Conferences, athletics directors and faculty athletics representatives share similar objectives. We want intercollegiate athletics programs that promote student-athlete welfare, maintain academic integrity and achieve success at the "box office."

We differ, however, in how we prioritize those objectives. Conferences are basically financial engines. Commissioners are successful or not depending on how well they generate and distribute revenue. This does not mean that conference personnel are inured to student-athlete-welfare issues or academic failings. But these issues often are subsumed under the bottom line.

This is not a new turn of events for conferences. It always has been so. The difference today is that conferences, particularly the so-called "equity" conferences, wield significant power in the formulation and implementation of legislation for Division I institutions. Nominations to the major governing bodies, legislative proposals and votes must be funneled through the conferences. The voices of individual institutions, faculty athletics representatives and athletics directors are diminished accordingly.

This influence is evident in the policies the NCAA has and has not adopted in recent years. Student-athletes today spend more time on their respective sports than at any other time in memory. "Voluntary" workouts and practices are hardly that. Tuesday, Thursday, and even Friday night football and mid-week basketball have constricted classroom and study time. The financial rewards from these trends justify their existence.

Bottom line an intrusion

Not only does the Division I governance structure favor conferences but, increasingly, conference personnel sit on the Management Council and the two cabinets. Conference representatives are highly competent individuals; many have served on the NCAA staff. They know their business. But that's precisely the problem. Conferences view the intercollegiate athletics enterprise as a business; they must; that is their major charge. Conference personnel, unlike FARs, athletics directors or senior woman administrators, do not spend their time on campuses, in daily contact with student-athletes, faculty and athletics administrators. If the NCAA is an organization composed of member institutions, why are the key players from entities that are apart from the educational enterprise?

For every conference employee sitting on the governing bodies there is a faculty rep or athletics administrator who is not directly involved in the governance process. Of the 49 members of the Management Council's 2001 roster, only eight were FARs; 16 of the 42 members of the cabinet directly concerned with academic matters, the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet, were faculty reps. Those numbers reflect the priorities of academic integrity and student-athlete-welfare issues in the new governance structure.

Also reflective of the inordinate power of conferences in the governance structure is the fate of amateurism and men's basketball legislation. Few packages in recent NCAA history have more direct impact on student-athlete welfare than those measures, and few have generated so much time, effort and resources on the part of NCAA staff and cabinets and committees. To what avail? We have seen this legislation temporized, eviscerated, diluted or dismissed.

It is true that none of those events would have occurred without the support of the presidents. The Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics report to the contrary, the presidents are not the solution to the problem; they are part of the problem. They are part of it because, increasingly, their job performance, like that of the conference commissioner, depends on financial success. Presidents are on the road more often than ever before raising money, buttonholing legislators and generally promoting their institutions. Some universities have plucked their CEOs from business and politics to enhance the bottom line. The commercialization of intercollegiate athletics occurs within the context of the commercialization of higher education.

Faculty involvement

For both the presidents and FARs, intercollegiate athletics is a part-time occupation. There are two important differences in our positions, however. One, FARs know and appreciate that we do not know everything about intercollegiate athletics; second, as tenured faculty we are considerably less susceptible to pressure from alumni, legislators and major donors. We are the independent voice on campus with respect to intercollegiate athletics. It is time we made our voice heard beyond the campus, in the conferences, and most especially within the NCAA governance structure. How can we do that?

First, we call upon the NCAA to re-evaluate the current governance structure. I know few FARs and athletics directors who are satisfied with the system. Moving to a once-a-year legislative cycle would help, but ultimately, athletics administrators and faculty reps must take back the Association from conference commissioners and their presidential allies. Reserving seats on governing bodies for on-campus personnel, mandating a minimum number of FARs on the Management Council, and re-invigorating the annual Convention as a legislative focal point for Division I not only would enhance faculty involvement but could have a salutary effect on Division I policies: restoring student-athlete welfare and academic integrity as the top priorities of the Association.

Second, as FARs we must become more engaged, especially if the current conference-dominated system persists. As an organization, the Faculty Athletics Representatives Association must focus on the key academic issues, become involved early in the process, preferably at the cabinet level, and inform the membership accordingly.

Third, more engagement will lead to greater control. Already, FARs from the Big Ten and the Pacific-10 Conferences have issued declarations of principles. FARs from each of the other conferences should do the same. Perhaps we can craft legislation from these principles and submit the measures to the AEC cabinet.

Fourth, we must establish better connections with related groups who share our objectives, especially with athletics academic advisors. If, as appears likely, continuing-eligibility standards will tighten, the temptations to warehouse certain student-athletes in particular majors, fudge on tutoring assistance and use campus disability services as a shield for underperforming student-athletes will grow. Academic issues will matter more, not less, which is why our involvement is so crucial.

Finally, we must educate, or perhaps re-educate, our conference boards and commissioners as to what the university enterprise is all about. It is the same for students and student-athletes. We are not only educating students so that they can graduate in good time, but we are educating them for life. Policies that obstruct the fulfillment of that objective are counterproductive both to the student-athlete and to the mission of our institutions.

We realize that financial solvency is a very important objective. Revenue from intercollegiate athletics redounds to the benefit of the entire campus. We believe, however, that financial considerations must be compatible with the basic mission of our institutions of higher education. The alternative is scandal, exploitation and the loss of credibility with the American public. I am not implying that FARs will mount white horses and ride to the rescue of universities and athletics programs. We must work together with all parties intent on improving and reforming intercollegiate athletics. But, faculty must play a key role in this process; if we do not fight for academic integrity above all, who will?

Coming in the February 18 issue: San Diego State University Athletics Director Rick Bay takes a look at complications the Bowl Championship Series has introduced into the amount of power vested at the conference level.