Editor's note: The following editorial from Tulane University President Scott Cowen was written well before the arrival of Hurricane Katrina. The NCAA News had scheduled the article to appear in the September 12 edition but delayed publication in deference to the circumstances created by the storm.

By Scott S. Cowen
Tulane University

With the new college football season having just begun, any coach will tell you it is way too early to start thinking about bowl season. But that is precisely what those who care about the future of intercollegiate athletics and the NCAA need to do.

In recent years, the NCAA has made significant progress in addressing many key issues facing athletics. Despite the successes, one critical component remains in desperate need of reform -- Division I-A postseason play. This system comprises all the postseason bowl games, and it currently operates outside the jurisdiction of the NCAA. The only control the NCAA exerts in postseason football is the rather minor role of certifying the bowls.

Unless the deficiencies of postseason football are addressed, athletics may never be properly positioned within higher education. The NCAA can be only partially successful at reform when the most visible component of intercollegiate athletics -- postseason football -- is controlled by individual conferences and networks each with different goals and priorities.

With the exception of the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, I am a lone presidential voice on this issue, at least publicly. It is a complex and controversial topic because of the unique history and tradition of the bowl system, past NCAA attempts to control postseason play, and the implications that a change of control might have on conferences, television networks and bowls.

At one time the NCAA did control postseason play but relinquished its role two decades ago after legal disputes arose over the Association's attempts to regulate regular-season play. From my perspective and with the benefit of hindsight, this change of control from the NCAA to the conferences -- and, ultimately, to TV networks and corporate sponsors -- has been detrimental to intercollegiate athletics.

There is no overall vision and strategy for postseason football as there is for every other NCAA-sponsored sport. The current football postseason system is disjointed and overly commercialized, which is frustrating and confusing to fans, the media and Congress, while also causing conflict among Division I-A universities. The controversy surrounding the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) and its inability to crown an undisputed national champion, and the fact that very few schools make money playing in a bowl, merely adds to the evidence that postseason play in football is flawed.

There is only one recognized and representative organization capable of making much needed change to the system -- the NCAA. There are at least five dimensions of postseason football that need review in order to develop a unified vision and strategy for postseason play consistent with the NCAA's strategic plan and other NCAA-sponsored sports.

• Purpose of postseason play. We need to re-examine the purpose of the bowls as well as their intended audiences. Historically, the bowls were seen as an opportunity to strengthen community and showcase premier football teams. Revenue generation, while important, was not the primary driver of the system until 1986, when the NCAA relinquished control. Since then, the bowl system's historical purpose has blurred while the emphasis on generating revenues and TV exposure has increased. This has led to a significant increase in the number of bowls played each year from 17 in 1986 to 28 in 2004.

• Control of the system. If the NCAA does not control postseason play, who does? In the current system, the TV networks, especially ABC and ESPN, have significant influence and power over the conduct of the bowls, with the bowls and universities in a subordinate position -- or at least behaving as if this were the case. Postseason play must be controlled, first and foremost, by the universities under the auspices of a single representative body. Multiple masters, often with conflicting agendas, cannot create a system that is in the best long-term interests of all universities.

• The economics of the bowl system and its impact on the financial viability of Division I-A intercollegiate athletics. In basketball, the NCAA coordinates all aspects of postseason play with its various partners, including the networks and sponsors. This approach gives the universities a single voice and bargaining power in negotiations. In contrast, in postseason football the negotiating power rests with the networks because there is no single voice for the universities. The result has been diminished economic power as well as divisive and sometimes dysfunctional behavior by universities and conferences struggling to maintain financially viable programs.

• Marketing and promoting the bowls. Which system of postseason play -- football or basketball -- appears more commercialized? I don't think there's any doubt that it's football, where multiple sponsors have their names on every conceivable bowl-related event, including the games, the halftime, the trophy, and even the "week" when most of the bowls are played. According to "Division I-A Postseason Football History and Status," a study published by the Knight Commission, at least 23 of the 28 Division I-A postseason bowl games now carry at least one, and often more than one, corporate name, and there are no restrictions on attaching corporate names to in-game, on-screen information graphics -- something even the NFL prohibits. Increased commercialization of postseason play desperately needs to be addressed.

• Crowning a legitimate national champion. Division I-A football is the only NCAA-sponsored sport that crowns a national champion without a playoff. This has led to controversy and called into question the fairness and purpose of the BCS. There are many reasons for this aberration, ranging from the history and tradition of the bowls to the concerns that a playoff will be too intrusive on the lives of student-athletes. Ironically, this latter argument is advanced as more conferences add a championship game to their schedule and are about to add a permanent 12th game to the regular season. But there has been no compelling argument as to why it is acceptable to have a playoff in all other sports, including Division I-AA football, but not Division I-A football.

I think the case is clear that the system of postseason play in football is flawed and in need of change.

The NCAA is the only organization that can bring sanity to this situation, and the time is now. I realize this is a difficult task for the NCAA to undertake because of possible legal, political and emotional issues. However, future reform efforts hinge on how postseason football evolves over time.

If progress is to continue, universities must ask the NCAA, or at least not discourage them, from exploring this issue. We must put aside our parochial issues and do what is right for higher education.

Scott Cowen is president of Tulane University.