Delworth noted in her articulation of the Assessment-Intervention of Student Problems (AISP) model (Chapter Two, this volume) that a campus intervention team (CIT) is necessitated by "insufficient coordination, inadequate information flow, and lack of a shared process." These concerns are potentially most acute with respect to working with student-athletes. A university department of athletics can seem to function as a separate entity on many campuses, with distinct policies, procedures, rules, and rule enforcement regarding student-athlete health, well-being, and behavior. Although these differences may vary depending on the size of the university and the department of athletics, the perceived separation between systems can lead to miscommunications and misunderstandings when student-athletes are disturbed or disturbing. Thus, specific efforts are required to bridge this gap between athletics and the CIT to provide consistent, effective interventions for student-athletes. In Chapter Six, Rhatigan asked a number of important questions regarding the role of a CIT, especially with regard to situations involving specialized populations such as student-athletes. He asked if the team should or could serve as "investigator, evaluator, referee, consultant, arbiter, or monitor." In this chapter, the author builds on Rhatigan's chapter and proposes that an open collaborative stance toward the department of athletics contained within the framework and boundaries established by the CIT allows the fulfillment of each of these roles as needed. In particular, the investigator, monitor, and consultant roles can be substantially strengthened by creative collaboration.