Even critics of the NCAA have to be impressed by the zeal with which Association President Myles Brand is promoting higher graduation rates and improved academic progress for college athletes. The centerpiece of the new reform package, the disincentives system, will punish colleges and universities that fail to meet minimum graduation and academic-progress requirements for athletes. Penalties will include taking away scholarships and, in extreme cases, excluding schools from postseason competition.

One of the most provocative features of this legislation is that it leaves it up to universities to decide how they are going to reach these goals. Cynics already have suggested that the preferred strategy is likely to be more gut courses, more grade-tampering and more academic fraud. A more positive spin, and one that I accept, is that the legislation is a clarion call for faculty to step forward with concrete proposals not only for increasing graduation rates, but also for ensuring that athletes leave college as educated citizens.

Faculty who are critics of commercialized intercollegiate sports often choose not to be involved in various reform efforts because of a feeling of powerlessness, and they are reluctant to invest time and energy in actions they think are doomed to failure. The fact that collegiate athletics has evolved into a very complex industry whose management requires specialized skills and knowledge also has deterred faculty from getting involved in efforts to reform it.

Although most faculty lack the power and expertise to influence the day-to-day management of intercollegiate sports, they do have considerable control over terrain that is absolutely vital for the success of any athletics program. What they control is their classrooms. It is faculty who develop curricula, establish and enforce academic standards, control grading systems and sign petitions for graduation. These processes can be circumvented by higher-level administrators, but if publicly disclosed, such fraud can have profound negative consequences for the individuals and institutions involved.

The point here is that faculty could be significant players in movements to reform intercollegiate sports if they simply defended their classrooms with the same tenacity as coaches defend their courts and playing fields. Faculty cannot reduce commercialism, influence conference realignments or decide whether college football will abandon bowls for a playoff system, but they can insist on academic excellence and support reforms that will ensure that athletes have educational opportunities the public believes exist for them.

One concrete action that faculty can implement immediately to bring graduation rates up to the NCAA standard is to have their senates adopt the requirement that athletes have a 2.0 grade-point average to be eligible for varsity sports. Because a 2.0, which translates into a C, is the minimum grade that most colleges and universities require for graduation, requiring athletes who fall below that average to sit out a semester to get back on track seems like a no-brainer for increasing graduation rates.

This rule would give athletes an incentive to keep their averages up and provide immediate assistance for those who encounter academic difficulty. Failure to bring the cumulative GPA up to 2.0 during the semester out of competition would cost the athlete his or her athletics scholarship. Coaches who can ill afford to lose a scholarship player for a semester would have an added incentive to encourage athletes to maintain the C average necessary for graduation.

No one knows better than faculty how difficult it is for freshmen athletes, especially those from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, to maintain a C average while at the same time being subjected to the tremendous emotional and time demands of big-time college sports. Thus, faculty should appeal to their college presidents and to the NCAA to restore the rule that would require freshmen and transfer students to complete one year of residency before playing varsity sports.

Requiring one year of residency puts the decision about who is academically qualified to represent the institution on the playing field in the hands of faculty, and it gives freshmen a chance to adjust to academic life. Eligibility would be determined by success in the classroom, not entrance exams. Highly respected former coaches, including Dean Smith, John Wooden and Terry Holland, support this proposal. I am sure they would welcome the support of college faculty and the NCAA.

Freshman ineligibility would amount to institutionalizing the common practice of redshirting freshman. Thus, most athletes would need a fifth year of financial aid to complete their fourth year of athletics eligibility. Again, faculty could help make this possible by lobbying for the replacement of one-year renewable scholarships with five-year grants whose only condition for renewal is maintaining adequate academic progress. These multi-year scholarships would send a clear message that universities are committed to athletes to the point of graduation.

One other way that faculty can ensure that athletes receive a meaningful education is to do a much better job than they do now of challenging fraudulent practices at all levels in their universities. At the lowest level, faculty have tolerated "gut courses," allowed athletes to miss inordinate numbers of classes, and given out high grades for little or no work. At the highest levels, faculty often have remained silent when their colleagues have been vilified for exposing fraud at the university level. Faculty must take a stand for academic integrity.

The commercialization of college sports is deeply embedded in American culture and is not going away. However, there are ways that core academic values can be protected without making college sports less entertaining to the public or central to the vitality of campus life. One of the myths about athletics reform is that it has to be complicated to be effective. In actuality, major change can be brought about on the academic side by passing some fairly modest proposals. All that is necessary is an informed professoriate that is willing to act, and athletics administrators who are willing to help them.

Allen L. Sack is a professor of management at the University of New Haven and a founding member of the Drake Group, a faculty organization committed to academic integrity in collegiate sports.