I was approached by representatives of American University of Puerto Rico several years ago and was asked to help them solidify NCAA active membership. As a co-director of the Puerto Rico Shootout and Puerto Rico Holiday Classic, the financial rewards have been minimal, but it has been a delight to observe the positive impact the NCAA membership has had on several colleges and universities in Puerto Rico.

Remember those nice, enjoyable tournaments in Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico that Division I men's basketball teams have attended? Well, in a few weeks, the NCAA may move forward with legislation that effectively will eliminate those events, along with the preseason NIT, the Hispanic College Fund Classic, Coaches vs. Cancer and others, and also possibly ruin all of the NCAA gains made in remote areas.

Many NCAA Division I institutions have taken advantage of the extra games of competition and the unique cultural experiences the "exempted" events provided. In earlier days, NCAA legislation allowed Division I men's and women's basketball teams to participate in "exempted" events, which would provide an institution with games above regular-season maximums. One could participate in the preseason National Invitation Tournament the first year, Hawaii the second, Puerto Rico the third and then take an international trip the fourth.

It usually would take a considerable budget to participate in this type of cycle, but many have done so through special fund-raising. When I was a Division II head coach in the 1980s, we had several creative fund-raising ideas to pay for two trips to Puerto Rico. My players thought they were tremendous learning experiences.

Another benefit of exempted events was that mid-major NCAA Division I-type programs enjoyed the opportunity to play a top-20 team on a neutral floor. As evidence, a number of "upsets" have occurred in these events. Remember Chaminade of Hawaii defeating the great Ralph Sampson-led Virginia Cavaliers? One of the Puerto Rico Shootouts had five Top 20 teams, three of which were undefeated, and Murray State beat two of them. As difficult as it is

for a mid-major to play a top-20 team on a neutral court now, it will be even more of a problem if exempted events are eliminated.

There are several other advantages to the exempted-events concept, particularly when it takes place in a remote area. Puerto Rico obviously is not a state, but even though Alaska and Hawaii are, all three represent different cultures than what a typical conference game would provide. The learning opportunities at the remote locations are substantial, both for the team members and the fans who travel to the tournaments.

Puerto Rico is unique because people from the U.S. would not normally travel there except to prepare for a Caribbean cruise. Puerto Rico is loaded with historical and cultural benefits, including a rain forest, one of the largest observatories in the world, the second-largest underground caves in the world, the Spanish Fort El Morro and Old San Juan. In fact, there are Taino Indian "ball courts" in the mountains that are similar to the Mayan Pelota Game where James Naismith is reported to have gotten the idea for modern-day basketball. Many of our travelers never would have gone to Puerto Rico under any other circumstances, and they are pleased that they did.

In 1995, a subcommittee was established to increase the number of exempted events so that more Division I schools could participate and also to build consistent guidelines. As one might imagine, this became difficult because the subcommittee was trying to combine remote-area events with "on-shore" tournaments. There is very little that is similar between the Coaches vs. Cancer tournament that normally draws huge crowds with the events in Puerto Rico, Alaska and Hawaii. So, instead of serving the greater individual good, they combined all kinds of rules and regulations that ultimately hurt both of the involved parties.

One of the really sad aspects is that the subcommittee has unintentionally negated exempted women's basketball tournaments. There is a myth that all of these events make significant revenue, but it simply is not true. On-shore exempted events have greater potential for a solid fan base (the former Elite 8, for example). However, smaller venues simply do not earn enough to pay expenses required by the exempted-events subcommittee. A typical cost per team would run between $12,000 and $18,000. Events at Hawaii-Hilo, BYU-Hawaii and Alaska Fairbanks, and the Puerto Rico Shootout, San Juan Shootout and the Puerto Rico Holiday Classic never will draw enough fans to meet those expenses.

Television revenue is a non-issue because, unfortunately, most of the exempted-event sponsors usually have to pay for the production. Costs already are high, and I haven't even mentioned officials, supplies, scorers table and other expenses. If this is difficult with the men's tourneys, it is much worse for the women. At least three well-qualified promoters of women's basketball have backed off plans to initiate NCAA Division I women's basketball events because of the increased required expenses.

Greed may have played a role in this decision. A few Division I-A commissioners have been supporting this change because they (the conference members) would be receiving the revenue instead of the sponsors of the exempted events. By allowing 29 regular-season games instead of the 27 plus exempted games, most institutions would choose more home games, especially the top-20 programs.

I understand that some institutions might feel that they have lost money because exciting matchups have taken place over the years in these exempted events, matchups that might have made a substantial amount of revenue for the involved institutions had they taken place on one of their two campuses. So, if one values the possible economic loss to the institutions more than the educational and cultural benefits to student-athletes, the end of exempted events would be supported.

Coaches vs. Cancer has raised more than $1 million for cancer research. As many of you know, this is a personal issue for Division I men's basketball coaches because of Jim Valvano, the well-known North Carolina State coach, and several others. Coaches vs. Cancer and the Hispanic College Fund Classic use the exempted events as the major fund-raisers. The organizers are outraged because the key ingredient to year-long revenue goals for these worthy events will be eliminated.

The NCAA will inform you that these exempted-event games still could go on as long as they are part of the new 29-game package. Of course, this argument doesn't hold water because the main attraction is the additional games above the regular-season maximum. If this was such a good idea, the teams that participate in year-end conference tournaments also should count those games as a part of the proposed 29. And what about the NCAA tournament? It also is listed as an exempted event, along with Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Should the new proposal of 29 games include the potential six games to win a national championship?

What is the solution?

First, separate the on-shore and the off-shore since events in remote areas have been promised for decades by the NCAA to support their collective, unique scheduling problems. Return to the former rules that worked so well when an institution had to wait four years before returning to the same event. That would require eliminating the current "two in four" and 28th-game options. Return to the days when individual institutions could choose to pay the reasonable per-person fee to participate in the event. The preseason NIT traditionally has paid nearly all of the expenses and then shared a portion of the revenue. Not all events have this ability.

The NCAA should think twice before moving forward with this change. Not only should we consider whether the legislation is ill-advised for all of the foregoing reasons, we should ask ourselves whether going down this path is worth the legal battle and risk that likely will follow. Ultimately, this is a controversy that demands a conservative decision made through consideration of what constitutes the best interests of student-athletes and intercollegiate athletics in general.

Bill Hogan is director of athletics at the University of San Francisco.