The Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet took another look at the academic enhancement package at its September 11-13 meeting in Indianapolis and made some changes it believes will earn membership support.

It was the last chance for the cabinet to amend the package before the Management Council votes on the proposals in October. The academic enhancement package, born from a Board of Directors charge to create eligibility standards that maximize graduation rates and minimize disparate impact on minority groups, was assembled by the NCAA Academic Consultants and has been under membership review since the Management Council endorsed the package last April.

The primary change the AEC Cabinet asked the Management Council to support deals with the minimum grade-point average requirements in the progress-toward-degree component of the package. At issue is Proposal No. 02-24-B, which requires student-athletes entering their second year to have 90 percent of the minimum GPA necessary to graduate. Further, the proposal requires student-athletes entering their third year to have 100 percent of the cumulative minimum GPA required for graduation in the specified degree program.

The Academic Consultants and the Board of Directors supported the concept early on, but the Board in August reviewed data showing that many student-athletes who achieve 95 percent of the GPA required by the institution to graduate actually do graduate. Those particular student-athletes who would not otherwise be eligible under Proposal No. 02-24-B (but who eventually graduate from college) are called "false negatives," many of whom are ethnic minorities. The Board has expressed its desire to limit those false negatives while still maximizing graduation rates.

With that in mind, both the Academic Consultants and the AEC Cabinet are supporting an amendment to Proposal No. 02-24-B (Proposal No. 02-24-B-2) that would require student-athletes entering their third year to have 95 percent of the GPA required by the institution to graduate (1.900 in most cases), as opposed to 100 percent of the GPA required to graduate in the specified degree program (2.000 or higher in some cases). The consultants and cabinet members agree that it is more equitable to base minimum GPA requirements on institutional requirements rather than specified degree programs -- which can be more stringent depending on the program -- and that the 95 percent requirement captures more of the "false negatives" without diluting the intent of the original proposal.

The cabinet also considered an amendment that would change the GPA requirements to align with institutional requirements but maintain the 90/100 percent progression, but members preferred the 95 percent step.

Another amendment to the progress-toward-degree component of the package the cabinet supported is one that restores exceptions to the fulfillment of credit-hour requirements (Proposal No. 02-23) for student-athletes who miss a term under unusual or extraneous circumstances. The amendment would permit a student-athlete who satisfies the requirements of the missed-term exception, or the medical absence or international competition waivers, to be prorated nine semester or quarter hours per term of actual attendance during an academic year.

Under current legislation, the student-athlete is permitted to prorate 12 hours toward the degree-credit requirement if he or she satisfies one of the exceptions or waivers. Cabinet members reasoned, though, that since student-athletes are required to successfully complete only 18 semester or 27 quarter hours during the academic year, they should be permitted to prorate nine hours for the missed term.

The cabinet also considered an amendment to Proposal No. 02-23 that would require an institution to conduct a single midyear certification after the fall semester or quarter, but members did not support that proposal. The cabinet wants to conduct additional study on term-by-term GPA checks.

Another change the cabinet recommended was a new proposal (No. 02-70) that would apply the six-hour minimum per semester/
quarter standard to current student-athletes. Since this is proposed legislation, the Management Council will consider it for initial review in October and the measure would be distributed for comment pending Council support. Thus, if approved initially in October and adopted by the Board in April, the earliest the proposal would affect student-athletes would be after the first term in the fall of 2003.

Bylaw 15 deregulation

In addition to academic reform, the AEC Cabinet discussed deregulating financial aid as part of an overall deregulation plan the Board charged the structure to begin working on two years ago.

Cabinet members discussed the proposals knowing that the Management Council will have its hands full with the academic enhancement package in October. However, the group also is eager for the deregulation proposals to be distributed for comment in order to begin the education process and generate feedback that might help the cabinet amend the proposals, if necessary. Thus, the cabinet went ahead and recommended a preliminary financial aid deregulation plan hoping that the Council will send it out for comment but understanding that the Council may prefer to send it back to the cabinet for further review and resubmission in April.

The primary goals in the cabinet's deregulation of Bylaw 15 are to provide every student-athlete (1) the opportunity to receive funding to cover his or her cost of attendance; (2) the opportunity to receive the same maximum benefits afforded by an athletics grant-in-aid regardless of the sport in which he or she participates; and (3) the opportunity to receive non-athletically related financial aid in addition to aid based on athletics ability without adversely impacting the student-athlete's team financial aid limitations.

One proposal the cabinet considered allows for institutional aid based on athletics ability, outside aid for which athletics participation is a major criterion and educational expenses awarded by the U.S. Olympic Committee or U.S national governing body up to the value of the full grant-in-aid. In addition, the student-athlete may receive other financial aid unrelated to athletics ability up to the cost of attendance or the value of a full grant-in-aid plus a Pell Grant, whichever is greater. The cabinet has asked the Management Council to support this proposal for the purpose of soliciting membership comment.

Another proposal allows funding to cover the cost of attendance through a combination of permissible sources of financial aid. In the spirit of deregulation, this would allow the institution the flexibility to award a student-athlete financial aid regardless of its relation to athletics ability or participation up to the value of the student-athlete's cost of attendance. The cabinet is less supportive of this alternative and has asked that the Council send it out for comment without taking a position on the proposal.

Other highlights