While much has been accomplished over the last two decades in reforming the structure, governance and conduct of sports programs, the fact is that the higher education community has failed to honestly address athletics' fundamental flaw. Specifically, because of the way athletics scholarships are structured, many of our institutions are running professional sports franchises.

Consider the essence of professional athletics -- pay for play. Despite our refusal to admit it, the contract between the student-athlete and the institution no longer represents the ideal of "pay (scholarship) for education." It is not pay for education when it is plain to everyone -- coaches, fans, faculty, media and, especially, the athletes -- that they are on campus first and foremost to play ball. That by any definition is "pay for play."

Thus, the athletics scholarship must be eliminated in favor of institutional need-based aid.

An athletics scholarship represents a contractual agreement between the student-athlete and the coach. This contract has little to do with education and everything to do with athletics performance and control. It allows coaches to view athletes as employees, bought and paid for by the athletics department. The fact is, when you are paid to play, regardless of the form of "payment," everything takes a back seat to athletics performance. The athlete knows it. The coach knows it. And everyone who watches knows it.

A need-based financial aid agreement, however, is a contractual agreement between the student and the institution. Under such a contract, the student will continue to receive his or her financial aid regardless of what transpires on the athletics fields. As a result, the student is less beholden to the athletics department's competitive and business motives and thus freer to explore the wide diversity of experiences college offers. There is no more effective way to "empower" the athlete academically because it fundamentally changes the relationship between the athlete, the coach and the institution.

Some argue that eliminating athletics scholarships will deny opportunity and limit access for many students, most notably black athletes. The question is access to what? The fields of competition or to a quality, well-balanced opportunity to earn a meaningful degree? With only 42 percent of black basketball players and 48 percent of black football players graduating, earning an athletics scholarship under the current system is little more than an opportunity to play sports.

A more likely result of this change is that these black athletes simply will be replaced by other black athletes. While they may be a bit less talented and obsessed with athletics, they will likely be better students, or at least more interested in academic achievement rather than simply using college as a springboard to the pros. The fact is, receiving need-based aid resulting in a legitimate educational experience that leads to a meaningful degree is a far better life-long deal than receiving an athletics scholarship to cover the cost of an educational experience that is a sham.

Further, the athletics scholarship has served to make our educational institutions complicit in perpetuating a dangerous and counter-productive cultural myth. Specifically, far too many parents and youngsters believe sports, rather than education, is their ticket to success. While moving to need-based aid may not completely change this myth, one thing is certain: Our educational institutions should have absolutely no part in perpetuating it.

And there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that such a change will diminish college sports' long-term entertainment value in the marketplace. College athletics' appeal rests not in how high the players jump or how fast they run but rather in the fact that the activity is steeped in university and cultural tradition and that it is linked to a higher purpose -- specifically, education. And its continued public appeal depends upon maintaining and strengthening that link to education.

The professional model is also about paying whatever you have to for coaches, staff, facilities, scouting, travel and anything else that coaches believe might make the difference between winning and losing, regardless of how outrageous or remote the actual impact. Professional sports also is about playing anywhere at any time to reap television revenues. And professional athletics is about the expectation that athletes train year-round and sacrifice their bodies for "the program."

But until we reform the fundamental principle upon which the professional model rests, the system will never truly change. As long as athletes are getting paid to play, the professional model, complete with its escalating budgets, athlete exploitation and attendant public skepticism, will remain.

Inroads for change

Reform of such a powerful force requires a long-term, sustained movement driven by a critical mass of committed people and organizations with ample resolve and steady pressure applied over time.

Further, it will require the courage and will of higher education leaders to act upon the fact that college athletics is higher education's property -- not ESPN's or CBS's, not Nike's or Adidas', not corporate America's, not the sports talk show hosts, and not the crazed fan in the stands. And because athletics is higher education's property, it is the higher education community alone that must establish the rules of the game, the values of the enterprise and the principles upon which it will be presented to the public. The fact is, higher education leaders can make athletics look like and represent whatever they want.

Despite a rash of scandals that have led many to suggest that reform is a lost cause, many signs indicate instead that we may finally be approaching the tipping point for revolutionary change, provided we have the courage to pursue it.

The third reincarnation of the Knight Commission in 2003 marked not the start of the most recent period of reform, but rather the continuation of a reform movement -- a 22-year process of envisioning, articulating, building, institutionalizing and operationalizing the structure necessary to support meaningful reform. This movement began in 1982 when a group of presidents proposed a set of academic standards that significantly raised the bar for freshman eligibility. The significance of this difference in the type and duration of reform effort cannot be overemphasized.

