said it is time to consider a new "federation" of schools with like resources – and perhaps separation by sport.

"It's probably unrealistic to think that we can manage football and field hockey by the same set of rules," Bowlsby said. "I think some kind of reconfiguration of how we govern is in order."

Both commissioners said a so-called "super division" made up of the five wealthiest conferences would be preferable to a breakaway from the NCAA. Bowlsby said the commissioners of the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC, who discussed the matter in-depth in late April while in Pasadena for BCS meetings, have "unanimity" on the subject.

Those conferences have automatic qualifier status for the current Bowl Championship Series format, and for the upper-tier bowls in the upcoming College Football Playoff. A new subdivision would allow athletic departments with high-revenue football programs to make some of their own rules and implement things like athlete stipends. Many of those initiatives have been blocked by lower-revenue programs, which make up the majority of the NCAA.

Both commissioners' remarks followed strong comments last week from SEC commissioner Mike Slive, who said of the NCAA: "Moving forward, there are important questions that must be answered."

Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott told USA TODAY Sports by phone Monday he would have more to say on the subject Friday, at his conference's media day in Los Angeles, but he said he was largely in agreement with the other commissioners.

"It's fair to say there is concern about the governance right now and some of the processes," Scott said. "People are engaged, and I think it's a good thing. We're hoping for positive reform within the system."

Financial divide

But the commissioners clearly want significant change. Once merely cocktail party talk, the idea that conferences could leave the NCAA and form a new association is now discussed openly in college athletics, albeit just in theory – for now.

"I think we all have a sense that transformative change is going to have to happen," Bowlsby added. "This is not a time when trimming around the edges is going to make very much difference."

The gap in resources within college athletics has never been greater, and it's growing. An analysis by USA TODAY shows the average SEC public school's operational expenses in 2011-12 were $88.5 million, according to the most recently available information reported by the schools to the NCAA. The average Mountain West school spent $41.3 million. The divide is expected to grow dramatically with the advent of the College Football Playoff.

"Northern Iowa and Texas aren't much alike," said Bowlsby, who was the athletic director at Northern Iowa, Iowa and Stanford before moving to the Big 12 a year ago.

The commissioners' push is simply an attempt to formalize a separation that's already real. Swofford noted to USA TODAY Sports that a complete breakaway would be complicated, and would require the conferences to essentially duplicate the NCAA. But even as Bowlsby said he did not see secession as a viable option, he said the threat must be retained as leverage "as a last resort."

"I really think that leadership and the rank and file believe that there's a solution within the NCAA, and it's been along those lines that we've had the conversations," Bowlsby said. "Could that change to something that's a little more harsh down the road? Possibly could, sure."

A new subdivision consisting solely of the largest – and weathiest – schools would undoubtedly invite scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service. The NCAA exists as a nonprofit organization; if, for example, a new subdivision covered only football, it is unclear how the organization's tax-exempt status would be affected.

"It's certainly a fair question to ask," Bowlsby said. "There's even a question whether there are going to be tax issues down the road under any configuration. You would want to at least ask the question, that's for sure. It's certainly among the considerations in any potential arrangement."

Reasons for initiative

The problem, as Bowlsby and his peers see it, is two-pronged. Initiatives proposed by larger schools – the easiest, most recent example is the idea of an athlete stipend, or full cost-of-attendance scholarships – have no chance of passing because schools with fewer resources vote them down.

"It's virtually impossible right now to configure legislative proposals that have any chance of getting through the system intact that would accomplish anything in the way of meaningful change," Bowlsby said. "I think all of us are feeling that."

At the same time, the NCAA's governance structure, with its emphasis on presidential control, is seen as out of touch, with athletic directors and conference commissioners – the people who work daily in college athletics – feeling "like they're on the outside looking in," Bowlsby said. Bowlsby said he wasn't directing criticism specifically at NCAA president Mark Emmert, but said "we need to reconfigure the leadership of the organization," with athletic directors and commissioners as voting members of the NCAA's board of directors, which is currently populated by presidents.

In addition to an internal review of the NCAA's enforcement department, which has been ensnared in controversy over misconduct in the University of Miami investigation, there is a growing sense that other initiatives such as recruiting deregulation have taken place without enough input from athletic directors. The NCAA has hired a consultant to examine its governance structure, which places nearly all of its power in the hands of a Board of Directors made up of college presidents. Meanwhile, Emmert acknowledged last month the formation of an athletic directors' council to meet with him regularly and provide input.

Swofford said that although he believes in the concept of presidential control, he is encouraged by "substantive discussions" pointing to governance changes that could be enacted as soon as next year.

"I do think we've missed the boat in this new structure in terms of keeping people who really know college athletics and deal with it every day and know its nuances," he said. "The current structure just doesn't engage those people to the degree that I think they need to be engaged.

"I hope that can be addressed within the NCAA, and I hope that adjustments can be made in the legislative process in the NCAA that engages more people than the current approach does. I think that's critical to the future of the body."

In a statement released by the NCAA, Emmert said he welcomed the "conversation."

"The Division I Board and the Executive Committee have invited NCAA members to offer their views about how the DI governance process can be improved. Many good ideas are being suggested, including ways to increase the involvement of practitioners. Everyone is eager to expand this conversation."

George Schroeder and Dan Wolken, national college football reporters for USA TODAY Sports, are on Twitter @GeorgeSchroeder and @DanWolken.