Much of the action on athletics reform, as we all know, is now at the national level. Proposals on admission standards, academic progress and length of seasons, among others, undoubtedly will have an impact on better aligning athletics with the core values of our institutions. However, as important as those changes promise to be, it is doubtful that significant reform can be brought about solely, or even primarily, through national legislation.

Faculty athletics representatives need to remember that their own campuses offer many important opportunities for positive influence and change. After all, the local culture affects decisions on a day-to-day basis. Local attitudes, for instance, will determine how NCAA rules are interpreted and whether good-faith efforts are made to follow them. Local leaders set standards and send messages that speak volumes about what should and should not go on in the athletics program. And, of course, local policies go a long way toward saying how athletics are run on any particular campus.

Work at the campus level does not mean that reform efforts are any easier or that results will be seen more quickly. Nevertheless, improvement, it has been said, comes about through the conscientious efforts of one good person at a time. I would argue that individual FARs and other faculty leaders have at their disposal at least four promising arenas for influence at the local level. Those are (1) communication and sunshine; (2) athletics academic advisement, (3) academic standards and policies, and (4) FAR appointments and functions. The goal should be to examine current practices in those areas at each institution and look to replace them, where needed, with better ones.

It is difficult to recommend any one set of practices for all institutions. What is helpful at one school may not fit another. Yet, general directions can be identified and adaptations can then be made to meet distinctive campus or NCAA division needs. In the spirit of identifying potentially useful compass points and best practices, the following goals, underlying

assumptions and sample actions are proposed:

Goal 1 -- Enhance open communication across the campus community. Assumption: Good information and the trust it generates are the linchpins for collegiality and change.

Sample practices:

Regular informational reports should be delivered on the floor of the faculty senate -- reports that include substantive information on such matters as athletics admissions, academic performance, graduation rates, academic awards and fiscal policy.

Provisions should be made for athletics personnel to be involved in faculty governance, key university committees, distance education, service, teaching (where possible) and the broader academic life of the institution.

The local athletics committee should have a direct connection to the faculty senate, enjoy broad campus representation, have significant responsibilities and serve as a focus of communication for all key constituencies -- including student-athletes.

Goal 2 -- Enhance academic advising for athletes. Assumption: Given the pressures that exist to keep athletes eligible, this is an area where impeccable integrity will reap considerable rewards.

Sample practices:

Where a separate athletics advising center exists, the person in charge should report to an academic officer. Advisement for high-profile teams or the squads of any local "power coaches" should be unified with all athletics/academic advisement.

Athletics/academic advisement should be conducted on the basis of a sound, well-articulated and broadly publicized educational philosophy.

Academic achievements of athletes and teams should be formally, regularly and publicly acknowledged. Academic competitions must be cultivated.

Goal 3 -- Enhance the academic standing of student-athletes. Assumption: Because a central objective of higher education is student learning, policies and procedures that advance this core value are crucial to the integrity of the athletics-educational enterprise.

Sample practices:

The faculty senate must adopt GPA and academic-progress standards for athletes that are fully consistent with the academic traditions of the home institution and, when appropriate, exceed NCAA and conference requirements.

The faculty senate must adopt formal policies on maximum class time missed for travel and competition.

Athletics admissions policies must be adopted that allow for few, if any, "special admits." Sunshine should be required on aggregate numbers of exceptions and their academic progress.

Goal 4 -- Enhance the method of selecting the FAR and supporting the functions of that office. Assumptions: While the FAR is a presidential appointee, he or she plays a central role in promoting both the appearance and substance of academic integrity in athletics.

Sample practices:

The faculty senate should have a voice in determining the short list of FAR nominees to be considered for appointment by the president. Term limits and policies on re-appointments also should be under the purview of faculty governance.

The FAR should have a written job description, release time and other support commensurate with his or her responsibilities.

The FAR should be a tenured full professor, a visible and respected campus figure and an individual who gained this stature in previous faculty leadership or academic roles.

This very brief look at four goals and sample practices should remind us that much can be done to enhance the fit between athletics and academics at each of our locations. Because faculty know education, local politics, the academic process and how academicians think, we are in an excellent position to stimulate change and provide leadership on our own campuses.

This is not a call to ignore activity at the national level. But it is a reminder that a great deal of good work can be done right at home. National and local reform efforts need to progress hand in hand, not one before the other -- and definitely not one instead of the other.