The new NCAA pre-enrollment amateurism reform proposal is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It looks warm and fuzzy, but it contains elements that threaten the core values of education-based athletics in America. High-school principals, athletics directors and state associations, with unusual unanimity of opinion, urge the NCAA membership to reject the elements in question.

We have great respect for the openness of the NCAA's legislative process, and we appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. Specifically, we are pleased to remind you that for almost all of the seven million high-school students who participate in education-based athletics, the current system unequivocally works. Even so, we have looked hard at the elements of the proposal and have found that some of them are well worthy of consideration. In spite of the "If it ain't broke..." admonition (and at our level, it isn't), I have recommended that our members consider amending their amateurism rules in concert with the proposal so as to permit:

* Payment of "Operation Gold" awards to Olympic medal recipients;

* Competition with and against professionals;

* Signing professional contracts; and

* Going through professional drafts.

Our concern is focused on three elements of the proposal, specifically:

* Pay for play;

* Prize money; and

* Payments of tuition by third parties based on athletics performance.

Jerry McGee, president of Wingate University, is quoted in The NCAA News as saying that if the high schools feel so strongly about amateurism, they should adopt and enforce amateurism rules of their own. In fact, all of our state high-school associations have long had such rules. We have them because experts tell us that athletics are most valuable educationally when they are in proper relationship with academics, and that pay-for-play would upset the apple cart. However constructive we believe our rules to be, they apply only to students in our programs. To the extent that the NCAA's "reforms" encourage year-round participation in non-school programs, our collective interest in education-based athletics is frustrated.

Proponents of the three elements we oppose say that the NCAA shouldn't deny participation opportunities to young people simply because they accept money. Such an argument sounds good, but it is wrong. Extensive research confirms that athletics participation encourages marginal students to stay in school and motivates them to keep their grades up. If there were a seemingly easier alternative (and rest assured there would be), how many such teenagers would drop off the hard road? Have the proponents factored in the cost of such collateral attrition?

Remember that "unintended consequences" have not been kind to the NCAA. Look at the Clearinghouse. Look at the restricted-earnings rule. Look at summer recruiting in basketball. Proponents assure us that nothing bad will happen here, but if it does, our programs will be squarely in the path of your runaway train.

The NCAA is a large and complex organization. Its work is performed by a host of subgroups composed of bright and well-meaning people. Sometimes, the various subgroups pursue goals that are at cross-purposes. That seems to be happening here. The Division I Subcommittee on Agents and Amateurism is proposing "fixes" that would reduce the role of high-school coaches in young people's lives. Simultaneously, the Basketball Issues Committee is trying to enhance that role. Also simultaneously, the NCAA federal relations office (with the active support of the NFHS) is seeking to outlaw gambling on high-school and college athletics events. In a contest over the relative value of academic versus non-academic influences on young people's lives, we would hope the NCAA membership will side with the former.

Only five percent of high-school athletes will become college athletes, but the majority will become students at your colleges. As you weigh the merits of the reform proposals, you should assess the risks and benefits (the welfare, if you will) not just of a few superstars, but of all your students.

The superstars may benefit from making money (although they may find it a hard habit to break upon college matriculation). The superstars may also benefit from year-round involvement with non-scholastic coaches and influencers. (Again, this may prove a hard habit to break.) The balance of high-school athletics participants may not be so lucky. Will high-school programs suffer if the best players leave? Will "at-risk" students lose a hook that keeps them in school? The answers, if they are as bleak as I fear, will impact on high-school and college student bodies for many years.

The reforms are intended to provide consistency to the process, but how consistent is this:

* On June 1, a young person accepts $200 for playing in an athletics contest. The athlete suffers no consequence whatsoever. That evening, the young person graduates from high school.

* On June 2, the same young person accepts $200 for playing in an athletics contest. The athlete thereby loses a year of college eligibility.

* On August 20, the day after enrolling in college, the same young person accepts $200 for playing in an athletics contest. The athlete thereby loses NCAA eligibility, subject to the redress he or she may be able to obtain through the reinstatement process.

Because of the variances between the proposed pre- and postenrollment amateurism definitions, the questions for your compliance officers may become positively Talmudic.

The NFHS and NCAA have found much common ground in the past. We have long been friends and now we are neighbors. We were active supporters of the collegiate community in the 1960s struggle between the NCAA and the AAU. We were partners during the early 1970s and sat side by side at the same table in defense of our respective educational needs when the Amateur Sports Act was debated.

We were supporters and facilitators during the Clearinghouse problems of the 1990s, and during the same decade we co-formed an alliance that brought together sports organizations in a commitment to improve the sports culture in America. As noted, we are energetic supporters of the NCAA's anti-gambling legislation.

Our common bond in the past has been forged in recognition of the special value of education-based athletics to our young people. We believe as strongly as we can impart that the noted elements in the pre-enrollment amateurism reform proposals will result in unintended and negative consequences in the culture of education-based sports in this nation. We urge you to reject them.

Robert F. Kanaby is executive director of the National Federation of State High School Associations.