As leaders in the intercollegiate athletics enterprise, no one knows better than athletics directors that the college sports landscape is changing. From increased external pressures to deliver competitive teams to tighter resources from which to do so, athletics departments are struggling to maintain what over time has become an expected self-sufficient bottom line.

The fact is that very few universities break even or show excess revenues in intercollegiate athletics. The vast majority of athletics departments receive subsidies from their institutions to operate at levels to which they are accustomed. And these days, more and more campus constituents are casting their eyes toward athletics as a potential source of reallocation in the fight for funding.

Through all of this change, the role of the athletics director also is evolving. But while some see the AD as being responsible simply for steering the competitive ship, I would argue that today's athletics director has a much more elevated role in the well-being of the enterprise.

To be sure, athletics directors must embrace fiscal responsibility in tough economic times, but fiscal responsibility is not just about cutting costs. Fiscal responsibility is a normative concept that has at least two parts. One part of course is to contain costs; but we expect every part of the university, from the athletics department to the school of business, to be efficient in its use of resources. Containing costs, which is only a financial strategy, does not really capture all that is involved in fiscal responsibility.

The normative aspect of fiscal responsibility is the integration -- both in terms of structure and most especially in terms of mission -- of the athletics department into the university. This value-based budgeting requires all athletics expenditures, from facility enhancements to additional personnel or programs, and all revenues, whether they come from ticket sales, media or subsidies, to be judged from the perspective of whether they help fulfill the institution's academic mission.

In this model, the role of the athletics director becomes more important. The AD not only has to manage a large and complex athletics organization and maintain serious external relationships involving media, alumni, fund-raising and marketing, he or she also has to be a player in the university mission. The athletics director must understand the mission and tout it to internal and external publics. He or she also must work directly with faculty governance so that faculty continue to understand and support intercollegiate athletics.

Structurally, more and more colleges and universities are assigning athletics directors to the president's cabinet to facilitate the integration of athletics into the university mission. There are other models as well, and each institution must be able to choose a structure that best accommodates its unique circumstances. But the structure is not the message in this case -- what is essential is the mission integration itself.

The athletics director not only has the task of managing an athletics operation that has grown over time, he or she also has the responsibility of becoming well-versed in the university mission. For some ADs, this may not come as a surprise, while others may perceive it only as additional duties to an already overflowing plate.

I believe it is a golden opportunity for all.

The more the athletics director understands the university mission, the more the athletics department can contribute to it. What must be dissolved is the separation from the mainstream of the university that some athletics departments have either inherited or developed over time. The point is that athletics will operate better when it is brought into the university, rather than treated as a separate unit. The athletics department must be seen and must behave as part of the university.

In this way, the athletics director is no different than the dean of a significant school or college on campus. The AD, through his or her involvement with an enterprise that is an integral part of the educational mission, is an important player on campus, not someone who is charged simply with overseeing an ancillary activity.

Integration is the best defense against building budget pressures and scrutiny from campus constituents who see alternative uses for limited available dollars. The answer for the athletics director is not merely to cultivate more revenue streams, but to make it apparent that athletics is part of the solution. The athletics department, because it is part of the campus community and because it contributes to the educational mission of the institution, brings value to the university.

Though we want our intercollegiate athletics programs to be entertaining, the value of college sports is not in entertainment, or in whatever revenues they might provide. The value of athletics is that it imbues the educational experience in ways nothing else can. Higher education is preparation for life, and athletics is part of that, as is the study of theater, literature, science and mathematics.

A strong mind, courage, fortitude, teamwork, fair play and grace under pressure are at the heart of intercollegiate athletics and are intrinsic in the higher education experience. But athletics has helped expose those values more than the university would be able to do on its own. The value of athletics is in how it helps define the mission of the university, not in whether it is financially self-sufficient.

There is no denying the budget realities facing athletics departments, but rather than see this changing landscape as a threat to college sports, athletics directors need to change it into an opportunity to demonstrate their stake in the university mission.

Athletics directors are accustomed to having to play defense when it comes to intercollegiate athletics. Indeed, they are the first line of defense when the team does not do well or when someone misbehaves. But rather than having to justify or defend intercollegiate athletics in this case, it is time to play offense. And playing offense means showing what intercollegiate athletics contributes to the university in ways unique to sports.

The key to success in athletics and elsewhere has always been leadership, and colleges and universities will do well to tap the leadership skills they have in their athletics directors.

Myles Brand is president of the NCAA.