On the basis of those studies, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the Knight Commission have been taking different steps at different times to bring order in sport education. Thus, tougher academic standards for student athletes and a certification program for athletics departments were introduced. Though the new academic standards are not always fair to student athletes – in some cases they are required to do more than students not involved in college sport life. Some states adopted no pass – no play policy to enhance academic achievements of student players.
With institution of tougher academic standards and new support programs in 1996 graduation rates began improving and more student athletes appeared to earn degrees – in 2002, 62 per cent of Division I athletes who had enrolled six years earlier graduated. (Although the proportions were up in 2003, only 54 percent of Division I-A football players and 44 percent of basketball players graduated (Price, 2004)).
Drug use can enhance an athlete's performance as well as impair it and possibly lead to injury. In the case, Vernonia School District v. Acton, student athletes in Oregon were required to take a urine test for amphetamines, marijuana and cocaine at the beginning of the season. In addition, random tests on 10 percent of all student athletes were conducted each week during the season. School officials said they instituted the policy because students were openly boasting of using drugs, and disciplinary problems had increased. But there is still no consensus on whether high school athletes should be subject to random drug testing as a condition for playing interscholastic sports (Worsnop, 1994).
College sports has become a $4-billion-a-year enterprise, and the elite football and basketball teams - mostly those in the Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10 and Southeastern conferences - earn multimillion-dollar profits for their universities (Price, 2004). Here rises a problem - who gets the money and how to distribute it equally between management and players. It was suggested to develop a certification or peer-review program for Division I sports departments. Proponents of peer review say it will keep the college sports reform movement alive by forcing Division I schools to engage in periodic soul-searching. However, it may take years to pass