Who’s in Charge Here?

The National Collegiate Athletic Assn. calls its special convention this week “possibly the most important” in its history. Even if that is hyperbole, it is justified. If the meeting does not help stem scandals in college sports, the NCAA may well have outlived its usefulness.

More than 200 college presidents attending the meeting in New Orleans will be asked to approve reforms that would put athletes more firmly under the control of the academic institutions that they represent. The proposals were drafted by a 44-member commission of college presidents headed by John W. Ryan of Indiana University. The commission was appointed in the wake of cheating scandals at several colleges with major athletic programs, including UCLA and USC.

As if the presidents needed reminding of the dimensions of the problem, new scandals have cropped up recently. The basketball program at Tulane University was disbanded after a handful of players were arrested in connection with an alleged gambling scheme that also involved drug trafficking. And the president of Clemson University, William Atchley, resigned in frustration when he could not persuade school trustees to give him greater control over his athletic department.

The proposed reforms--like suspending teams caught cheating more than once, giving colleges total control over athletic department budgets, and requiring that schools periodically report to the NCAA on the academic progress of their student athletes--are a good start toward eliminating financial and ethical abuses. But they are just a start. Still unaddressed are such questions as whether freshmen should be allowed to participate in college sports before they have become accustomed to the rigors of college study, and whether student athletes should be paid minimal stipends in acknowledgment of the fact that their athletic endeavors earn money for their schools. Also worth considering are proposals to create a new, smaller association to oversee the 100 or so schools with large, financially successful sports programs.

Whatever the shortcomings of the proposals that the college presidents will weigh this week, they have the crucial goal of putting control of athletic departments back where it belongs--in the office of the chief executive officer on each college campus. The president or chancellor of a university is in the best position to keep athletics in their proper place, as just one facet of the total college experience. That same officer, as Atchley argued, must also have the final authority to eliminate any abuses discovered.

But, as Atchley’s experience at Clemson illustrates, college presidents must stand firmly together in support of the reforms proposed by their NCAA commission. Otherwise they will be watered down by coaches, athletic directors and even college trustees who like things as they are.