By now, I think the Division I membership is well-versed in the proposals' specifics, so I'll repeat just the basics. In the case of initial-eligibility standards, the number of required core courses will increase from 13 to 14 and the current test score "cut" will be eliminated, while retaining the minimum grade-point average requirement of 2.000. The key continuing-eligibility provisions are to increase the progress-toward-degree requirements from the current scale of 25-50-75 percent to a 40-60-80 scale and add annual GPA minimum requirements.

The initial-eligibility changes give greater weight to high-school GPAs, which are better predictors of academic success. Eliminating the test-score cut will end a requirement that, based on the NCAA's own recent extensive research, (a) does not accurately predict academic performance and (b) has a disparate, negative effect on African-American students. It is important to note that prospective student-athletes who become eligible because of the elimination of the cut score will have higher GPAs and higher predicted chances of graduation than some student-athletes currently declared as eligible. This particular reform is about fairness.

The continuing-eligibility changes will help ensure that the academic experience of student-athletes is more closely aligned with the general student body and that academic success and athletics opportunity are appropriately balanced. It is estimated that 95 percent of current student-athletes will meet this new standard.

As the past chair of the Board of Directors, I am familiar with the proposals and take some pride in participating in their development. You might say I am invested in them, but that's not why I consider them so important. I believe they must be adopted because its the right thing to do for student-athletes and because failure to adopt them will signal the inability of the Association, and the presidents of its member institutions, to effectively govern intercollegiate athletics.

I was a mathematician long before I became a chancellor and so I bring a mathematician's (some may say peculiar) view to any endeavor, including my work in the NCAA. I've discovered that my academic field and the Association have at least one thing in common: Success depends on adherence to a few fundamentals. I think this is true in other disciplines as well. Whether they are called theorems, first principles or laws, there are underlying rules from which all other action is derived. Follow them, and you have a reasonable chance of success; ignore them and you will almost always fail.

For the NCAA, one such principle, and arguably the Association's most basic principle, is found in Article 1.3.1 of the Association's constitution. It states, in part, "A basic purpose of this Association is to maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and the athlete as an integral part of the student body and, by so doing, retain a clear line of demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports."

I've been actively involved in intercollegiate athletics for many years -- at the campus, conference and national levels -- and I truly believe we have made steady progress in realizing this basic purpose. I know that many would disagree with that assessment. For some, the progress has been too slow. Others believe that the worlds of higher education and billion-dollar TV deals are irreconcilable.

Whatever views Association critics now hold, they will either be confirmed or challenged by the outcome of the current reform effort. The adoption of the eligibility changes is only a first step in a multi-phased process. The Board also has initiated the development of substantial incentives and disincentives to reward and penalize sports teams and institutions based on the academic performance of student-athletes. In addition, it has begun an examination of the time commitments of student-athletes. Student-athletes must be given back the time they need simply to be students. This means shortening the playing seasons in many sports and reducing student-athletes' out-of-season commitments to their sports, "voluntary" or otherwise.

The Association's adoption or rejection of these reform proposals will be the only true expression of its adherence to its own basic purpose. We either mean what we say in Article 1.3.1 or we don't. The results of this reform effort will speak volumes about presidents' acceptance of responsibility for their entire institution. We either accept it or we don't.

These are not incremental steps. They are as important to achieving the basic purpose of the Association as the forward pass was to the evolution of football. The difference is that a playing rule affects only a game; the reform agenda will affect lives.

William E. Kirwan is chancellor of the University of Maryland System and formerly chaired the Division I Board of Directors during his term as president of Ohio State University.