Nothing gets a crowd of presidents, athletics administrators and coaches stirring like the mention of academic reform. While it's not hard to find a consensus on wanting student-athletes to be as competitive in the classroom as they are during games, discussions about how to do that are more contested than the opening tip at the Final Four.

The last several efforts are good examples. The membership was divided in 1983 about Prop 48, which required a 2.000 grade-point average in 11 core courses and a minimum test score. Prop 42 followed in 1989, preventing partial qualifiers from receiving financial aid. Georgetown University men's basketball coach John Thompson walked off the court in protest before a nationally televised game because of that one, which was rescinded the next year. And Prop 16, the Association's current standard that introduced the "sliding scale," was so controversial that it had to withstand a legal challenge.

Now the latest package to challenge consensus is one that modifies initial and continuing academic expectations. The reasons for the proposed changes are steeped in new data from the Academic Performance Census, a tool created in 1994 to evaluate the impact of Prop 16. With two graduating classes under its belt, the census provides a large and representative sampling, and considerably more accurate predictions of freshman academic performance than previously reported in NCAA or other academic research.

That has prompted the Board of Directors to push for developing an academic enhancement package that includes initial- and continuing-eligibility components. Proposals to change initial-eligibility standards raise the core-course bar from 13 to 14 and present alternative tweaks to the sliding scale that range from lowering the test-score cut to eliminating it. Key among the continuing-eligibility proposals is replacing the 25-50-75 percentages of degree completion with a 40-60-80 scale and adding annual GPA minimum requirements.

Now that the package has completed its comment stay in the legislative pipeline, the Division I Management Council and Board of Directors will sift through the proposals this fall and perhaps define a new academic landscape for the entering class of 2003.

Reaching agreement on what that will look like might be difficult. So far, feedback has been mixed, but energized. On the initial-eligibility proposals, the Board supports getting rid of the test-score cut -- though the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics is leery of such an approach -- while the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet prefers lowering the cut without eliminating it. Meanwhile, Southeastern Conference presidents have urged the Board to support only the core-course increase and leave the sliding scale alone. Standardized test companies, however, support the sliding-scale approach but would prefer doing away with an arbitrary test-score cut that in and of itself would eliminate some students.

As for the continuing-eligibility proposals, concerns surround tougher requirements in the first two years, a period experts have deemed critical in identifying who will graduate and who won't. Some think the proposals calling for second-year athletes to have successfully completed 24 credit hours with a 1.800 grade-point average and then 40 percent of degree requirements with a 2.000 GPA by the start of the third year are too stiff. Though basketball coaches have been the most outspoken in that regard, even the Board wondered recently whether a softer second-year GPA requirement would be more feasible.

Why does academic enhancement, something so universally embraced, strike so many nerves so deeply?

"Every time we deal with academic reform, somebody can cite someone somewhere who is disadvantaged," said Board of Directors Chair Robert Hemenway, the chancellor at the University of Kansas. "That's just the human reality of it.

"Universities pride themselves on their ability to establish standards that are both challenging and fair, but in the end it is for a limited number of students. When the NCAA tries to establish standards that are both challenging and fair, it must do so for 130,000 Division I student-athletes. It's difficult to imagine a situation in which no student would be disadvantaged by an academic standard across such a pool."

The "unfairness" card does seem to be the one most frequently played during academic reform discussion. To help in that regard, the Board mandated that the new effort minimize disparate impact while maximizing graduation rates, something college and university presidents hold dear to their academic hearts.

The NCAA Academic Consultants, the group the Board of Directors charged with the task, are comfortable that taken together, the new proposals represent the best possible balance between academic access and success. They believe that the latest data from the Academic Performance Census show smaller disparities than those that exist under current rules, and that the vast majority of student-athletes who graduate, whatever ethnic group they are a part of, would meet the proposed standards. In fact, about 95 percent of the cohorts studied met the proposed standards, a figure the consultants believe would only rise once students know they have those standards to meet.

Charles Whitcomb, one of the Academic Consultants, believes the former eligibility rules put too much emphasis on test scores, which was an unfair application of those tests. Whitcomb, who chaired the NCAA Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee from 1991 to 2001, said that group has long promoted access to educational opportunities as an NCAA obligation. That's why he's pleased that the proposals provide more accurate predictions at the front end and more structure once student-athletes have entered.

"If we're going to make changes, let's implement them after we've provided the access," said Whitcomb, who also is the faculty athletics representative at San Jose State University. "Give them a chance to show they can do the job, but don't deny them based on what we think they can and can't do. And the data show that all groups can do it."

Indeed, for the 2000 and 2001 graduating cohorts, about 88 percent of the ethnic minorities who graduated met the proposed year-two enhancements (compared to about 95 percent for white graduates).

The talk of disparate impact is more muted when it comes to initial eligibility. David Knight, another member of the Academic Consultants and former chair of the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet, said, "To the extent that you rely on test scores is the extent to which you'll have the disparate impact. The disparate impact seems less obvious in other work we've done from the continuing-eligibility perspective."

