A package of Division I legislative proposals designed to enhance academic performance by modifying the NCAA's initial- and continuing-eligibility rules has been distributed to the membership for comment.

From a faculty point of view, I believe there is general support for some of the overriding principles said to be embodied in the proposals -- (1) that a student-athlete admitted to a member institution should have a reasonable likelihood of successful completion of academic work at that institution; (2) that a student-athlete who meets NCAA progress-toward-degree requirements will be on track to graduate; (3) that it is a good thing that student-athletes graduate; (4) that it is a good thing for initial-eligibility requirements to minimize disparate impact between and among ethnic and socioeconomic groups; (5) that enhanced academic standards should not increase the incidence of selection of majors that best assure eligibility rather than those that best match genuine aptitude and interest and long-term career goals.

While that is a large number of overriding principles, it may be too much to expect all of them to be achieved, at least not while we need erasers on pencils. Those principles are not all consistent with one another. One example that has been talked about since at least the time of Proposition 48 is the tension that exists between increasing access to college for under-achievers and maximizing graduation rates.

How do we resolve the tensions and inconsistencies? We recognize that we can't do everything. We need to be clear about our hierarchy of objectives, identify those that are primary, and then be explicit about which objectives we are willing to forgo, if necessary. We need to have reasonable base information on what currently occurs and to think through what we are doing.

The law of unforeseen consequences is as certain as death and taxes. It tells us that these new academic initiatives will have consequences not only unintended but even directly contrary to the intent of the legislation. Recognizing that, we need to be wary of producing results equal to or more problematic than those currently produced. (And, let me add, we must not repeat the history of the men's basketball initial-counter legislation. In other words, we must be willing to grant waivers in situations that come within the formal scope of new legislation but outside its policy rationale.)

Clearly, many very bright, capable people have worked diligently on the academic proposals. But in some cases I think we may have leaped to a solution before we have good information that there is a problem, or the extent to which there is a problem.

Take student-athlete transfers. It is a bad thing if a coach knowingly recruits athletically talented student-athletes incapable of doing academic work, plays them for a year or two and then runs them off. But a prediction of athletics (and academic) aptitude is not an exact science. If one school helps a student-athlete transfer to another where he or she can get a degree and substantial playing time, most student-athletes would say that is a good thing.

I also doubt that we have thought through the impact of the progress-toward-degree proposals on junior college transfer students. The progress-toward-degree proposals exaggerate the current situation where junior college transfers often are limited in their choice of major post-transfer because they have not taken the right complement of courses in their first two years.

My prime concern with the proposals is that we are implementing tougher academic standards before we have even begun to look at the extent to which athletics time demands contribute to less than satisfactory academic outcomes. Not only should we look at the length of playing and practice seasons, "voluntary" workouts, strength and conditioning regimes, and staying on campus over the summer, but we need to consider the increase in conference and NCAA championship opportunities. A student-athlete in the men's basketball tournament may already have spent the better part of a week playing in his or her conference tournament. If he or she is on an Elite Eight or Sweet Sixteen team, that may be another two weeks away from class. Factor in the focus and concentration demanded by championship play, and such a student would be hard-pressed to keep up with classwork while away and also would have difficulty refocusing on classwork upon return.

I appreciate the economics of big-time college athletics programs and the way Final Four (or bowl) revenues are used to maintain nonrevenue, particularly women's, sports. I know I enjoy attending college athletics events and watching student-athletes engage in high-level athletics performance. And I recognize both that student-athletes want these opportunities and that these opportunities may be one factor why student-athletes stay in school. But something's got to give.

Someone once said that "the perfect is enemy to the good." Knowing that the devil always resides in the details should make us wary of change, but not antagonistic to it.

Josephine Potuto is the faculty athletics representative at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.