NCAA President Myles Brand has challenged the NCAA membership to re-emphasize the academic mission as part of the intercollegiate athletics experience. Toward that end, a look at the past may be helpful.

Before 1972, athletes entering college were required to sit out a year before they became eligible for varsity competition. The rule emphasized academic primacy over athletics and sent a clear message to student-athletes to concentrate on their studies. It allowed student-athletes an adjustment period before the demands of their respective sports ratcheted up the stress levels of their lives. I believe the NCAA should once again implement this rule and make the freshman year of college a transitional opportunity for student-athletes to build strong academic foundations.

We as academicians, parents and guardians want these young people to be student-athletes, not athlete-students. President Brand is correct that the "student" element must come first; emphasis must be placed on academic performance for all young people entering college, including athletes. While we don't want to stifle dreams, we can't abet the willful denial of reality by far too many athletically gifted freshmen. In men's basketball, only 1.3 percent of all NCAA participants make it to the pro ranks. The rest, when they enter the working world, must rely on their educational background in their efforts to succeed in life.

Many complications could result from the adoption of my suggestion, including legal challenges. Some might argue that the best prospects would forgo college and jump directly into the professional ranks. If this were to occur, would it not be a victory for education-based athletics? The stated mission of education-based athletics is to provide student-athletes the opportunity to play while earning degrees. Some coaches might say they need to place the best athletes on the floor and scholarship numbers would need to be raised to compensate. The counter argument is that if everyone's freshmen are sitting out, the playing field remains as level as it had been. Also, if more walk-ons find places on varsity rosters, how much harm is done? Is it bad to give more students the opportunity to play collegiate athletics, particularly those who are willing to do it without the benefit of scholarships? A small slice of Division III's philosophy might be a good thing for Division I.

Another benefit of my modest proposal would be the reinstitution of academic eligibility criteria based on collegiate work, and not high-school grades and standardized test scores. Goodbye, Clearinghouse.

The fact is, there is a crisis right now in intercollegiate athletics. Even though the graduation rate reached 62 percent for student-athletes entering college in 1996, it is a success not shared by all sports or divisions. Men's Division I basketball has the lowest graduation rate of any NCAA sport at 44 percent. In last year's Sweet 16, 10 schools had a graduation rate below 50 percent -- some of them significantly below that level. Should freshman be ineligible only in basketball? Perhaps, or maybe freshmen should be ineligible in all sports where, on a long-term national basis, graduation rates fall below those of the student population as a whole. We will never find a perfect solution, but that is no excuse to settle for the status quo.

So why, as a high-school administrator, am I concerned about what is happening with intercollegiate athletics? The fact is the two levels of education-based athletics are tightly connected. High schools provide the colleges with athletes and the colleges reciprocate by offering a motivational goal for high-school athletes. Thus, if a high-school student-athlete observes that many of his or her slightly older peers are not focusing on academics and are only using college for sports as a vehicle to showcase their athletics skills, everyone loses. On the other hand, everyone wins if high-school student-athletes see their role models focusing on the educational aspects of college.

To put my thoughts in context, let me acknowledge that high-school administrators view athletics participation in a macro sense. We appreciate our stars, but our larger obligation is to our masses. According to the most recent NFHS athletics participation survey, annually we are providing almost 7 million opportunities for athletics participation by student-athletes. The four years of high school are a profoundly imitative time. Just as our best athletes model themselves after college players, the masses of high-school athletes emulate the conduct of their athletics "betters." Thus, a greater academic focus by college freshmen student-athletes could have a profoundly positive ripple effect.

Let us seriously discuss freshmen ineligibility. Let us break the public perception that academic performance, for some Division I athletes, is linked to the old aphorism, "He was highly educated -- his classroom was on the top floor."

That is my belief, and that is why I consider this issue so important at the high-school level.

Robert F. Kanaby is the executive director of the National Federation of State High School Associations.