Many of us remember sportscaster Chris Schenkel posing the question each fall: "What better way to spend a autumn afternoon than watching college football?" Those few words helped sum up all the magic associated with campus life and college sports. In university towns across America, Saturday afternoon college football dominates the conversations and often the social calendar.

College football has a long and storied history as part of higher education. One of the oldest sports on campus, football also has the largest number of student-athletes participating, generates the most revenue (60 percent of all athletics income in Division I-A), uses the most resources (39 percent of all athletics expenses) and some would say brings the greatest exposure to the academy itself. It is the only sport where on any given weekend at the biggest programs, more than 100,000 fans fill stadiums and millions watch on TV as their alma mater takes on the archrival. Even at the smaller programs throughout four divisions of intercollegiate football, the game continues to hold a special status in the entire university experience. In fact, you could make the argument that it is a uniquely American treasure.

But just how well are we taking care of this asset?

In January 2001 at my recommendation, the Division I Board of Directors appointed a Football Study Oversight Committee (FSOC), composed entirely of college presidents. The committee was charged to study the Division I classification and governance structure, the NCAA's role in certifying football bowl games, pressures affecting football programs, student-athlete welfare, marketing and promotion of the game, diversity issues, and the long-term viability of college football. The FSOC has made significant progress in a number of areas. It already has recommended changes in the bowl certification process, redefined what constitutes Division I-A membership and a I-A conference, and has addressed out-of-season workouts and other student-athlete welfare issues.

To assist with its review of the game, the FSOC commissioned a study of 91 presidents and chancellors in Division I during the fall of 2001. The CEOs were asked to identify strengths and weaknesses of college football and to respond to a number of specific questions. Included in the positives for the game identified by the respondents were the opportunities that football provides to many who otherwise would not have access to higher education; the enriching student-athlete experience; the entertainment value to the institutional community and general public; and enhanced community relations in terms of pride, spirit and development of ties.

Two issues emerged as clear weaknesses for a large majority of CEOs at all levels of Division I -- the financial status of the game and the racial diversity of coaching staffs. A total of 64 percent of Division I-A presidents and 84 percent of those in Division I-AA see the financial status of college football as a significant concern. In fact, less than 10 percent of the Division I-A CEOs see the long-term financial outlook for Division I football as "solidly positive," and none of the Division I-AA presidents responded affirmatively. Included in the responses were these comments:

In terms of racial diversity of coaching staffs -- where only three head coaches outside those at the historically black colleges and universities are African American -- 78 percent of the CEOs in Division I-A and 72 percent in Division I-AA see this issue as a weakness or major weakness. (See the Will to Act essay "The Diversity Hiring Failure" for a discussion about diversity issues within intercollegiate athletics.)

CEOs also expressed concern about academics and athletics balance in the sport, about the widening gap between the "haves" and "have nots," and about an overemphasis on winning. The final report of the Football Study Oversight Committee will go to the Division I Board of Directors in October.

Specifically excluded from the committee's charge was discussion of a playoff structure for Division I-A. However, one of my major concerns at the time I made the recommendation for a comprehensive study of Division I football was the appropriate role of institutional CEOs at the campus, conference and national level over postseason competition. In fact, I see Division I-A postseason football as one of the two most divisive issues in college sports. College presidents also weighed in on the current postseason football structure in Division I-A in the FSOC survey. There are two very interesting findings I would bring to your attention.

The Football Study Oversight Committee has been true to its charge. It has attended to the long-term viability of the sport of football. But, given the concerns of college presidents and others regarding the financial and image future for football, it is appropriate and timely now to build on the work of the committee. Concerned individuals at nearly every level have argued that decision-making regarding Division I-A postseason football often has been without coordination or "big picture" impact. The will to act for Division I-A CEOs now should be to encourage a coalition of key stakeholders that is president-directed, vision-driven and focused on what postseason football should look like in five years. In the balance is the continued health of this American treasure. And as is true with many big-picture decisions, timing is critical.

As often as college football is seen as intercollegiate athletics' greatest asset, it frequently is also perceived as the "elephant in the living room." It is both the metaphor for most of those things that fans and the public see as positive in college sports and nearly all of those things they see as negative. The biggest problem with elephants in the living room, of course, is the attention they draw to themselves. A few years before "Ma Bell," another great American treasure, was deregulated in the mid-'80s, it embarked on an advertising campaign around the theme: "We may be the only telephone company in town, but we try not to act like it."

Obviously, the campaign came too late for Ma Bell. But, there may be a lesson here for college football. Sometimes the difference between a perceived asset and an out-of-control liability is timely foresight.