I have not spoken to a Division I administrator or basketball coach who is not sincerely concerned about the health of certain aspects of Division I men's basketball. They, along with many faculty, and now presidents, are greatly troubled by the seeming disconnection between certain elements of the youth and college basketball environments and reasonable educational outcomes.

Their concerns have been chronicled by journalists and media pundits, as well as by testimony from coaches and administrators appearing before the NCAA Division I Working Group to Study Basketball Issues. Their concerns include the following points:

* The direct link between Division I evaluation and the often corrupting summer basketball influences;

* Extremely low Division I men's basketball graduation rates coupled with extremely high rates of student-athlete attrition;

* An alarming sense of entitlement by players arriving on Division I campuses;

* Student-athlete gambling; and

* The resultant sociology associated with addressing these values and attitudes after prospects arrive on campus.

Many of these problems are linked and call for a cohesive strategy. The Division I Board of Directors has signaled its intention to take action. The NCAA membership needs to be prepared for and supportive of change.

Many aspects of pre-college basketball and post-college basketball environments are well beyond the NCAA's regulatory reach. Because we have little or no control over some aspects of our problem does not release any of us from the responsibility to manage and change those areas that we can address.

Apart from the low graduation rates and extremely high rates of student-athlete attrition, the sociology surrounding the game at the high-school and college levels all too often contains messages and incentives that are incompatible with a healthy respect for the value and values of higher education. We need to change the atmosphere and the incentive systems around this sport.

For example, the recruitment of prospective student-athletes has always been a necessary evil, difficult to regulate and impossible to eliminate. The spring and summer environment in the sport of basketball at the elite youth level has developed into a chaotic series of camps, regional, national and international competitions and tournaments funded and fueled by corporate entities and non-school based agencies and individuals.

The NCAA membership has unwittingly contributed to the corruption by placing most of its evaluation process in the summer. Shoe companies have contributed to the problem by using the summer competitions as a battleground in the "sneakers wars." The scene is further complicated by the triangular relationship many Division I institutions and their head coaches have with different apparel companies, thus creating the impression that we are an indirect or direct beneficiary of the whole sordid process. Sometimes the money paid to coaches and schools has appeared to silence justified criticism of the system.

Reducing Division I coaches' involvement in the summer period by 5 percent, 10 percent or 50 percent fails to break the connection between Division I recruitment and the summer chaos described earlier. Only a clear elimination of Division I recruitment/evaluation during the summer period will provide an unambiguous signal to all parties about higher education's disdain for what is occurring at the elite level of youth basketball.

This move would require elimination of early signing, concentration of all recruitment/
evaluation in the academic year and limiting institutional contacts exclusively to prospects' families and high-school coaches and counselors. This must occur now -- or we are accomplices to the corruption and damage resulting from this environment.

Typically, the young people coming through the recruitment process do not hold jobs or work outside of basketball season. They play and they play all the time -- sometimes 80 to 100 games outside of the high-school season. Many of these games cross state lines and some cross national borders.

A large number of these players hold the dream of being an NBA player -- their life is the game and their expectation is that their future beyond college is the game. Rarely is this dream a reality. The time frame from elite high-school competition to recruitment to playing in the collegiate regular season and NCAA tournament and the first NBA draft is fewer than 18 months. The compression of this time frame and the expectations contained within this time frame all operate in ways to undermine the chance for academic success as well as reasonable transition to college life.

We need to allow for a period of time to absorb the priority of academic responsibilities. We should support any academic initiative intended to ease and lengthen the academic transition for Division I basketball student-athletes. Clearly, the data support and justify this special treatment for this class of student-athletes. Additionally, we should support proposals that reward institutions competitively for retaining and graduating student-athletes.

Many recruited students will never play in college -- they are not good enough. Some players will play but not for a year or two. A few players are good enough to play right away -- occasionally a player is good enough to leave school after year one or two to play in the NBA. Too many students leave when their dreams are not fulfilled immediately. In the Big Ten alone, more than half of the prospects who signed letters of intent from 1990 to 1996 left school before graduating or completing eligibility. This kind of movement is occurring in the majority of Division I conferences.

Placing limits on initial grants-in-aids would help reduce the attrition rate, player "runoffs" and provide a whole new set of incentives for student-athletes, coaches and administrators. We should support the proposed initiative limiting grant-in-aids to four per year and 13 overall (14 if graduation rates are above a certain level). This will break the vicious cycle of "replaceable parts" that exists on far too many campuses.

The point-shaving scandals in the last decade at Northwestern, Arizona State, Tulane, Boston College and Fresno State represent the tip of the iceberg in the sport of men's basketball. Several studies have concluded that this problem is far more widespread than generally known. Gambling and college basketball are far too closely aligned. We need to adopt a zero-tolerance eligibility sanction in Division I for student-athletes, coaches, administrators and officials who engage in sports-gambling activities.

Many leaders are unwilling to entertain bold initiatives that either "cost" competitively or financially. The proposed legislative ideas identified are a compromise, and while I, along with many others, feel that more drastic change is needed, it is a good first step.

It is time for the NCAA membership to learn from the private sector. We must analyze the situation, implement change and continue to modify and re-evaluate the state of Division I basketball. Failure to act will be seen for what it is -- lack of vision, courage and responsibility.

Support initial grant-in-aid limits, eliminate summer evaluation, provide summer-school opportunities for entering freshmen basketball student-athletes, reward retention and graduation, and adopt zero tolerance for gambling incidents. It is time for the presidents to lead and for the rest of us to support change.

James E. Delany is the commissioner of the Big Ten Conference.