An analysis of the recently issued Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics report brings me to one conclusion: Simply stated, there is not much here. Moreover, the substance of what is presented may turn out to be more harmful than beneficial.

In contrast to the original Knight Commission report issued a decade ago, this second offering is disappointing. While it describes well many of the serious problems facing our campuses, its analyses of those problems are weak, and its recommendations tepid and perhaps counterproductive.

The fundamental problem in intercollegiate athletics is an extraordinary infusion of dollars into the athletics enterprise, greatly benefiting athletics personnel in revenue-producing sports, revenue-producing conferences and the NCAA itself, but providing little benefit to student-athletes and virtually no financial benefit to the academic enterprise. The concentration of resources and their expenditures also create significant pressure on institutions with more modest programs.

In this important sense, all higher education leaders with intercollegiate athletics programs have a common interest to preserve amateur athletics and to control growing commercialization of the athletics enterprise. Indeed, most of the problems presidents and chancellors face stem from unmitigated resource flows and the maldistribution of the expenditures flowing from those resources. Until this flow and distribution are addressed, efforts at reform will essentially be marginal and cosmetic.

The Knight Commission's recommendations are essentially platitudinous statements. ("Athletics should be mainstreamed"; "The NBA and NFL should be encouraged to develop minor leagues"; "Coaches' salaries should be brought in line with prevailing norms across the institutions"; "Encourage institutions to reconsider all sports-related commercial contracts against the backdrop of traditional academic values") The report accurately says "these recommendations are not new" and have been "heard before." We can all affirm their importance and not be a step closer to effecting positive change.

Because the Knight Commission did not tackle the fundamental money problem, its report could just be filed away as having little import. However, I am concerned with two recommendations of the report: (1) to create a "Coalition of Presidents" from major athletics conferences, and (2) to establish an "Institute for Intercollegiate Athletics."

Those two entities, if established, would essentially undercut the established NCAA (and possibly the NAIA) governance structures. The writers of the report deny such intent, but there is no question in my mind, and in that of several colleagues, that the creation of a new entity will have the impact of pitting one presidential group (formed from an athletically narrow, but influential, group of institutions) against a recently established council of presidents representing all conferences and athletics groups. While there have been legitimate concerns as to whether the NCAA can be effective in governance, the creation of the commission's institute seemingly would undermine reform efforts for and through the NCAA.

I hope my observations are not jaundiced. I have interacted with the NCAA for more than three decades and believe I know the Association and its foibles. Despite its several shortcomings, it still represents the primary and perhaps only vehicle to effect reform -- and we should be loathe to undercut its effectiveness, especially through something as weakly conceived and limply charged as the envisioned "Coalition of Presidents."

It appears that the resuscitated Knight Commission has resorted to an expedient that we as presidents and chancellors occasionally deploy -- namely, creating a committee to study what we are unable to resolve. We need to be cautious, intramurally and extramurally, to ensure that what we create is not counterproductive and ultimately becomes a problem larger than its original target.