After 18 months of study, the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics has reported no findings that have not already been the subject of faculty concern and discussion for years. Nonetheless, its high visibility should provide a considerable force behind reform efforts in the three areas upon which it focuses: academics, escalating athletics budgets and commercialization.

As faculty representing the entire spectrum of intercollegiate athletics, however, we are disappointed that the report paints intercollegiate athletics with such a broad brush. Even though commission members decided to concentrate on football and men's basketball at Division I-A institutions, the title of the report (and, often, the media reporting of its contents) makes no distinctions, and photographs from various sports appear on its pages. The report ignores the other men's and women's sports sponsored by the NCAA, and it fails to recognize the positive experiences and academic achievements of the vast majority of students who play sports in all three divisions, including Division I-A.

The report also neglects the contexts in which many of the deplored changes have occurred. Elements of our sports-crazed society continually demand more in terms of the quality of the game (from Little League to the pros), the showmanship of the players, and the aesthetics of the stadium. More specifically, over the past decade we have seen a substantial commercialization of the entire academic enterprise, not just intercollegiate athletics. This understanding must underlie any reform efforts relating to the financial and commercial aspects of athletics.

We also are concerned that the commission entrusts primary responsibility for reform in the very hands under which the problems intensified. Of course, university presidents must bear responsibility for all aspects of the academic enterprise, but that very fact complicates their ability to lead the reform of intercollegiate

athletics. Most are far too busy to concentrate the amount of time it takes to be fully knowledgeable about athletics. Consequently, power has

flowed to professionals in the conferences and the NCAA, where TV and/or corporate dollars can take precedence over students' educational interests.

Turning back the tide of escalating budgets and commercialization is a daunting project, and the commission has come up with no concrete solutions. How a new coalition of Division I presidents could be more than merely duplicative of the current structure of the NCAA, where presidents already have the last word, is not clear. The third area -- academic integrity -- is one for which the commission does offer some specific remedies, and here is where faculty must take the lead.

The commission's reference to crises, scandals and corruption should not obscure the fact that athletes tend to do better academically and to graduate at higher rates than other students and that cases of academic fraud and corruption comprise a miniscule proportion of athletes and programs even in the big-time programs. On most of our campuses, athletes already are mainstreamed through the same academic processes as other students -- and often must meet higher standards of satisfactory progress -- and we must continue to insist on this integration.

We expect to see improvements in graduation rates stemming from the stiffer initial-eligibility requirements that began in 1995, and we should build upon those reforms. We are ready to work for the commission's recommendations that tie scholarships and championships eligibility to graduation rates, as well as for further strengthening of both initial- and continuing-eligibility requirements. We favor efforts to balance time demands on athletes, just as we regret the Division I presidents' recent deferral of legislation to control the number of basketball contests.

The Knight Commission's work can be an important tool for galvanizing the educational community behind reform. For that reform to reach its fullest capacity, faculty must act on that opportunity, and presidents must recognize how much the independence and academic focus of faculty are critical to the project.