As former Grand Valley State University president Arend D. Lubbers noted in his December 6 NCAA News editorial, this academic year marks the 20th anniversary of the NCAA Presidents Commission, one of two presidential groups to guide the Association through perhaps the most dramatic period of reform in its history. The other group, of course, was the first Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, which in 1991 released its report featuring what we have come to know as the "three-part model" of presidential control, and academic and fiscal integrity.

The year 2004 is an appropriate bracket for the 20-year reform period, since it will go down in NCAA history as the year the Division I Board of Directors adopted sweeping measures that better ensure student-athletes' graduation path and hold institutions accountable for that academic success. It also was the year that Division III held its most historic Convention during which members passed reforms that re-grounded institutions with the Division III philosophy.

The last 20 years are important not only because of reform, but also because of the presidential leadership that made it happen. Presidents reestablished their authority in intercollegiate athletics during an era in which self-sufficient athletics departments became the goal for Division I and in which external commercial pressures threatened the collegiate model.

While the reform efforts of the last 20 years largely are complete, those external pressures continue to exist today. Indeed, the same presidential leadership that produced academic reform will be necessary to accomplish our next goal, which is to fully align intercollegiate athletics with the academic mission of the campus.

I have no doubt that the presidential leadership that has carried us this far will continue to gain momentum. We do not have to look far for proof that presidents already have the integration of athletics into the university mission and the integrity of the game as top priorities. Some institutions, through presidential leadership, already have restructured athletics departments to report within the mainstream of the university administration.

Some presidents already have made decisions that reflect a renewed focus on fiscal responsibility. Others have taken steps to ensure the integrity of the game. It was a presidential decision, for instance, to withhold two bowl-eligible teams from postseason play this year after an on-field altercation involving student-athletes. Such decisions reflect the level of involvement presidents have with their intercollegiate athletics programs, and the values they are willing to uphold when problems do arise.

While presidents have reasserted their authority in the intercollegiate athletics arena, there remains work to be done. As Dr. Lubbers said in his editorial, fairness and integrity in athletics are not stationary. Though the NCAA has essentially completed one of its most ambitious reform periods in the academic arena, there are other steps ahead of us that also will require sound presidential leadership.

We have convened the Presidential Task Force on the Future of Intercollegiate Athletics to address the core issue of mission alignment. I am concerned about the drift I see within intercollegiate athletics toward the sports entertainment model in a way that has college sports off center from the rest of the campus, and I expect this group to redirect our course.

In the case of academic reform for Division I, a presidential task force served the process well, and a similar group may realize the same kind of success with mission alignment and fiscal issues -- though as difficult as academic reform has been, the concept of fiscal responsibility may be even more challenging.

The presumed outcome of this group will be a productive agenda that focuses on the central value issues, sets clear measures for success and establishes a realistic timetable. The agenda will include not only issues of fiscal responsibility, but other pressing matters such as the appropriate relationships between presidents and boards of trustees, and the role of presidents in the commercial aspects of intercollegiate athletics.

Reform -- specifically those measures that protect the collegiate model -- is an ongoing concern. Reform also requires presidential leadership -- not only national leadership, but campus-based leadership. Intercollegiate athletics plays a highly visible role on America's university and college campuses. It can be a force for the good, especially when it complements the campus' academic mission and when it provides a point of common pride for the campus and local community.

College and university presidents and chancellors are the keys to success. They have displayed the vision and leadership necessary to navigate the most recent reform journey, and the NCAA will rely on their leadership once again as our next mission begins.

Will presidents, at least a critical mass of presidents, rise to the occasion and take control? My strong expectation is that they will. As stewards of their universities -- and of intercollegiate athletics as an integrated part of those universities -- presidents have the obligation to see the larger picture. I am optimistic that the same presidential leadership we have seen emerge over the last two decades will continue to be evident over the next two, and well beyond.

Myles Brand is president of the NCAA.