The Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics will be reconvening in a series of meetings over the next several months.

Of the original 22 members of the commission, 20 have agreed to participate in these sessions. Additionally, commission membership has been expanded to include NCAA President Cedric W. Dempsey; Stan Ikenberry, president of the American Council on Education; Tom Ingram, president of the Association of Governing Boards; Hodding Carter III, president and CEO of the Knight Foundation (ex officio); and four current sitting Division I presidents: Michael Adams of the University of Georgia, Carol Cartwright of Kent State University, Mary Sue Coleman of the University of Iowa and Adam Herbert, chancellor of Florida's statewide university system. Once again, the commission will be chaired by William C. Friday, president emeritus of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; and the Rev. Theodore N. Hesburgh, president emeritus of the University of Notre Dame. The first meeting of the reconstituted commission was conducted August 28 in Washington, D.C.

The purpose of reconvening is to assess the steps taken by the NCAA and its institutional members in addressing the issues raised -- and the recommendations made -- by the commission after the release of its final report in 1995. Furthermore, the commission has been asked to review what, if any, new concerns about intercollegiate athletics have arisen since its earlier deliberations were completed.

In my view, as one of the original commissioners, I believe the Knight Commission Report did have a significant impact on thinking within the NCAA. Academic standards, while minimal, were established and reaffirmed (by a narrow margin) by the institutional membership. The reorganization of the NCAA did result in the potential for far greater presidential control and input, although only a limited number of presidents seem willing to give the time and effort needed to effectively influence decision-making. The certification process is in place and apparently functioning reasonably well. Some

rules have been adopted relating to financial management, although they are not entirely in concert with the commission's recommendations. All in all, it is clear that the commission was listened to and its views respected by many within the athletics enterprise.

On the other hand, intercollegiate athletics continues to be plagued by abuses, both real and perceived. Incomes of coaches in the major sports have escalated to levels that many consider obscene. Reports of student-athletes being exploited have not diminished. While graduation rates have increased at many institutions, questions remain as to the validity of courses taken, grades received and legitimacy of degrees awarded. Involvement of outside interests, such as shoe and clothing manufacturers, in decision-making, extending down as far as middle school, have intensified.

The daily press and other media regularly report on criminal activity on the part of athletes, both amateur and professional, and many are seemingly let off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Since players and coaches often are viewed as role models, such behavior may be contributing to increasing violence occurring during and after athletics events. Witness, for instance, a recent event in Boston, where after a hockey game involving 10-year-olds, in which there were several fights, a confrontation between the fathers of two of the youngsters involved in the altercations resulted in one parent killing the other.

Having said all that, in my opinion the solutions are not as simple as just expanding the authority of the NCAA or any other athletics regulatory body. Some of the problems may be generic to our society, from the breakdown of the traditional family to a general lack of civility, i.e., lack of respect and discipline, with which we are all familiar. Some may also be due to a loss of perspective, placing athletics prowess and achievement far above accomplishments of greater merit. We are obsessed with sports, not merely enjoying the contest(s), but equating winning and losing with life or death.

In my view, the issues can best be addressed at the institutional level. If we could somehow steel the spines of university and college presidents to confront their athletics departments by insisting that they meet all the standards that apply in all other institutional matters, we would not require any further expansion of NCAA regulations and control.

Simply put, athletes should meet the same requirements for admission, for progress and for graduation that apply to all other students. Coaches' salaries should be in line with all other administrators, and money generated from outside interests should be funneled through institutional treasuries. Tendencies to ratchet salaries upward should be resisted collectively by the presidents. Acts of violence, whether perpetrated by athletes or coaches, should be subject to severe penalty (would we allow a professor to strike a student?).

Finally, outside parties -- be they shoe and clothing manufacturers, boosters or overzealous trustees -- should be prohibited access to or involvement with intercollegiate athletics programs. Such an action would send a powerful message, not only to those in higher education, but to other educational levels, as well.

I remain a strong believer in the value of sports on our campuses. Sports can serve as a wonderful vehicle for those who have the skill to participate, for those who enjoy watching as fans, and for overall school spirit. But, we must find a way to clean up the abuses that exist, before the situation deteriorates further and we end up being so disenchanted that we choose to abandon this important component of our students' educational experience.

Hopefully, the Knight Commission once again will serve as a positive catalyst for change, to assure that such an eventuality is precluded.

John DiBiaggio is the president of Tufts University and a member of the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.