While I would never wish this ordeal on anyone, it was a tremendous learning opportunity for me and truly an eye-opening experience, so much so that I am convinced that the most effective FAR is one who is regularly and significantly involved in compliance.

As we all know, NCAA rules require each member institution to appoint an FAR to represent it and its faculty to the NCAA. While the Faculty Athletics Representatives Association recommends involvement by the FAR in the assurance of academic integrity and in maintaining student-athlete well-being, each institution ultimately is responsible for determining its FAR's duties, making the role of each FAR unique.

Given the current high-risk, high-stakes state of intercollegiate athletics, I submit that the compliance function should constitute a significant portion of every FAR's activities. Not only should an FAR expect to be a key component of the institution's compliance system, but such participation should be welcomed and encouraged by athletics and institutional administrators. Why? FARs, by the nature of their position, are "athletics outsiders" with incentives, perspectives and allegiances that differ in many ways from those within the athletics department. As noted by the Division I Committee on Infractions, the FAR is a key institutional control who, with others, is expected to assume a primary role in ensuring compliance with NCAA rules. The question should be: Can your institution afford not to have your FAR play a critical role in its compliance efforts?

So in what type of compliance activities should the FAR participate in order to enhance the effectiveness of the compliance system? First, the FAR should develop a strong relationship with the compliance office that includes regular communication, frank dialogue, and sharing of knowledge and expertise. Key questions can be asked and answered. Where do the greatest risks of violation exist? How is the institution responding to these risks? What preventive and detective controls exist? Are they sufficient? How will new legislation affect the compliance system?

Second, the FAR should actively participate in rules education, particularly for student-athletes and relevant academic constituencies across campus. The FAR, as a faculty member, is in an ideal position to help communicate rules that affect faculty and administrators in their dealings with student-athletes and eligibility issues. Third, the FAR should be meaningfully involved in the investigation and reporting of violations, whether secondary or major. Not only can FAR involvement add integrity to the process and ensure meaningful penalties and corrective measures, but the FAR's participation sends a message regarding the institution's commitment to rules compliance.

Recent NCAA actions provide new opportunities for the FAR to further assist in the compliance function. Beginning this year, Division I institutions are required to annually submit data on academic performance to the NCAA that will be used to calculate the academic progress rate and the graduation success rate. Ultimately, those rates, based on this institutionally submitted data, will be the basis for determining penalties ("disincentives") for athletics programs that are not retaining and graduating their student-athletes. This important new legislation will be effective only if the integrity of the data submitted by the institutions is high. In my opinion, FARs have the responsibility to help ensure data integrity.

Also beginning this year is a new reporting process for secondary violations. So-called "Level I" violations will continue to be processed by the NCAA enforcement staff while "Level II" violations will now be processed at the institutional or conference level and reported annually on a summary basis. Obviously, a significant share of the responsibility for the enforcement process is being delegated to the individual institutions and the athletics conferences. To help maintain the integrity of the enforcement process, I believe it will be vitally important for FARs to be actively involved, including assuring that allegations are investigated, all violations are reported, and appropriate penalties and corrective measures are assessed.

If Level II violations are handled at the institutional level, the FAR could serve as "adjudicator." If they are handled at the conference level, a committee of FARs could serve in a judicial capacity. While falling short of guaranteeing a consistent level of reporting and corrective/punitive actions across institutions and conferences, I believe significant involvement of the FAR will reduce the risks associated with the inherent conflict of interest that would exist if a totally "self-contained" enforcement process is thrust upon athletics departments.

I encourage all institutions in all divisions to assess the role of the FAR in the compliance function and consider additional ways in which he or she can assist the athletics department in strengthening its compliance system.

Michael Bitter is the faculty athletics representative at Stetson University.