Right now, we are all eagerly awaiting the promised results from NCAA President Mark Emmert's four NCAA working groups. The NCAA has been in "reform" mode since it was first established in 1906 and, after 105 years of waiting, we can certainly wait patiently for a few more months to see if we get real results out of this latest effort.

Emmert himself handpicked the four NCAA working groups, and their charge is to recommend fundamental change in NCAA rules, enforcement, resource allocation and student-athlete well-being.

The makeup of Emmert's working groups, and the dearth of athlete involvement, raises some important, fundamental questions regarding the voice of the athlete in the NCAA process. Do athletes truly have fair representation on these working groups? Do athletes from "revenue-producing" sports have fair representation on the working groups or in any part of the NCAA process?

A genuine voice for athletes in the NCAA process costs the NCAA membership nothing, yet athletes do not seem to have representation commensurate with their very important roles in the enterprise of college athletics.

Of the 84 members of the working groups, only four are athletes. There are 53 members that are presidents, commissioners, consultants, faculty representatives and coaches' association representatives. And there are 27 chairs taken up by NCAA staff, though they do not have a vote. Athletes make up just 4.7 percent of those sitting in on the working group meetings, and one has to round up to reach that rather low percentage.

The enforcement working group consist of 22 members, seven of which are NCAA staff, with only one student-athlete (Kevin McShane, Oregon State, men's basketball). The rules working group consists of 22 members, seven of which are NCAA staff, with only one student-athlete (Curtis Schickner, UMBC, baseball). The resource allocation working group consists of 20 members, six of which are NCAA staff, with only one student-athlete (Lauren Cochlin, Wisconsin, women's soccer). The well-being working group consists of 20 members, seven of which are NCAA staff, with only one student-athlete (Eugene Daniels, Colorado State, football).

I asked a high-ranking NCAA official why there are only four athletes involved with the working groups. I was told that the athletes were selected directly from the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC), and only four were needed because each athlete was charged with canvassing their colleagues to determine their different views, and to bring those views to the table in the working group meetings and conference calls. Of course, one wonders why commissioners and administrators cannot do the same, thereby reducing the 53 spots to a more workable number.

Just one athlete per working group does not seem to allow the athlete much of a voice in the process, and one can reasonably question whether the actual experience of the typical "revenue-producing" athlete is fairly represented, let alone the views of the elite revenue-producing athlete. Of the two "revenue-producing" athletes on the working groups, Kevin McShane of Oregon State is a career walk-on who was just awarded a scholarship for his final season, and Eugene Daniels actually quit the Colorado State football team after his junior season. Daniels is no longer even a college athlete, although he is still in school with eligibility remaining. With no offense meant to Daniels, he is certainly not representative of the typical experience of a revenue-producing athlete.

The makeup of the SAAC itself raises additional questions about the voice of the athlete in the process. There are 31 members of the SAAC, one from each Division I conference. Of the SAAC members, only four are from the "revenue-producing" sports of football and men's basketball (McShane, Kelvin Beachum of SMU, Chris Everett of Western Carolina and Yaser Elqutub of Northwestern State). By contrast, the SAAC has four women's volleyball players, four track athletes, four baseball players and three women's soccer players, with five soccer players represented overall.

None of this suggests that the athletes who have given their time and effort to this endeavor are not outstanding individuals doing an admirable job in their roles. I am confident that they are. Rather, it is the lack of representation of the typical football and basketball athlete on the SAAC and working groups that raises reasonable concern.

Duke law professor Paul Haagen was recently quoted in Eric Adelson's Daily Take as saying, "There's a significant problem when there's not a voice. If the players have no voice, then you're currently running on an enlightened despotism model. We haven't liked that since the 18th century." I agree. And recent action seems to indicate the enlightenment may not match the NCAA's rhetoric and promises.

After hearing that providing for the full cost of attendance (COA) for athletes is a priority, recent reports indicate that the boost in COA may max out at $2,000. While some may consider that a good first step, we were led to believe that incremental change was simply not good enough.

Perhaps more voices of revenue-producing athletes would make a difference. It certainly wouldn't cost anything, and it certainly couldn't hurt. In my judgment, better representation for athletes and a larger voice would be a good first step, too.