Productos que cumplen con las normas FDA, ASME BPE, A3, AISI y NAHAD para plantas de producción Farmacéutica, Alimenticia y Cosmética


Dianabol Hi Tech Pharmaceuticals Reviews,Anavar Que Es,Equipoise Ethics

A Practical Approach To Reforming The NCAA's Board Of Directors

In "Anaboliset Aineet" a speech on the state "Anabolika Definition" of the Southeastern Conference on the first day of SEC Media Days, SEC commissioner Mike Slive not only boasted about the conference's continued successes, but also made remarks calling for NCAA reform. Most interesting in his call for NCAA reform, perhaps, was his comments related to the structure of the NCAA's Division I Board of Directors. In particular, Slive asked, ". . . What changes need to be made to the NCAA structure to provide significant roles for the stakeholders, the presidents, chancellors, athletic directors, institutional administrators, conference administrators and coaches? What is Comprar Levitra the proper role, function and "Oxandrolone Powder India" composition and size of the NCAA Board of Directors?"

To understand the call of Slive's question, it is important to first understand the composition and duties of the NCAA's Division I Board of Directors. The NCAA Division I bylaws set forth how the Division I Board of Directors is composed. Namely, the bylaws provide that the Board of Directors shall be composed of 18 members. Where the Board of Directors' 18 members come from is also set by the bylaws. Eleven Division I conferences, including the SEC, continually hold Board of Director seats. The other ten conferences who, along with the SEC, continually maintain a position on the Board of Directors are: the ACC, former Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Conference USA, Mid American Conference, Mountain West Conference, Pac 12, Sun Belt Conference and WAC. In addition to these eleven conferences, seven other Division I conferences rotate to receive a position on the Board of Directors. Notably, each conference's representative on the board is either a president or chancellor of a member institution of the conference.

Once the members of the 18 member board are set, what does the board do? The NCAA Division I bylaws set forth 16 functions that the Division I Board Anavar Que Es of Directors are expected to perform. Amongst these functions is establishing and directing general NCAA policy, establishing an NCAA strategic plan, adopting or defeating legislative proposals, approving an annual budget and advising the NCAA Executive Committee on issues related to the employment of NCAA President Emmert. To put it simply, the members of the Division I Board of Directors rule the NCAA.

Why then, would the commissioner of one of the highest performing and greatest revenue generating conferences call for reform to redefine the function, scope and size of the Division I Board of Directors? In sum, Slive's comments regarding the Board of Directors are likely related to an underlying belief that the large size of the board limits its ability to function efficiently and effectively to best promote the interests of the NCAA's Division I members.

Is this underlying belief correct, though? Is eighteen members too many for a board that oversees the 167,089 student athletes who participate in Division I sports? 18 members of the Board of Directors roughly equates to each board member serving the Dianabol Hi Tech Pharmaceuticals Reviews interests of 9,283 Division I student athletes. When put this way, is Slive's point that the size of the Board of Directors needs to be visited correct?

The one thing that may be right when it comes to the NCAA Division I Board of Directors' composition is its size. At a minimum, 18 members is necessary to give the major Division Equipoise Ethics I conferences a voice in matters affecting them. Furthermore, to fully represent the interests of student athletes, this number of directors is arguably necessary. If anything, when it comes to the size of the Board of Directors, chances are that the size needs to be increased to include at least one representative from every Division I conference.

Perhaps the real issue in this instance then, is not the size of the Board of Directors, but the board's leadership. As noted above, the NCAA bylaws require that members of the board either be presidents or chancellors of a conference's member institutions. Is it possible, that by changing this requirement the board could better function?

When you think about the parties employed by a university, a president or chancellor is arguably the busiest person on a campus. The weight of the entire campus arguably falls on their shoulders. Their calendars are scattered with speeches, public service commitments and fundraising endeavors. Most presidents and chancellors have built impressive careers sourced in academia and developed far away from the realm of the athletic department. Given the demands of these individuals and their relative non exposure to the needs, "4-chlorodehydromethyltestosterone Ireland" interests and concerns to student athletes, are they the best individuals to make up the Board of Directors?

Slive has a point with his comment. Change to the composition of the NCAA's Division I Board of Directors is likely necessary. However, this change needs to be in the background of the individuals sitting on the board. Individuals from member institutions who work directly with student athletes are likely to better understand the needs and concerns of student athletes and in turn, enact legislation that addresses those needs. Until this happens, chances are that Slive and other commissioners frustrated with status of the NCAA will see things as being status quo.

Copyright © 2017 Magic Systems, All rights reserved.