Any review of NCAA literature -- from the Manuals to the history to the currently developed strategic plan -- reveals a written commitment to the student-athlete being at the center of all Association business. NCAA bylaws and guiding principles ensure a commitment to student-athlete welfare, the primacy of the student- athlete educational experience, and the integration of athletics into higher education.

Over time, however, the notion of competitive balance among institutions -- and the fear of someone gaining an unfair advantage that comes along with that -- has challenged the NCAA's commitment to the primacy of the student-athlete. Since its inception, the NCAA has established a legislative process that tries to create and maintain a level playing field so that schools of all shapes, sizes and philosophies can compete together over a broad range of sports in the same division or subdivision. That competitive balance has been steadfastly protected in both the legislative and interpretative process through the years. An unintended consequence, though, is that from time to time student-athletes are disadvantaged or harmed by what has become the first order of business, which is the concern for competitive balance.

While competitive balance is genuinely important, it is not the primary pillar of the NCAA structure. The student-athlete is to be at the center of all we do, and it is time that the NCAA's actions match its written principles.

By now, the notion of the "less bureaucratic/more responsive" or the "kinder/
gentler" NCAA has been publicized enough to be familiar to most members of the Association. But there still is some confusion about what the concept really means and how it should be applied. Being "more responsive" to student-athlete needs is just that -- making sure that the student-athlete is the centerpiece of how we conduct our business. Student-athletes should receive the benefit of the doubt in eligibility appeals or waiver requests when case precedent is unclear. Student-athletes should have the same kind of flexibility in financial aid that other students have. And the same educational opportunities that are afforded to all students also should be afforded to student-athletes.

That may be a simple concept to embrace, but implementing the concept without destroying the competitive balance among institutions is the challenge. It will require a culture shift for some members of the Association and for the national office staff. It will require a review of how the membership services staff approaches the job it does, and how the membership may empower the staff to do more of the "heavy lifting" when it comes to waiver requests and eligibility appeals than it has in the past. I have encouraged the staff and several membership groups to embrace this new approach, and there already are several examples in which it has been successfully applied.

This shift does not mean that some of the fundamental principles of amateurism will be abandoned. The membership has made it clear in its legislation regarding how student-athletes should fare related to areas such as extra benefits, signing with agents, submitting their names in a professional draft and in recruiting procedures, and certainly the "will of the membership" will remain the same in those areas. There is nothing about the "kinder/gentler" approach that intervenes there.

But in gray areas where circumstances yield unclear interpretation, the pattern has been for the staff and the membership committees to focus on maintaining that level playing field over the primacy of the student-athlete. The goal is to change that to where the student-athlete is given the benefit of the doubt rather than favoring the competitive balance in cases in which it is inappropriate to do so.

The "kinder/gentler" approach also is relevant in Division I financial aid legislation. Division I members have as a matter of course placed limits on the value of scholarships and in some cases the number of scholarships, generally to assure that the wealthiest schools do not use their wealth to either stockpile athletes or provide scholarships that are valued more than those at other programs with fewer resources.

One of the more important legislative proposals in the current Division I cycle is to allow student-athletes the flexibility to accept institutional financial aid based on athletics ability up to the full grant level, plus permit non-athletics aid (for example, Pell Grants or academic scholarships) up to the cost of attendance. I support this idea as a way to successfully balance the primary obligation to student-athlete welfare with the ability for all schools to maintain competitiveness within their division or subdivision. In this instance, we do not abandon the concept of student-athlete welfare, nor do we abandon the competitive balance. The proposal accommodates both.

The NCAA's philosophical allegiance always should be to the primacy of the student-athlete. This does not mean that we should turn away from the notion of the level playing field as an important and critical philosophical tenet, but the cultural shift is to more consistently embrace the high status of the student-athlete.

The primary product of intercollegiate athletics is not entertainment, nor is it the exposure athletics brings to the university -- it is the education of those who participate. It is important to all who are engaged in the administration of intercollegiate athletics to not give in to the fear that one institution might gain a modest competitive advantage because of this shift in philosophy.

Institutions of various shapes and sizes have shown over the last 100 years the creativity and resolve to learn how to compete with others in their division or subdivision. While athletics administrators may be hesitant of such changes, that fear is unfounded.

We are at a point where we need to move forward with the primacy of student-athlete welfare. The impetus for the change is the changing times themselves. This is the time to make this significant adjustment. The key is to refocus our thinking and actions on the notion that our guiding principle is the student-athlete.

We have long put that concern in writing, and now it is time to keep our word.

Myles Brand is president of the NCAA.