The Febrauary 15 deadline for acceptance of the new National Collegiate Athletic Association rule concerning minimum scholastic standards has passed by without compliance from the Ivy schools. There can be little doubt that the Ivy League Policy Committee was justified in refusing to file notice of compliance, even at the risk of forfeiting the right to compete in NCAA championship events.

The new NCAA rule states that colleges may not give financial aid to a student-athlete unless he has a potential of 1.600 based on a 4.000 scale (four for A's, three for B's, etc.); nor may any student compete in intercollegiate athletics unless be maintains such an average.

In the Ivy colleges, which award scholarships solely on the basis of economic need--not athletic ability--the 1.600 rule for athletic scholarships is understandably incompatible. Moreover, the admissions and financial aid offices at Harvard and the other Ivy schools function independently from the athletic departments and outside the jurisdiction of the NCAA.

In practical terms, the rule fails to recognize a difference in Ivy academic and grading standards from those of other colleges. A more serious objection to the rule is its infringement upon the rights of individual colleges or conferences to determine their own internal standards. Dean Monro, in a letter to NCAA executive director Walter Byers, pointed out that the 1.600 rule is a violation of the NCAA constitution, which states that each institution or conference is responsible for it own workings. Although Harvard's standards for avoiding athletic probation--three C's and one D, or 1.75--are well above the NCAA minimum, the College rightfully reserves the power to lower its probation level in individual cases with extenuating circumstances.

But the Ivy League's frequently expressed objection to the rule's references to "student-athletes," on the grounds that there is no distinction between athletes and other students in the Ivies, is petty and irrelevent. After all, the NCAA is an athletic association and can concern itself only with athletes. The intent of the NCAA is pure enough; it merely wants to prod the academic stragglers among its members. And being a national body, the NCAA has no way to accomplish this goal except through blanket legislation for all its members.

The NCAA is not trying to show contempt for the Ivy viewpoint on athletics. But unfortunately the Ivy league often looks upon the NCAA with a cynical eye, viewing a as a power-hungry organization eager to harass college athletics. Critics forget the essential role of the NCAA to protect and improve amateur sports for the 645 member colleges. The NCAA has become increasingly effective in curbing recruiting violations, creeping professionalism, a growing television network control over game conditions.

It is easy to say that Harvard and the Ivy League do not need the NCAA. Crimson teams could still compete outside the Ivy League against NCAA teams, for it is highly improbable that the NCAA would ever take the punitive action of prohibiting its teams to compete outside of its sanction.

Nevertheless, the exceptional Ivy athletes, whose ambitions are to match skills with the nation's best competitors, would be denied that opportunity without the NCAA. It would be ironic indeed if the League which professes no distinction between athletes and scholars should force outstanding schoolboy athletes to choose between either education or athletics in a college.

Most important, by breaking with the NCAA, Ivy schools would lose their influence on national athletic programs. Several years ago, the Ivies were instrumental in the narrow defeat of a proposal in the NCAA to remove a year of eligibility from a student who signs a letter of intent to attend one college and then changes his mind. Ivy threats of participation in AAU meets last year during the NCAA-AAU dispute led to Congressional arbitration. Following such sharply opposing views in the past, the 1.600 rule seems to be a senseless conflict, especially since the motive of higher academic standards for athletes is shared by both the Ivies and the NCAA.

In all likelihood the NCAA's policymakers will accept the Ivy standards as tacit compliance. Despite initial heated exchanges between Ivy and NCAA officials last month, prospects now look bright for a settlement allowing Ivy teams to remain within the NCAA framework.

Hopefully, NCAA president Everett Barnes and his governing board will recognize that although the Ivies have refused to file notices of compliance, Ivy standards generally comply with the NCAA minimum. If Barnes can work out an agreement to accept the Ivies without written compliance, both the Ivy institutional autonomy will remain intact, and the NCAA standards will be upheld. The NCAA's final decision will become apparent in early March when the Ivy basketball champion is scheduled to play in the Eastern regional playoffs.