Over the past year, we have made remarkable progress in reforming Division III athletics and in better understanding the life of the student-athlete. Under the inspired leadership of Middlebury College President John McCardell, who chaired the Division III Presidents Council, Division III member institutions adopted a large part of the comprehensive reform package at the NCAA Convention in January.

Coincident with this effort, the College Sports Project, sponsored by the Mellon Foundation and led by its president, William Bowen, laid out a series of issues regarding admissions practices and the academic and social experiences of recruited athletes, "walk-on" athletes and their classmates. Both efforts placed the issue of intercollegiate athletics squarely on the agenda for Division III presidents to consider.

The presidents of Division III member institutions rose to the occasion. In record numbers, they attended the Convention in order to participate in the debate over the reform package, and they eventually secured the passage of most of the proposed legislation. In addition, many presidents enthusiastically participated in a series of conversations on the future direction of intercollegiate athletics sponsored by the Mellon Foundation. It is very clear that Division III presidents are finally asserting their authority over athletics. This is consonant with the recommendations of the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, which for more than a decade has tirelessly advocated that presidents "take charge" of their athletics departments and sports programs, and endeavor to create the proper balance between academic activities and athletics participation.

Right now, we face two risks as presidents of Division III institutions. First, we let ourselves slip back into a comfortable state of complacency by declaring victory in athletics reform and by leaving it to the Division III leadership and the Mellon Foundation to address the remaining issues, which are many and complex. Second, we fail to engage our trustees appropriately in the issues surrounding the role of athletics in the mission of our institutions.

The first risk is easier to deal with than the second. There is no doubt that presidents must continue to remain "in charge" of their institutions' athletics programs and to provide the leadership and oversight that was missing for so long. This is a fundamental responsibility of the president, especially in light of prospective reforms that will further address the life of the student-athlete and the governance of Division III. As an aside, I believe presidents also must set their sights beyond intercollegiate athletics programs and focus as well on the needs of our club sports and our recreational and intramural programs. There is so much more that presidents need to do in the area of athletics, and we can't afford to let up, despite recent progress and success.

The second risk is that we fail to engage our trustees on the topic of intercollegiate athletics. Too often we default to a model where a small group of interested, well-intentioned and self-selected trustees serve as an informal advocacy group for athletics, generally with a focus on the competitiveness of individual sports. While usually harmless, this practice often results in athletics being marginalized to a discussion about won-lost records, or the benefit of a successful athletics program in alumni relations and fund-raising. When this happens, the trustees as a whole fail to perform their fiduciary duties of ensuring the proper role of athletics in the life of the institution and providing meaningful oversight over the leadership and management of the athletics department and its programs.

While presidents are ultimately in charge of athletics, trustees must hold them accountable for ensuring the program is run in a proper manner, much as they hold the president accountable for academic and fiscal affairs. I believe it is a propitious time for presidents and their boards to have a conversation about the role and responsibilities of trustees relative to intercollegiate athletics, as I anticipate we are about to enter a second, and more complex, phase of the reform movement.

A good place to start this conversation is to review the Statement on Board Responsibilities for Intercollegiate Athletics, which was adopted by the AGB board of directors in March. This is an excellent document that will provide a useful framework for presidents and their boards to begin a sustained dialogue about the future of athletics on their campuses and, in particular, how to strengthen ties among the academic, extracurricular and athletics programs of the institution.

The statement highlights a number of important topics, including the general oversight responsibilities of the board, presidential authority, the mission of the athletics department, fiscal responsibility, academics and student-athlete well-being, compliance, personnel, and communications. Each of these topics is addressed briefly followed by a series of questions that the board should be asking its president.

The statement concludes with a question that the board and president might discuss: should a separate board committee on athletics be established? From my perspective, a separate committee is not necessary; it might inadvertently remove athletics from the academic and social issues that provide the greater context for considering the challenges facing our student-athletes. It also might occasionally lead to micromanagement by over-eager trustees. Instead, the board should use its regular standing-committee structure to address questions and issues regarding athletics, with either its academic affairs or student affairs committee as the "home" for athletics issues.

The next several years will be critical ones in shaping the future of Division III athletics. While presidents need to continue to provide strong leadership for the athletics programs on their campuses, it is now time for trustees to become fully engaged in appropriate ways in this dialogue. The result will be a better understanding of the critical role that athletics plays in the lives of our students, and a healthier balance between academics and athletics at our institutions.

John A. Fry is the president of Franklin & Marshall College.