Those of us who have been involved in NCAA governance for a long time know how quickly members can jump to the conclusion that the sky is falling when it comes to change. The NCAA is a large, complex and diverse organization that has been known to react cautiously to philosophical shifts or major policy adjustments.

When NCAA President Myles Brand and the Executive Committee urged governance groups last year to adopt the "student-athlete-first" philosophy, there were some in the membership who believed that the sky was indeed losing altitude, even though the skyrocketing number of waivers and eligibility appeals seeking leniency clearly indicated the membership's desire for more flexible rules.

The fundamental shift was to not rely so heavily on case precedent, although case precedent still remains a factor, and give student-athletes the benefit of the doubt in reinstatement cases, academic waivers and eligibility appeals. The philosophy relies on common sense and in particular looks to provide leniency in situations in which the student-athlete has limited responsibility for the violation and where little competitive advantage was realized.

That concept was easy to embrace for members with student-athletes who fit the profile. Where the sky appeared to fall, however, was when the policy benefited a competing institution.

But now after a full year of implementing the student-athlete-first initiative, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it works -- and that the sky not only has stayed put, but in fact may be clearer than before.

In reinstatement alone, more than 100 cases already have resulted in different, positive outcomes because of the new philosophy, which in reinstatement resulted in two major shifts. First, the fact that the committee has given the national office staff more authority to make initial decisions on cases has expedited the process and made it more efficient.

The old process took longer because the staff had only limited authority and thus a larger number of cases came before the committee. As a result, some student-athletes may have missed competition because there were not enough time slots available to schedule the number of conference calls necessary to accommodate all student-athletes who had pending competition.

The committee still remains intimately involved in the work of the reinstatement staff and provides oversight and direction to the staff. However, the change in processing cases has greatly decreased bureaucracy and allows the reinstatement committee to be a true appellate body to the staff's initial decision. Therefore, the added value of the staff-decision component cannot be underplayed.

Second, the new philosophy created a shift in focus from dictated outcomes to a staff/committee focus on approach. Thus, instead of the committee directing the staff toward case outcomes, the focus is on what factors should be considered in the approach. This change has enabled the staff to work with institutions to better understand the uniqueness of each situation and thus has provided for a greater individual review of cases.

However, the implementation of the student-athlete-first initiative does not mean that every case automatically results in a positive outcome, nor does it imply that the NCAA is abandoning its rules. There still are cases in which student-athletes are withheld from competition or ruled permanently ineligible for violations of NCAA regulations. Specifically, in cases where there is a clear violation, where the student-athlete has a high degree of culpability or where a significant competitive advantage was gained, punishment continues to be stout.

This may be most clearly illustrated by viewing reinstatement on a spectrum. At one end you have inadvertent violations with high institutional involvement where but for the institutional error the violation could have been avoided. Situations at this end of the spectrum are more likely to result in a flexible outcome. At the other extreme you have academic-fraud violations, amateurism violations and agent violations, which are significant breaches of NCAA legislation and thus are less likely to result in a flexible outcome. The staff and committee still consider mitigation in these cases, but a flexible outcome is less likely.

In those instances, though, especially if they are high-profile cases, some in the media have tended to portray the student-athlete as a victim. In one recent high-profile case in fact, some columnists said the outcome contradicted the principles embedded in the student-athlete-first initiative. That is a disingenuous claim. The staff and committee give the benefit of the doubt to the student-athlete and provide the student-athlete and institution a chance to provide all mitigation; however, at times, the seriousness of the violation and the student-athlete's responsibility for the violation may still result in permanent ineligibility or a significant withholding condition.

Student-athlete-first is meant to provide flexibility and fairness, not to undercut core NCAA principles or the balance of competitive equity. The system also has built-in checks and balances. For example, though the staff has the increased authority to decide more cases, the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee still reviews all of the case decisions of the staff and determines whether the staff was on point with its analysis and decision. If the decision appears to be contrary to the student-athlete-first initiative and/or the principles set forth by the NCAA membership, the committee, at its discretion, may archive the case. The important thing to note is that although more cases result in positive outcomes, institutions and student-athletes still are accountable if they are involved in the violation.

In general, I believe the membership is beginning to reach a comfort level with this change in philosophy. Feedback has been positive, and certainly those who have received favorable outcomes have been pleasantly surprised. As our committee expected, as more institutions receive outcomes that are different than what they would have been under the old philosophy, the less concern there is about one institution being advantaged over another. Over time, everyone wins.

The best thing about student-athlete-first is that it is the right thing to do. The NCAA is committed to serving the student-athlete first, and the new philosophy provides the perfect fit.

Significant change rarely comes easily, for the NCAA or any organization, but the NCAA has embraced student-athlete-first for the right reasons. The sky has not fallen; rather, it has been cleared to the benefit of the student-athlete.

Carolayne Henry is an associate commissioner of the Mountain West Conference and chair of the Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee.