I like Miles Brand and have known him for years; we both served as university presidents. He is a person of unquestioned integrity and high principle.

But as president of the National Collegiate Athletic Assn. he has been asked to fend off an unruly mob with a switch. His chances for a favorable outcome or comprehensive change are bleak in the present environment.

What he faces today is a very real arms race, one fueled by an insatiable appetite for college athletics among the students, alumni and the general public. Fiscal restraint is infrequently in evidence. As Brand has said, “Institutions hold mortgages on burgeoning facility expansion that represents on average 20 percent of intercollegiate athletics spending.”

But what happens to the universities if the popularity of college sports wanes? And some believe that will happen because athletic events are overexposed now that they are on so many network and cable stations.

Too few understand that only a handful of major athletic programs actually make money, and the rest struggle to break even. Even with television income, growing ticket revenues, marketing, and contributions from supporters, big-time athletics is a high-risk business. Let us not forget that marquee football and basketball coaches are paid millions of dollars a year, many times more than what is allotted outstanding faculty members.

Too many athletic departments rely on some form of university subsidy, a sore point with politicians and faculty. A growing number of elected officials in Washington believe that athletic departments have more influence than they should and need to be reined in.

Members of the House Ways and Means Committee are threatening action, believing college athletic programs have moved too far away from their original and intended purpose and are undercutting institutional missions in many instances.

Some in Congress see today’s college football and basketball as professional-like in nature and substance and resent their tax-exempt status. Former University of Michigan president James Duderstadt has said, “The simplest way to characterize the problem with college sports is to recognize that it is a very profitable commercial entertainment business that is moving farther and farther away from its original academic purposes of the university.”

Any congressional intrusion is certain to be actively discouraged by college presidents and their trustees who will argue that they can best regulate collegiate sports.

True, the NCAA presidents have brought about a number of needed reforms in academic standards for athletics and they deserve high praise, but immediate attention needs to be given to the bottom line or what the budget numbers portend. It will be an arduous process for many on and off the campus.

Many critics from the media believe that athletic directors and successful coaches have more sway than their presidents. I disagree, but believe university presidents have the right to expect strong trustee support when righting certain of the apparent wrongs.

One needs to understand that college presidents do have the power to cut excesses, but their lives, on average, are short – about five years. They took their positions for academic reasons, not to preside over athletic programs. Many board members who happen to love winning sports teams have longer stays than presidents.

Modern day athletic programs are complex; they defy simplistic remedies. In truth, they are a combination of academics, business, and sports and they always stir emotions from many sides, from zealot fans to cerebral professors.