Collegiate Commissioners Association rules governing the National Letter of Intent program have provided that formal written grant-in-aid offers may not be made before November of the senior year, but discussions of a possible commitment are happening well before that time. Division I rules allow coaches to begin writing letters and e-mails at the start of a prospect's junior year in high school (the end of sophomore year in men's basketball).

There are additional opportunities for communication that the coach does not initiate that recently have become far more extensive, reaching students at increasingly earlier ages and in many more sports than has been the case previously. Those practices, which permit ample opportunity for substantial direct communication in a student's sophomore or even freshman year, include summer camp experiences and athletics department toll-free numbers for student-initiated telephone calls.

Communication through those means does not necessarily pose a problem, but they may facilitate one. Students who sign letters of intent during the fall initial-signing periods increasingly seem to already have "verbally committed" to attend the schools in question -- in response to pressure from coaches to make those commitments -- months or even years earlier. It apparently is acceptable for coaches to ask for such commitments earlier and earlier, with prospects in some sports announcing "verbal commitments" while they are sophomores (or occasionally even freshmen) in high school.

Such a pattern constitutes a totally inappropriate pressure on those young students, and is totally at variance with the academic reforms that the Division I Board of Directors recently has approved after lengthy study and consideration.

Deciding where to attend college should be primarily an academic decision, even for the most committed athlete, and there are numerous problems associated with making this decision before a student's senior year in high school. Most obviously, students who have not yet completed their junior years may be very different students when they actually matriculate as much as two years later. They have not yet had a full chance either to demonstrate their academic abilities (to themselves or to potential colleges) or to explore possible areas of academic interest and further study in college. And usually they have not yet been able to visit colleges, unless they do so at their own expense, thus leaving them in the position of being asked to commit to a college based solely on the opportunity to participate in athletics -- as that opportunity is presented solely by a coach.

From an institutional standpoint, pressuring (or, simply inviting) prospects to commit to likely (but not guaranteed) athletics grants-in-aid early in their secondary school careers means that we are making admissions decisions without the benefit of extensive transcripts, completed applications, teacher recommendations and other materials normally required for a decision. The goal of the regular admissions process, of course, is precisely to ensure (insofar as possible) that the student and the institution are a good match -- bypassing this process means that institutions are not doing their due diligence and are putting students at risk through what are in effect poor admissions decisions.

The current pattern seems to directly contradict the intent of the last few years of academic reform in Division I. Initial-eligibility and progress-toward-degree standards have been strengthened and new academic performance standards have been devised. The logical next step is to change the "early" recruiting pattern so that academic and athletics assessments inform these decisions.

That change will benefit both schools and students, for neither can have a real basis for an admissions or college-choice decision before the end of the student's junior year. If admission is not implicitly assured by those informal agreements, students are vulnerable when they stop pursuing options at other schools. And if the admissions and college-choice decisions are not good ones for individual students, they will not have good academic experiences -- and their schools will have a more difficult time meeting the new NCAA academic standards.

Recent changes in Division I rules inadvertently accelerated the early commitment process and thus exacerbated the problem. For the first time, through legislation enacted in the spring of 2004 and applicable this past spring, coaches in sports other than football and basketball may initiate telephone calls to juniors in March and to visit juniors at their high school in April. Press coverage suggests that permitting such contacts has increased the pressure on students to make early commitments -- and to reach even earlier understandings.

Fortunately, legislation sponsored by the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet, and very likely to be enacted, will reverse this change starting this spring. But the many other kinds of coaches' communication permitted before the end of the student's junior year, which originally were intended simply to provide students with preliminary information about their possible college choices, still will be used to pressure students into making decisions far too early.

The situation requires a comprehensive remedy rather than adjustments for selected sports or small changes in the schedule of what coaches can initiate. Coaches, admissions officers and students all need to make timely choices in the recruiting and admissions process. But as we continue to address all aspects of academic reform, we must seriously consider a more conservative definition of what constitutes proper and improper "early" contact by coaches, and eliminate inappropriate pressure on prospective student-athletes for premature "verbal commitments."

Some have supported the current situation because it permits both schools and students to "get their decisions made" before the students' senior year in high school, and thus is needed to assure recruiting "efficiency." Others argue that it is not possible to restrict coaches' communications in an enforceable way. But "efficiency" that comes at the cost of stress-filled decisions with little academic content has too high a price. And we can enforce our rules -- and our coaches should be trusted to follow them. If we can change our academic paradigm as thoroughly as we have over the last few years, we certainly can address recruiting as well.

Now is the right time to affirm that the recruitment and admissions process ultimately is about academic performance and promise, even for the best athletes and even on the most competitive teams. With clear presidential leadership, I have no doubt that athletics administrators and coaches, together with academic administrators and admissions officers, can find a better balance.

James Wright is the president at Dartmouth College.