The National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC) recently released a far-reaching reform plan for amateur basketball titled "Pursuing Victory with Honor: A Game Plan for Amateur Basketball." The plan is in response to a growing belief that "men's and boys' high-school and college basketball programs are not fulfilling their potential to promote education and develop character."

The NABC should be applauded for its effort to emphasize the coach's role in teaching and building character in young people and for identifying essential principles for coaches to serve this function effectively. But like the player who hits only the front end of a one-plus-one free-throw opportunity, the Victory With Honor initiative identifies only one of the two major issues that must be addressed if coaches are going to fulfill their potential as educators.

If coaches are to maximize athletics' tremendous potential to teach and build character in young people, institutional CEOs must create an environment that affords coaches the opportunity to teach those values. The fact is, until they are expected to be educators and are rewarded for meeting those expectations, coaches will never be able to afford to rearrange their priorities to allow them to meet those goals.

On this point, Victory With Honor correctly calls for institutional CEOs to examine and clarify all aspects of the mission of the basketball program so they are consistent with the educational mission of the institution, to specify goals and expectations of the basketball program in that regard, and to hire and retain athletics personnel based on their commitment and ability to achieve those goals.

Coaching associations must push higher education leaders on this point relentlessly. And once these new expectations are established, the NCAA and various coaching associations must engage in an aggressive public relations campaign to educate alumni, fans, the media and general public about these new standards.

But now for the back end of that one-plus-one. Despite the many positive principles outlined in Victory With Honor--like a "two-one-two" zone defense without the "one"-- there is a gaping hole where its heart should be. The document does not address in a substantive manner the core issue facing the coaching profession: credibility, specifically coaches' loss of credibility as educators, and more important, their responsibility for making the necessary sacrifices to restore it.

Rebuilding the ideal

For coaches to be considered credible and respected partners in a reform game that will only get more intense, they must go far beyond the principles outlined in Victory With Honor. For example, the NABC's attempt to address this concern is a cry to "emphasize the coach's role as a teacher" by encouraging the use of the designation "teacher-coach" (similar to the term "student-athlete") whenever the phrase is not "awkward or inappropriate." Just as the term "student-athlete" has become an inappropriate description of far too many college athletes, so too is "teacher-coach."

For reasons with which we are all too familiar, asking that coaches suddenly be referred to as "teacher-coaches" is like inserting a full-sized cardboard cutout of Shaquille O'Neal to fill the empty spot in the heart of that two-one-two zone defense. Although it might look impressive, there is no substance behind it.

While using "teacher-coaches" may remind everyone, coaches included, of what they are supposed to be, the title rings hollow when the only criterion necessary to be called one is to hang a whistle around your neck. Today, the desired background and characteristics for coaches entering the profession are energy, personality and the ability to recruit. The qualities and background of a committed educator are simply no longer a valued component of an assistant coach's credentials. While there is no standard route to college coaching, it is becoming increasingly likely for young coaches to move directly from a playing career to an assistant position, rather than first earning a master's degree, followed by teaching and coaching at the high-school level.

The result has been the slow death of the "coach as educator" ideal, which has been replaced by the slick-looking, fast-talking salesman.

Interestingly, Victory With Honor identifies credentialing, orientation and professional development as being important for youth-league and high-school coaches. Why not college coaches?

Increased attention to the academic preparation of coaches and their professional development are essential if coaches wish to re-establish their credibility as teachers. But like the coach who tells a player that he has to "pay the price" to earn a starting position, so too with earning the title of "teacher." Rather than asking to be referred to as teachers, the NABC must insist that its membership pay the price of becoming one by investing more heavily in the educational process.

But simply recommitting to the philosophical underpinnings of coaching as a teaching profession will not be enough to restore coaches' credibility as educators. This philosophical commitment must be accompanied by specific actions designed to show that coaches are indeed committed to being responsible and credible reform partners. Following are four examples of initiatives that would help restore coaches' credibility.

Research. There is a need for research to more accurately determine the academic backgrounds of coaches in order to determine, measure and track trends regarding the degree of "educational professionalism" in the coaching ranks.

Eliminate the restricted coach in favor of the graduate assistant coach. The long-term benefit of this seemingly innocuous coaching designation would be an increase in the number of coaches with advanced degrees. With fewer than half of Division I coaches possessing a master's degree, it is imperative that coaches not only are provided such educational opportunities, but are encouraged and supported in their pursuit of them. In short, coaches must invest more heavily in the academic process, and the rules governing coaching limitations should promote that goal.

Eliminate off-campus recruiting. The most controversial, but undoubtedly most effective, measure to emphasize the point that coaches are, first and foremost, teachers, would be to eliminate off-campus recruiting and permit coaches to work-out prospects during official visits and extend the official visit from 48 to 60 hours. In today's world of videotape and independent scouting services, off-campus recruiting is no longer necessary. Yes, coaches are able to judge talent more precisely if they can observe prospects in person. The benefit of "fine tuning" their athletics evaluation, however, does not outweigh the expense necessary to do so. Using recruiting services and video, coupled with allowing prospects to be worked out during official visits, will enable coaches to adequately determine athletics ability.

Most important, however, is that the tremendous amount of time and resources devoted to recruiting has come to overshadow the coach's primary role as an educator. Eliminating off-campus recruiting will allow coaches to spend more time teaching and mentoring their student-athletes. It also will provide more opportunity to participate in professional development or graduate school programs identified earlier. With the elimination of off-campus recruiting, the importance of hiring assistant coaches with strong academic, mentoring and coaching skills, as opposed to recruiting skills, will increase as will the opportunity to become more integrated into the mainstream campus community.

Just as the increased emphasis on recruiting resulted in a shift in the desired qualifications of assistant coaches from the teacher/educator to the recruiter/salesperson model, eliminating off-campus recruiting would have the effect of reversing this trend. Certainly, there is the chance that this will result in coaches making a few more "recruiting mistakes." But the cost savings in these days of the so-called "arms race," its effect on the desired profile of assistant coaches, the increased involvement in mentoring enrolled student-athletes and the chance to become more involved in the campus community far outweigh those few "mistakes."

Advocacy. Along with other coaches associations, the NABC must aggressively advocate the restructuring of coaches' contracts to include financial incentives for coaches to continue to invest in the educational process and advance their degrees.

While some may consider these changes radical, the fact is that the coaching profession and all that it represents is under serious challenge. Nothing short of bold, innovative, profession-changing action is required.

At serious issue is whether there comes a point at which coaches venture so far from their roots as teachers/educators that their justification for being on campus collapses.

The renewed push for college athletics reform presents tremendous challenges, opportunities and, ultimately, very stark choices for coaches. And the fundamental question is whether coaches are genuinely committed to influencing a shift in their job responsibilities and evaluation criteria.

Coaches must decide whether the coach as educator model is important enough to fight for. In short, it is crunch time for coaches, and the question is not whether they have the influence and ability to drive such change, but whether they have the will.

John R. Gerdy is a visiting professor in sports administration at Ohio University.