It's probably fair to say that most of those involved in intercollegiate athletics -- administrators, coaches, student-athletes and faculty alike -- would agree to a set of basic principles on which the NCAA is founded. These include the principles that athletes should be college students enrolled in a valid degree-granting program, that they should not be paid or otherwise compensated specifically for their athletics abilities and that no undue influence should be used to persuade them to attend one institution rather than another. Even a more comprehensive list of principles would not take more than a paragraph or two to articulate. From this point of view it is hard to see the necessity for a rules book an inch thick.

On the other hand, those involved in athletics usually are smart and competitive individuals. A rationale for bending a principle is easy to find. Why, certainly the star basketball player is enrolled in a degree-granting program. It's just that he only this semester transferred into his current program that accounts for his low number of credit hours. And naturally the athletics administration can't help it if some wealthy alum decides to "hire" the star during the summer without being too concerned about whether he actually does any work. And of course it is just a coincidence that the star's father was offered a lucrative position close to the university he eventually chose to attend. Every time someone engages in an unfair activity, the membership of the NCAA responds by passing a rule prohibiting the practice. The result is a rules book so complex that even the best-intentioned can easily run afoul of the rules.

competition, not entering a professional draft or being drafted, not obtaining advice about a professional contract, not signing such a contract or competing with or against professionals, and not accepting educational or living expenses in some circumstances. None of these activities per se give the athlete a competitive edge.

The exceptions also are simple. The first is that if a person enters into an agreement with an agent, that person will become permanently ineligible for collegiate competition. The second is that if an athlete competes as a professional and subsequently returns to college to compete as an amateur, he or she must sit out one year without competing and will lose a season of eligibility for each season of professional competition.

These proposals represent a radical departure from the current practice of regulating virtually every aspect of the athletics-related or academic life of a prospective or enrolled student-athlete. Understandably enough, then, these proposals have generated considerable discussion -- a mild statement that hardly begins to convey the tone of some of the rhetoric. If you listen to some high-school associations, you might think amateurism deregulation would be the end of high-school athletics as we know it. If you listen to some compliance officers or administrators, you might think that dire consequences also will follow for collegiate sports.

Even those who favor the idea of some deregulation in principle are not uniformly enthusiastic about every detail of the proposals. Some think that prospective student-athletes should be prohibited from participating in professional sports in some sports but not others. Others think that they should not be allowed to accept educational or living expenses.

Too many of our current rules are so convoluted and complex that application of them in a particular instances may represent a serious injustice to a student-athlete and can make the NCAA look ridiculous in the eyes of the public. Rules that damage the collegiate athletics enterprise in this way do no one any good.

Fred Delcomyn is a faculty athletics representative at the University of Illinois, Champaign.