As a father-daughter team, we disagree on some issues, but one matter on which we're in firm agreement is the importance of college athletics, both to the sponsoring institutions and to the participating student-athletes. We also are in accord on the need for reform in NCAA Division III athletics.

We offer two unique perspectives regarding reform -- that of a college president and a student-athlete. The former is a past high-school and college athlete who was once a newspaper sportswriter and college sports information director before becoming an administrator. The latter was a three-sport standout at the statewide level in high school who currently excels on a college soccer team. Also, she was one of the top students in her high-school class and has continued to "produce" academically at one of the top liberal arts colleges in the country.

Too many scandals abound in college sports today because of a lack of perspective and a dearth of institutional control. In recent months there have been reports of misbehavior by players, coaches and even college presidents, all trying to get the upper hand for the exclusive sake of winning.

Although Division III institutions see less of these issues than their Division I counterparts, some of them exist at all levels. At Wesley, intercollegiate athletics reports directly to the president. This, we are told, is unusual for a Division III institution. In fact, a recent survey of Pennsylvania Athletic Conference institutions shows that just two colleges (Wesley being one of them) have athletics reporting directly to the president.

The reason for this organizational structure at Wesley is simple: We want to properly "frame" the context of intercollegiate sports to our student population. The president chairs the Athletic Management Council consisting of the chief academic officer, the faculty athletics representative, the chief financial officer, the athletics director and the associate athletics director. Priorities are set at these meetings, and schedules are now thoroughly reviewed to minimize missed class time.

We both have had the opportunity down through the years to know many college athletes. A goodly number are now successful in business and the professions. Most former scholar-athletes point to rewarding experiences on fields and courts during their college years. However, most also say that because of athletics, they believe they missed out on something special that is an integral part of the college experience. They say with some reluctance, "I wish I had had more time to be a regular student in college."

In "Reclaiming the Game: College Sports and Educational Values," Bill Bowen and Sarah Levin note that even at some of the finest colleges in the country, "Student-athletes are being isolated from the mainstream student populations." Too often at the college level, students' lives are dictated by their coaches' demands for practice and workout sessions. As a result, college athletes too often pass up promising internship opportunities, study-abroad programs and other extracurricular activities that could have broadened their horizons and expanded their career options. Some even say they bypass a second sport.

As a president and a student-athlete, we support the Division III reform that took place at the NCAA Convention in Nashville in January. It is a good first step, but these efforts must go further. All colleges and universities -- across all divisions -- must work together to restore credibility to college sports and positively contribute to the learning experience of each student-athlete. The following additional recommendations are based upon our combined experience:

* Colleges must more carefully monitor their admissions procedures -- no longer granting exceptions for athletes who lack the normal requirements. A greater emphasis must be placed on standards of the college and the Division III philosophy.

* Colleges must more aggressively address the scheduling of intercollegiate contests. Conferences must take a stronger position on in-week games. If conferences agree to schedule more weekend contests, then in-week contests become more of an option that individual institutions can control. Ultimately, this policy will result in less missed classes and lab time.

* Colleges must work to curb the commercialization of intercollegiate sports. Part of the cost of staying competitive in college athletics has forced commercialization and "keeping up with the Joneses" in athletics facilities. Colleges believe that theirs must be bigger and better. Facilities must win "beauty contests." To be sure, athletics venues should be of a reasonable size and quality and most importantly, safe for practice and contests. However, some view these expenses as being essential to the cost of staying competitive.

* Colleges must more aggressively address the issue of sportsmanship. This not only includes on-field behavior of participants, but crowd behavior as well.

* Colleges must place a greater emphasis on the welfare of the student-athlete from a physical-readiness standpoint. Stories abound of coaches and students rushing back too soon for competition, rather than waiting and properly healing an injury.

* Colleges must place a stronger emphasis on balancing expenditures. So often institutions build elaborate new athletics facilities while libraries, classrooms and labs on the same campus are in a state of disrepair. Recognizing that the former may be an easier "sell" to some donors than the latter, obvious disparity between athletics and academic facilities sends the wrong message to students and alumni and may even alienate prospective donors.

Placed in their proper context, college athletics can and should add value, both to the institutions, and to the total college experience of student-athletes. These suggested guidelines could ensure that student-athletes and the schools for which they compete are enhanced by supporting Division III athletics within the total collegiate environment.