Further, during this time, many contextual factors that prevented meaningful reform in the past have for various reasons changed -- in some cases, rather dramatically. The result is that we may finally be on the verge of the intersection of the critical mass of people, institutions and ideas and a series of changing contextual factors needed to support the progressive change outlined above, and in the process, transform the role of sports in our educational institutions and in our society. Consider for example, the following factors that have reconfigured the context against which reform is now taking place.

* Since 1982, presidents have been consistently driving reform initiatives, from raising eligibility standards to overseeing the development of compliance programs to improving institutional control of athletics, to restructuring the governance process. Despite the belief at the time that presidents would not remain engaged in the reform battle, they have, in fact, remained so for more than 20 years.

* As data quantifying athletics' institutional influence accumulates, it has become obvious that what transpires in the athletics department has a direct effect on administrators, faculty, students and the public. As a result, more people, groups and associations are becoming actively involved in athletics reform. Examples include the Drake Group, the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics, the Association of Governing Boards, the National Institute for Sports Reform, the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics and the College Athletes Coalition.

* With the Presidents Commission establishing reform as a staple of the NCAA's agenda, it has become acceptable to raise and discuss reform issues. At the same time, the career path to positions of influence in athletics administration has been changing. As college athletics grew as a business, presidents began hiring athletics directors with business backgrounds rather than simply placing an ex-coach in the position. Sports administration programs also have provided another avenue through which to become an athletics administrator. Finally, the culture of college athletics is changing because the college athletics community is becoming more diverse, particularly as it relates to women and minorities. The result has been the emergence of a new generation of administrators who have grown up in an athletics culture where it is not only permissible but expected to question the status quo and to consider reform issues and strategies. This is far different from the athletics culture that existed during previous reform efforts, where those who challenged the status quo were marginalized. The seeds of reform that were advanced in the 1929 Carnegie Report, the "Sanity Code" of 1946 and the ACE proposals of 1952 were strewn on a barren reform landscape. Today, the cultural landscape of athletics is much more fertile for those seeds of reform to take root.

* One of the most significant ways in which the broader reform context has changed relates to the enactment of Title IX in 1972. This measure's impact goes far beyond participation numbers as it relates to athletics reform. Specifically, the challenge of meeting the law and providing equal opportunity for women has and will continue to force institutions to reassess the role, purpose and scope of their athletics departments.

* As big-time athletics programs look and operate more like professional sports franchises, questions regarding whether the legislative and legal advantages granted non-profit entities should continue to apply to the NCAA and individual athletics departments will intensify. Will Congress rescind college athletics' nonprofit tax status? Is it possible that a judge will rule that college athletics has become so professionalized that athletes should be eligible for workman's compensation benefits? While there are no clear answers to these and related questions, the likelihood of Congress, state legislatures and the courts exerting pressure to reform is significantly greater than 20 years ago.

* With increasing costs, declining state revenues and a more demanding public, the pressure on departments, programs and individuals to demonstrate how effectively they contribute to institutional mission and the public good will increase. In short, American higher education is being held more accountable for its performance. To think that athletics will not be held to the same standard of educational accountability is misguided.

* According to a 2004 Chronicle of Higher Education survey, the public appears to be quite disenchanted with college athletics, as 26 percent surveyed "strongly agreed" and another 50 percent "agreed" that colleges "place too much emphasis on athletics." This concern was articulated by the Knight Commission in its 2001 report. These are indications that public perceptions regarding athletics' place and purpose in our educational institutions and culture are changing.

College athletics as a whole is not broken. Rather, it is simply one aspect of the whole -- the professional model -- that is fundamentally flawed and, like a virus, is infecting its host. There is no longer any lack of information or understanding of the problems associated with the professional brand of college athletics. There is simply too much data and evidence to continue to explain away those problems as short-term or limited in scope -- they are systemic. Once we acknowledge this, it becomes clear that athletics reform is about choice, courage and resolve. Do we continue to sponsor a system of professional athletics, despite the fact that it continues to exploit young people, undermine academic values and compromise institutional mission?

The fact is, higher education built its system of professional athletics and higher education can change it. We have long known that presidents, with the support of their boards and working with their faculties, have the authority and responsibility to provide the leadership to drive this change. For the first time in the history of American higher education, presidents not only have the means by which to implement systemic change, but also a growing critical mass of people, institutions and associations that will support such change. Presidents can reform athletics in any way they choose because they have the ability, authority and increasing institutional and public support to do so. It is now simply a matter of having the courage and resolve to act on what has become obvious. Educational institutions have no business being in the business of professional athletics.

John R. Gerdy is a visiting professor in sports administration at Ohio University and author of "Sports: The All-American Addiction." His e-mail address is: johngerdy@aol.com.