Still, during an NCAA presentation to basketball coaches at a Nike camp this summer in Indianapolis, the reception to the proposed academic enhancement package was less than warm. Jim Haney, the executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches, said the vast majority of coaches present felt the proposals discouraged the recruitment of Blacks. The consultants, though, have emphatically said that there never has been any intention to exclude or harm any group, especially since doing so would fly in the face of the Board's charge to minimize disparate impact.

Also, a primary reason for wanting to change the standards in the first place was that graduation rates in men's basketball had become an increasing concern. Those rates have hovered in the 40 to 46 percent range for the last 10 cohorts, which is lower than all other sports. Black males in basketball graduated at a 35 percent rate for the latest cohort, 10 percent behind their counterparts in football.

But coaches are keeping a close watch on how the proposals affect their constituents.

"Our guys are going to be very sensitive on how any rule impacts African-American student-athletes," Haney said. "But I want us to move away from the message they felt they heard and look at the practical aspect of what the changes mean."

Haney, who himself had concerns about the continuing-eligibility component, became more comfortable with the proposals once he applied them practically. He said the move from 25-50-75 to 40-60-80 might be more intimidating on paper than it is in reality, and that most programs are probably closer to the proposed standard than the current one anyway.

Haney surmised that based on a student-athlete needing 120 hours to graduate, adhering strictly to the 25 percent minimum only gets that player 30 hours going into his third year. But to maintain eligibility, that player would have to take 30 hours during the third year alone to meet the 50 percent benchmark of 60 hours by the fourth year.

"Any institution worth its salt, any academic advisor or coach interested in the player's eligibility, would have to be doing better than 30 going into the third year," Haney said. "If our guys are short in hours, it's not going to be by that much -- they're going to be closer to 48 (the proposed standard) than 30.

"So from my perspective, maybe this isn't as divisive as it once was. This is not an unreasonable standard, and not that far from what we have today."

Coaches during the July presentation also were candidly -- and colorfully -- critical of what they said was presidents' lack of understanding about academic issues as they pertain to athletics. Kansas Chancellor Hemenway said while he was disappointed that the dialogue was so controversial, he understands why a package like this hits coaches so hard.

"Presidents know there is the potential for coaches to come at an issue like this differently, but the key is to have honest and respectful communication and take into account the wide diversity of opinion," he said. "But coaches also need to recognize that the same thing that occurs at the campus level occurs at the NCAA level. There is a full discussion and divergent views are offered, yet ultimately the presidents have to decide."

Hemenway said academic reform is such an emotional lightning rod because people are wary that the changes will unduly affect their constituent group. "If people believe that the attempt to establish standards is being done on the basis of race, they have every right to object because that's fundamentally undemocratic," he said. "But the NCAA is trying to establish academic reform so that the success of the student-athlete, which is not only the success on the courts and fields but in the classroom, can be had by anyone regardless of the category they happen to fall into."

Whitcomb, who is black, worries that opposition to the proposed standards sends a message that ethnic minorities can't meet them, a supposition with which he adamantly disagrees.

"We're too quick to put collars on kids without looking at possibilities and challenges," he said. "I hate for us as academicians and as professionals to suggest automatically that kids can't do it. We haven't tested this; how do we know?"

What certainly isn't known is how the proposals will fare through Management Council and Board discussions, which is where the consensus will meet the road. All Whitcomb asks is that the players at the bully pulpit remember why they're there.

"These discussions always seem to fall more rapidly on the proposals being unfair rather than how we can make them work. We should turn that energy more on what's good about the package than what's bad," Whitcomb said. "Even from a coach's perspective, look at guaranteeing the opportunity for success, helping kids get an education and graduate. That's why we're in the higher education system, after all.

"I liken it to an operation on our current eligibility standards," Whitcomb said. "No one wants to have an operation, but if it lessens the pain and makes you a healthier person, then it's worth it."

The surgery is scheduled to begin in October.

Board of Directors chair: 'Heartened by support'

If consensus on the academic enhancement package has been hard to come by, University of Kansas Chancellor Robert Hemenway thinks it's not too far off, at least in the presidential realm, which ultimately is where it counts.

"I'm heartened by the support I see out there," the Board of Directors chair said. "There's support for strengthening initial eligibility, there's support for strengthening continuing eligibility, and there's support for rewarding institutions that are successful in graduating student-athletes and encouraging those that are less successful to be more successful.

"Those who have expressed concern are raising legitimate questions. Some are asking whether the proposals are fair to students of color. It's important for the NCAA to do the kind of research to be able to answer that, and the Academic Consultants have been meticulous in identifying methodologies that can identify whether there will be disparate impact.

"My impression is that
on this time around the academic reform block, we are going out of our way to do extensive research and achieve the goal of finding a standard that is not only rigorous but fair. There's not one person I've talked with who doesn't have that as the primary goal."

White-hat approach: Arkansas CEO tips different caps in reform issue

University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Chancellor John White wears four hats when it comes to academic reform.

