When administered properly, intercollegiate athletics competition can be a winner. It is a positive force for participating student-athletes, for the institutions that conduct varsity programs and for higher education in general. If the correct controls are in place, student-athlete education is enhanced, people are entertained and we all are provided with an exciting rallying point.

Who can find fault with such outcomes?

Of course, the problem is that intercollegiate athletics is not always administered properly. The emphasis too often is on entertainment and not on education. Too many schools view athletics as a marketing device rather than as an educational tool. Consequences range from embarrassment to outright scandal.

I can speak to this point more authoritatively than most, because I have worked throughout the spectrum of intercollegiate athletics. I was president of Michigan State University, home to one of the nation's largest athletics programs, and of Tufts University, an outstanding member of Division III. And, I was president at the University of Connecticut when it competed at the Division I level in some sports and at the Division I-AA level in football. I served as an advisor to the University of Colorado, Boulder, as it recently attempted to address various challenges within its athletics program. Finally, I was a charter member of the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, which has worked assiduously to reform college athletics.

After all of these years, I still may not have all the answers, but I certainly have been around long enough, and experienced enough firsthand, to have some strong opinions about college sports.

Recently, I gained renewed hope about the future of intercollegiate athletics when I met with presidents and chancellors from 140 NCAA Division II member institutions. This summit, conducted June 24-25 by the Division II Presidents Council, reminded me that amateurism and authenticity in college athletics are alive and well, and that we have leaders in higher education who place student-athlete welfare among their central concerns. These presidents reminded me that we have choices about how we approach intercollegiate athletics.

Time and again, these presidents reinforced the importance of matching the mission of the athletics program with that of the overall institution. Most of those who attended saw nothing wrong with conducting a large, Division I-level program, so long as the program is educationally grounded and backed by adequate resources. But the presidents at this summit were more focused on the flip side: No institution should lose prestige because it chooses to nourish its athletics program at a size that enhances fiscal responsibility, bolsters education and encourages competition.

I also see other encouraging signs. The television networks are beginning to value different levels of college athletics competition. They know that viewers want alternatives that are real, experiences that touch the spirit. The number of Division II championship events on national television has increased almost 300 percent over the last five years, and more growth is probable in the years to come. Coverage of Division III events also is expanding. This presents a tremendous opportunity to tell the innumerable positive stories that are found throughout all 1,000 NCAA member institutions and not just the 317 member schools of Division I.

No matter what happens with television, what is offered at the Division II (and III) level must continue to be what it is -- a community-based enterprise. Much of the public longs for student-athletes who attend college in the same region where they went to high school. They admire institutions at which coaches also spend time in the classroom, serving as teachers. They want their college to play the school down the road, rather than jet across the country to face an unfamiliar opponent.

Most of all, they want to know that student-athletes are students first.

Many programs in all three divisions offer that assurance, but a particular strength of Division II is that it can rightly claim to teach lessons through intercollegiate competition. Its entire philosophy is based on producing a high-quality athletics experience, while making the student-athlete a part of the mainstream student body.

I believe the higher education community, including boards and faculty, must become more aware of the athletics options that are available -- and then act on that awareness. These days, too many schools are over-reaching athletically in the belief that the public will regard them more highly if they compete at the Division I level. Such thought is pure folly. In fact, the opposite is much closer to the truth; the public is a harsh judge of institutions that put anything other than education first.

Presidents at many quality institutions across the country are confronted almost daily with how they should regard their athletics programs: Should they remain in Division II or should they "move up" to Division I in the hope of projecting quality through that association? The decision to stay put can be difficult, because these presidents face intense pressure from their fans and their boards. In most cases, however, they serve their fans and student-athletes well by making the hard choice.

Presidents who show such leadership deserve our respect for their insight and for their courage.