ANALYSIS : All Talk, No Substance at NCAA Convention

As debate among Division I representatives at the NCAA convention droned on over--stop the presses--travel squad limits, Roy Kramer, commissioner of the Southeastern Conference, stomped to an open microphone.

One of the most powerful men in college sports--and also one of the crustiest--Kramer bellowed: “This should not be managed by the NCAA! This should be managed by the conferences!”

Kramer’s frustration was shared by many who attended this year’s convention.

Delegates haggled over whether eight or 10 tennis players should be allowed to go on trips, but delayed voting on whether student-athletes should have five years of eligibility instead of four.

For the most part, the 1994 NCAA convention did little more than pump dollars into the San Antonio tourist economy and draw the wrath of black basketball coaches.

It was not the NCAA’s finest hour.

If anything, the meeting, which ended Tuesday, reinforced the point, espoused by Kramer and others, that the NCAA legislative process is in need of an overhaul that would allow the Alabamas and USCs of the world more say in shaping their destinies.

“This whole restructuring plan is coming from frustration,” said Dennis Farrell, commissioner of the Big West Conference. “People see we have this cumbersome process--174 proposals. A lot of issues are so tedious. (The process) takes so long.

“There is concern about representatives from Division II and III (being) involved in all (decision-making) bodies. Even though the NCAA has made some advancement the last four, five years toward federation, there’s still some frustration.”

Sure to be debated in coming months is a plan, developed by the commissioners from the eight major Division I-A conferences, that would give the big-time football schools more autonomy within the NCAA. Participation in the voting bloc would be limited to schools with annual athletic budgets of $9 million or more as well as other factors.

Citing the eight conferences’ “equity position within the NCAA,” Kramer said the commissioners’ restructuring plan deserves serious consideration.

“We are talking about streamlining governance (of the NCAA),” Kramer said, “perhaps significantly reducing bureaucracy.”

Of course, don’t expect substantive action on restructuring any time soon--convention delegates approved a resolution setting up a committee to study the issue. The committee’s deadline: 1996.