Now seems like the perfect time to talk about student-athlete well-being. More so than any other time, we find a collegiate athletics world that is being challenged to change, through the catalysts of presidential task forces and unique partnerships with coaches associations and other intercollegiate athletics stakeholders.

Whether the membership is ready for this new type of leadership remains to be seen, but what has been realized, though, is that the fundamental premise driving this leadership is encompassed by the single goal of student-athlete well-being.

Now, I ask those of you who doubt that to suspend your prejudice for just a moment. We of course recognize this idealist goal can be replaced by the more pragmatic
drive for competitive equity or even the almighty dollar. Yet, without denying such sentiments, the romantic in my former student-athlete self still places a love for the purity of intercollegiate athletics at the height of conscious thought, purity that is epitomized by student-athlete well-being.

As student-athletes we must believe in our privilege to an education in the classroom and on the field, and that our athletics administrators are stewards of opportunity for our well-being. So, if your own love affair with collegiate athletics is idealized (or not) through some of those same thoughts, then the following discussion is for you.

The current Division I issue surrounding financial aid deregulation has spawned a tornado-like debate over a seemingly simple subject. The issue is whether to allow Division I student-athletes to receive need-based and academic institutional aid without it counting against a team's equivalencies.

The resulting whirlwind of discussion over the past two years since the proposals were developed is reminiscent of other Division I issues that are difficult to gain a consensus because of the diversity of membership, institutional autonomy, competitive equity, and our favorite -- student-athlete well-being. Nevertheless, when the dust settles over this debate, student-athlete well-being must be the driving premise.

With your prejudice still in suspense, let's digress from the philosophical and get specific. The issue with financial aid deregulation is plainly rooted in fear. This fear resonates in the annals of competitive equity, as the "haves" and the "have-nots" battle over their competitive position in the collegiate athletics world. Deregulating legislation, as the fearful portray, tips the competitive-equity scale in favor of institutions with benefactors who can generate dollars aimed "indirectly" -- yet directly -- at future and current student-athletes. This "stockpiling" of athletics talent would let the "haves" gain competitive ground on their "have-not" peers.

Thinking practically, though, those student-athletes who might be stockpiled inherently think a healthy dose of playing time is in their future. Relegated to the bench, however, those student-athletes may instead find frustration and potential transfer as their reality.

Other realities also come into play. First, institutional integrity must be violated -- not to mention NCAA rules -- to create need-based or academic scholarships designed just for student-athletes. And prospective student-athletes must turn a blind eye to think athletics playing time is guaranteed with any form of scholarship.

With the dust circulating rapidly, then, this discussion harkens back to the years of debate concerning student-athlete employment. Fear also was the key player then, as "what if" scenarios depicting competitive inequities ranged from the minute to the outlandish. Those fictitious portrayals served only to scare the membership into a four- or five-year deregulatory process (which should have taken one legislative cycle), and in the end the fears were never realized.

Now we find ourselves on the brink of another lengthy deregulation timeline. With the current financial aid legislation already circulating a second and third time we still cannot overcome our fear. What can be learned from the past -- aside from the fear-stricken scenarios not playing out -- is that the trust among the membership has not strengthened in recent years; in fact the divide between the haves and have-nots -- even between the haves and other haves -- has widened.

There is, however, a way to bridge this divide. As the idealist idiom, the bridge of student-athlete well-being seems to be less of a romantic pursuit as it does the only true solution.

While being pragmatic about the realities of intercollegiate athletics, one must consider the dollars and cents, as well as a level playing field in any discussion. Without denying such -- and even maintaining one's prejudices -- the answer still lies in the well-being of student-athletes. As the membership evolves from where it was during the days of deregulating student-athlete employment to current issues, one point is clear: Supporting the true ideals in intercollegiate athletics yields a philosophy of student-athlete well-being.

And that is what should drive the decision in this case.

Ian Gray, a former cross country runner at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, chairs the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.