History will be the ultimate judge, but I believe April 29, 2004, will be looked upon as a historic day in intercollegiate athletics.

On that day, after almost three years of discussion, debate and deliberation, the Division I Board of Directors adopted the academic-reform package that reaffirms the emphasis on "student" in the student-athlete equation.

This reform package implements the ability to measure accurately student-athlete academic performance and to hold institutions accountable for ensuring that their student-athletes meet enhanced academic standards. That accountability is leveraged through disincentives that include loss of scholarships, potential exclusion from postseason play and, in extreme cases, restricted membership status.

While the media's focus on this legislation may be on its effect on men's basketball and football, it applies to all Division I student-athletes in all sports, for we owe each of them our best effort in assuring their academic pursuits are not sacrificed for their athletics prowess. Each and every student-athlete deserves the opportunity of a high-quality education and a degree in return for their hard work and representation of their institution on the fields of play.

My hope, of course, is that our ability to measure academic performance will in and of itself be sufficient incentive for athletics programs to do the right thing, which is to ensure that the mission of educating student-athletes is not compromised, circumvented or, in some of the worst cases that have come to light, virtually ignored.

This legislation sends a strong message that we will not tolerate, accept or allow to prosper those programs that recruit young people to campus with little or no regard for their meaningful education. There should be no misunderstanding of the unified commitment among presidents, athletics directors and coaches to raise the bar of academic standards for our student-athletes.

As we implement these reforms, we know they occasionally will be met with resistance and skepticism, as is natural with any attempt to effect cultural change. There are those who would prefer that intercollegiate athletics operate outside the academic realm and be regarded as self-sufficient "franchises" based on the professional model of athletics. At the other end of the spectrum are critics who believe these reforms will invite academic fraud or the channeling of student-athletes into the least challenging majors.

To acquiesce to the former would spell the end of the collegiate model of athletics. And to be paralyzed into inaction out of fear of potential consequences is simply not an option. Certainly, those of us championing reform know there will be those who will attempt to evade or dilute these new requirements. We also know there is tremendous diversity among Division I institutions' academic missions and standards. That is why there are "filters" in the disincentives structure that compare a team's academic performance to all Division I teams, all teams in that sport, and finally, to student academic performance at the given institution before penalties are levied.

Am I worried about the potential of academic fraud? Not at all. The fact is that we have to stamp out academic fraud wherever we find it. But those who engage in academic fraud should know they will be ferreted out and dealt with severely. That is part of the reason we have increased the investigative and enforcement staff at the NCAA national office by 50 percent.

While the Division I membership has driven this legislation, it deserves wide support. In particular, alumni of Division I institutions should demand academic success as much as they demand athletics success. As the measurements of academic progress and graduation rates are released under the reform model -- and the first reports will be available this fall -- alumni should give them the same scrutiny that they would a box score.

As I have said many times, academic performance and athletics achievement are not mutually exclusive. The foremost mission of the institution -- and of the NCAA -- is education. It is disturbing and sad that we have not done a good enough job in a few cases of educating student-athletes.

Student-athletes have a stake in this, too. Their athletics skills present them with the opportunity for a college education at no cost or at a significantly reduced cost. They need to prepare themselves in high school, and once they matriculate to a college campus, it is incumbent upon them to take full advantage of that opportunity.

"Student-athlete" is not just a noun. It is a promise. By adopting the academic-reform package, the Division I membership has shown it is serious about keeping that promise.

Myles Brand is president of the NCAA.