The NCAA is an old dog. A 100-year-old dog, in fact.

But contrary to popular belief, we were able to learn a new trick recently when we began shutting off the access pipeline from phony prep schools.

Credit the initiative from the NCAA membership — particularly the presidents of the Southeastern Conference who raised the concern, and the investigative reporting from The New York Times and The Washington Post — for uncovering academic fraud at these storefront high schools at which there are no classrooms and little, if any, instruction.

But the prep school issue is not college sports’ dirty little secret, as some suggest. Academic fraud in this case is not reserved for intercollegiate athletics. On the contrary, diploma mills are a higher education concern. Student-athletes in fact represent the minority of individuals acquiring academic credentials at these fraudulent institutions, but their public profile attracts the brightest light.

The NCAA is oft maligned for its methodical reaction to change, but in this case the membership acted swiftly to address a problem not of its own making. The Association in fact took the lead on this national issue and was aggressive in its approach to unscrupulous promoters of these "schools." We should applaud the fact that the task force we deployed in February worked so quickly and well.

By June, the NCAA had identified an initial list of preparatory and nontraditional high schools that either did not respond to inquiries or did not provide adequate information. Investigations are ongoing, and more invalid schools will be called out.

It is important to note that the NCAA did not pick these schools out of a hat; rather, all of them at some point initiated contact with the Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse, in most cases by seeking a certification decision on a prospective student-athlete. Significant irregularities in that information triggered further scrutiny. The subsequent lack of response from those schools confirmed our concerns.

If a school that failed to respond subsequently submits materials, that information will be reviewed. Schools identified as invalid also may appeal that decision to a committee appointed by the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet and the Division II Academic Requirements Committee.

Also, regardless of a decision on a prep school, students from that school still will have their academic records reviewed when they trigger flags. We are simply identifying cases in which it is clear that the prospect knowingly sought an end-around to meeting standards. In short, irregularities in any individual’s academic profile will trigger scrutiny, both toward the prep school and the individual.

Our zeal for ferreting out fraud will not result in unfair treatment to those students who are genuinely innocent. In some cases, it may be that the student-athlete will be treated as a partial qualifier, in that they can be on scholarship the first year but not compete. The student-first philosophy that we have applied across the board in recent years carries over to the prep school issue, too.

It is unfortunate that the issue exists, but if there is a broader learning in this episode, it is the shared responsibility required among