For big-time college athletics, 2003 wasn't the best of times. Conference realignment issues, athletics-related university scandals, the Bowl Championship Series controversy, and the unseemly behavior of a handful of coaches, athletics directors and university presidents occupied the media for most of the year. The biggest victim was higher education as a whole.

As 2004 begins, however, I have renewed hope that last year's transgressions will accelerate athletics reforms that will help to unify Division I-A athletics and get all of our universities, athletics programs and conferences working in the same direction and toward the same goals.

My newfound optimism springs from three developments within the NCAA that are promising: enlightened leadership, a worthy mission and set of values and dedicated people committed to improving intercollegiate athletics.

First is the emerging leadership of NCAA President Myles Brand. As a former university president himself, Dr. Brand clearly understands the role that athletics should play in university life. His emphasis on academic reform, student-athlete welfare and the collegiate -- rather than the professional -- model of athletics sets a tone and direction that is sorely needed.

My second source of hope is the Association's newly drafted strategic plan, which embraces an ideology of athletics within higher education that is worthy of our universities' support. It focuses on many of the key values we hold so dear in the educational community: integrity, respect, inclusiveness and the key role of enhancing the educational experience for the student-athlete. The ideology is lofty, yes, but it provides the direction we desperately need in order to find the proper role for athletics within our institutions.

Finally, the Division I Board of Directors, of which I recently became a member, appears to be composed of committed and dedicated presidential colleagues determined to effect positive change and address the tough issues. Despite the diversity of institutions represented on the Board, there clearly is a commonality of purpose that seems to transcend institutional self-interests.

Thus, the NCAA clearly appears to be on the right track.

But -- and there is a "but" here -- the NCAA can only do its job well and achieve the mission and goals it has set for itself if two other pieces of the overall higher education/athletics puzzle are equally committed to significant and sustainable reform.

The task of athletics reform and the unification of Division I-A are larger than any one organization; it belongs to all of us. And by "all of us" I mean the individual universities, their boards and presidents, their athletics directors, and their respective athletics conferences. How deep does the dedication to athletics reform go? The answer lies at the heart of how individual schools and conferences comport themselves in the development and operation of their athletics programs. How strong will we be when confronted with the inevitable opposition arising from tradition, money and the pressure to win at all costs?

I believe the jury is out on this question.

The other main challenge to unification of and reform within Division I-A under a common mission and set of goals is how we resolve issues that transcend the NCAA and the individual conferences. Perhaps this is not a widespread problem, as I can think of only one issue that fits this description at the present time. Unfortunately, that one issue is of such significance that it has the potential to cause irreparable harm to any attempts at meaningful athletics reform and unification: the Bowl Championship Series.

How we in higher education handle and ultimately resolve the BCS issue will say more about the future of Division I-A athletics than anything being developed by NCAA leadership or within our own conferences or institutions.

While there have been a lot of specific criticisms of the BCS flying around this past year -- from antitrust to access, fairness to finances -- there is a general agreement that change needs to take place. The key to a successful resolution of the BCS issue lies in the magnitude and types of changes that ultimately are made to the system, and who makes the final decisions with respect to those changes.

Will we have a knee-jerk response to the obvious issues, merely tweaking the BCS system to fix immediate problems in ranking teams and ordering playoff spots? Or will we go the more difficult route of taking a systemic, long-term view of the BCS and make changes that will truly unify Division I-A athletics and help it to thrive? Only a thoughtful examination of the BCS issue minus institutional self-interest will lead to changes that will secure the long-term future of Division I-A and support the directions in which the NCAA is going and the values underlying that direction.

In the past, university presidents have primarily delegated the responsibility for the BCS and related issues to others -- conference commissioners and athletics directors -- to resolve. No one questions the important roles these individuals have in the resolution process, but the ultimate authority and responsibility for these decisions must rest with the presidents because of their unique position to assess the impact of these issues in the wider context of higher education.

University presidents must take a stand -- and stand firm -- without deferring the finalization of this issue to others, and deal with an issue that looms larger than our own parochial interests. If we have learned anything about the transgressions of the past, it is that presidential control is needed at the critical decision-making points that alter the course of athletics. These decisions cannot, and should not, be delegated to others because of their impact on the overall system of higher education and the visibility these issues have with the public.

If we are successful at true reform at all three levels of influence -- NCAA, university/conference, and interconference -- the future of Division I-A athletics is a bright one, and one that plays an appropriate role within the overall missions of our colleges and universities. Only time will tell whether we can garner reform at all levels consistent with our lofty aspirations and the values that underlie the academy. For now, I am cautiously optimistic.

Scott S. Cowen is the president of Tulane University. <