I read with great interest the comments from University of Notre Dame President Rev. Edward A. Malloy in the "opinions" section of the January 3 NCAA News regarding presidential control of college athletics:

"There is no greater temptation for intrusion into presidential control and institutional mission than athletics when it comes to the board of trustees. The governing boards and many members of the governing boards have a huge incentive -- for reasons we can all speculate about -- to be excessively interested in athletics and to attempt to micromanage."

First, let me say that I believe college athletics, in its intended form, is an integral component of our higher education system. As a former college student-athlete, coach and administrator, I have a true passion for intercollegiate athletics and believe it is a great educational tool. Because of this passion, my desire is to see college athletics prosper and to offer any help I can to this end. Therefore, my comments are made solely as suggestions for improvement to enhance the principle of presidential control in college athletics. I don't believe one should critique without offering suggestions for improvement.

Rev. Malloy's assessment that the temptation for trustee intrusion into control of athletics is extremely accurate. The desire to micromanage athletics is unbelievable. The situation is even compounded because these same board members usually are the ones involved (even if behind the scenes) in the hiring of high-profile coaches. Once this commitment and support of a coach has been given by a trustee member, when a conflict occurs between the institutional mission of the university and the pressure to win, I am sad to say that the pressures to win often prevail. This is partly true because the intruding board members now have a vested interest in the coach they hired, so they feel they must do everything in their power to help him succeed, or in some cases, replace him.

I also believe this predicament goes one step further. When the president disagrees with the board, he or she is automatically put in the awkward position of either having to support the institutional mission, which usually goes against the desires of the micro-managing board, or fear the consequences of this action from intruding board members.

As a former athletics director at two Division I institutions, I have found that these same board members usually have one pet peeve for which they are so passionate, as opposed to the welfare of the entire program. I had a board member actually tell me, "It doesn't matter how well we do in other sports or academically; football is the only thing that will put us on the map." To further illustrate the perceived power of board members, one of my football coaches point-blank informed me, "It doesn't matter how much success our athletics department has -- if football doesn't win you will be fired, then I will be fired, and then the president will be fired by the board."

What is so ironic here is that the board members are appointed to serve the university, but they often end up serving their own egos at the expense of the institution's mission. Even a well-intentioned president runs the risk of standing up to a intruding board member because there is a direct conflict of interest -- the president, like anyone else, values his or her job. And while there are other facets of the university where this scenario could be similar, let's face it, board members do not have the passionate temptation to intrude into presidential control in other areas of the university as they do in athletics. Do we see presidents secretly flying on board member's planes to interview academic department heads off campus before the incumbent is even notified he is being fired? Rev. Malloy's comments accurately reflect this improper influence.

I do not profess to have all the answers, but I do believe some steps are absolutely necessary to curb board intrusion into athletics. I have seen far too many good people -- who are exactly what we need on campuses -- leave college athletics because they became victims of intruding board members. Likewise, I have seen unseemly characters in college athletics prosper solely because of relationships established with board members.

First, I believe all athletics committees of university boards should be abolished. An athletics committee of the board is an open invitation for a trustee who knows nothing about the operation of a college athletics program to gain just enough information and access to material to become a dangerous intrusion to presidential control. And it always seems the individuals who know the least, but think they know the most and who can make the most noise, are the ones who are appointed to the athletics committee of the board. If presidential control is truly desired, then why is there even a need to have an athletics committee of the board? The president and athletics director should continually see that the mission of the university is being carried out, not a board member who happens to contribute large sums of money to the school. The whole structure is counter-productive to the desired result.

Second, if presidential control of athletics is one of the guiding principles of the NCAA, there should be legislation to back it up. If a coach or staff member does not follow an NCAA principle, there typically is legislation that holds him or her accountable for those actions. Even if a booster or representative of institutional interests gets out of line, there are consequences for both the program and the individual involved.

There should be specific NCAA legislation adopted that makes the individual and the institution accountable if presidential control of athletics is inhibited by board members over-stepping their responsibilities. While Article 6.1 of the NCAA Constitution states, "A member institution's chief executive officer has ultimate responsibility and final authority for the conduct of the intercollegiate athletics program...," and Principle 2.1.1 states, "The institution's chief executive officer is responsible for the administration of all aspects of the athletics program...," I am aware of no actual legislation that enforces this principle.

In this day of countless rules and regulations governing athletics programs, how can there not be a rule to hold people accountable for one of the basic premises governing college athletics? We can't say we want presidential control of athletics and then be unwilling to penalize individuals and institutions who allow their boards to run rampant over the president to control the athletics program.

Finally, just as athletics programs are required to educate their coaches, staff and fans about NCAA legislation, I believe institutions should be required to educate board members about their proper role in athletics. Board members often believe their position gives them the authority to do whatever they desire, regardless of the NCAA and institutional mission for athletics. They need to understand the concept of presidential control and realize that when they choose a president they must accept his or her judgment and control of the institution's athletics program. They do not expect to be influenced by others regarding their selection for president, and likewise, they should not expect to unduly influence the president regarding athletics matters.

Board intrusion and the micromanagement of athletics is one of the biggest problems hindering presidential control of college sports. I believe there are many people in the field who would like to say the same thing but are unable to do so. While I know many schools allow their presidents to maintain their proper role, I know there are many others who do not. Yet there is no legislation enforcing this principle. If presidential control is truly the desired result, it is past time to keep talking about it and take action to enforce this guiding principle with board members just as we do with principles for student-athletes, coaches and staff. If there are no consequences, there will be no action.

Tom Seitz is currently the executive director of USA Water Polo and previously served as the athletics director at two Division I-AA institutions for 12 years.