First and foremost, White dons his chancellor's hat, but he also is a member of the Division I Board of Directors and the group of six Division I-A CEOs that was formed recently to discuss
I-A academic and athletics issues. Oh, White also is president of the Southeastern Conference.

With all the headgear, White is challenged to organize the many different opinions about the academic enhancement package.

As a Board member, White is part of a group that has gone on record supporting the initial-eligibility proposal that eliminates the test-score cut. The SEC, though, wants the sliding scale left alone. The group of six CEOs wants more study before tinkering with the sliding scale.

"From the conference point of view, presidents are wary of lowering the threshold for admission," White said. "Let's not set the student-athlete up for potential failure by appearing to lower the requirement on the front end and raising the requirement on the back end (continuing eligibility)."

White said the I-A CEO group is more concerned about a proposal that isn't even on the table yet. Those presidents would prefer an increase in core courses from 13 to 16 rather than from 13 to 14, as has been proposed. The Board of Directors, however, has resolved to consider such an increase once additional study on the matter has been completed.

Why so many different opinions? White said it's not so much a reflection of the NCAA as it is a reflection of higher education.

"The reason it's hard to gain consensus on how to raise standards is because our higher education system is like a Persian rug, a woven tapestry made up of a composite of institutions that have incredibly diverse missions and that have been structured in a way to meet the needs of an equally diverse student body," White said. "But once the NCAA tries to overlay a uniform set of standards across this mosaic is where it gets even more difficult."

White also said such a complex structure is why change in the NCAA, as well as in higher education in general, is often plodding. "Change in academia is resisted almost more than in any other institution," he said.

White quipped that an excursion he made to Antarctica a few years ago put change in academia into perspective for him.

"I was talking to a geologist about a glacier we were standing on, and I asked him how old the glacier was," White said. "The geologist said, 'About 150 million years and it's constantly moving -- one millimeter per year.' And I said, 'Well, it moves faster than a university.' "

-- Gary T. Brown

On deck: Incentives/disincentives package is a punitive balancing act

Now that the initial- and continuing-eligibility components of the academic enhancement package are nearing a vote, the next stage of the package awaits its turn in the spotlight. That next step is an effort to develop a more accurate measure of a team's academic progress at a given time, and to develop a set of rewards and penalties for institutions that either meet or don't meet those standards.

It's being referred to as the "incentives/disincentives" part of the package, and though it is on a slower timeline than the eligibility components to be voted on this fall, it nonetheless is quickly causing discourse -- and discord.

In essence, the proposed measure would establish an annual academic performance rate and a new NCAA graduation-success rate that would supplement the report the federal government requires. College and university presidents have longed for a more accurate measure of graduation and have been concerned that the federal report does not credit schools for transfers who graduate from other institutions or for student-athletes who leave programs in good academic standing.

The Board of Directors endorsed the concept in August and appointed a representative committee to recommend incentives and disincentives designed to encourage improved academic success and higher graduation rates. The presidents instructed the committee to consider any number of incentives and disincentives in its review, including postseason restrictions, revenue distribution reductions and reduced grants-in-aid.

Reaction on the proposal from the membership, as expected, has been cautious.

Basketball coaches, in particular, do not seem to favor the initiative. In fact, their reaction caused the Academic Consultants to note that there seem to be "varying philosophies regarding the role and responsibility of coaches in the academic performance of their teams and the appropriateness of penalizing coaches for the lack of academic success of some student-athletes."

Jim Haney, executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches, said coaches see the measure as another example of the "punitive attitude" toward the profession that makes them bristle.

Haney said coaches are only a small part of a student-athlete's academic success, but the "disincentives" seem to be disproportionately aimed toward the coach.

"The coach has to win games -- he decides who plays, what plays are run and what defense is used, et cetera," Haney said. "The coach is accountable for that. But when it comes to academics, it's a little bit more difficult to just heap all the punishment on the coach and the players who are in fact doing what is being asked of them."

Haney said that two decades ago, coaches had more hands-on control of a student-athlete's academic outcome, but since then, coaches have been "replaced" by academic advisors, tutors and multimillion-dollar academic facilities.

"In the '70s and '80s, the idea of the coach as an academic advisor was being phased out," he said. "Now, the coach has a reduced part to play, but he can only go so far."

San Jose State University faculty athletics representative Charles Whitcomb said that student-athletes' academic success is a shared responsibility. He said coaches need to return to thinking that they are there for the student-athlete's benefit, not the other way around.

"Coaches have to stop thinking that these kids are going to make them successful," Whitcomb said. "They need to develop the mindset of bringing in young men and women and helping them be successful, and along the way hopefully coaches can be successful, too. But what ends up happening is that coaches fall into the 'I have to win mindset.' This is a shared responsibility. We all are equally responsible for this person's academic life."

As divisive as the incentives/disincentives package might be, there is ample time for discussion. A vote on any proposal would not occur until April 2004 at the earliest. The matter also likely will be discussed further at the Division I forum during the January Convention.

-- Gary T. Brown