The Division I Board of Directors has reaffirmed its support for enhanced initial- and continuing-eligibility standards and has agreed to explore a package of incentives and penalties that would be tied to academic progress.

Meeting August 8 in Indianapolis, the Board reviewed the academic enhancement package that has been in the legislative comment phase since April. The presidents are most comfortable with the initial-eligibility component of the package, reiterating their support for a proposal (No. 02-22-B) that would increase the number of core courses from 13 to 14 and establish a sliding scale that maintains the 2.000 grade-point average minimum but eliminates the test-score "cut."

Proposal No. 02-22-B is one of three initial-eligibility models in the package. The others are Proposal No. 02-22-A, which keeps the 2.000 GPA standard and moves the test-score cut from 820 to 620 (the same two-standard-deviation position as the GPA cut), and Proposal No. 02-22-C, which eliminates both cuts and establishes a full sliding scale. The Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet favors Proposal No. 02-22-A, while the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, which has supported the academic reform effort in general, is nonetheless concerned about eliminating the test-score cut.

Another piece of the academic enhancement package -- strengthened continuing-eligibility (progress-toward-degree) requirements -- also received Board support, though the presidents were concerned about aspects of the proposals. Board members remained solidly committed to changes that call for student-athletes to have successfully completed 24 credit hours (at least 18 during the academic year and six in each term) with a 1.800 grade-point average after the freshman year. Presidents also are comfortable with measures that would require student-athletes to have successfully completed 60 percent of degree and grade-point average requirements by the start of the third year and 80 percent by the beginning of the fourth.

What is expected in the second year, however, does not yet have CEO consensus. At issue is whether student-athletes should be required to meet 40 percent of degree requirements with a 2.000 cumulative grade-point average, as has been proposed. The Academic Consultants, the group the Board charged with developing academic reform measures, believe first- and second-year performance is most critical in whether student-athletes become graduates. They feel that the proposed second-year standards represent the best benchmark of degree completion and GPA requirement that maximizes graduation potential and minimizes disparate impact on minority groups. The consultants noted in fact that the academic profile of the vast majority of the student-athletes who are graduates (nearly 95 percent of the class of 1995) already meet the proposed standard.

Some Board members, though, were concerned with the number of "false negatives" (those who graduate but were projected to fail) affected by a cumulative 2.000 GPA and wondered whether a 1.900 GPA requirement after the second year would be a better standard. Others thought that perhaps the 2.000 bar should be only for the second year and not cumulative. There also was sentiment expressed for at least exploring the impact of requiring 35 percent of degree completion rather than 40 percent.

Other parts of the progress-toward-degree component that Board members generally supported but expressed various concerns about were:

Limiting student-athletes to six remedial hours during the freshman year for eligibility purposes.

The impact of a 40 percent of degree requirement standard and the GPA rule on junior college transfer students.

The frequency of GPA certification (once a year versus each term), administrative inconsistencies in academic reporting procedures and uncertainty regarding when student-athletes should be declared eligible or ineligible.

The potential adverse impact on the "false negatives." The Board noted that additional study is appropriate to better understand the reasons for their success to assist in identifying criteria for possible waivers.

Board members asked staff to investigate those concerns and agreed to revisit the issues. Both the initial-eligibility and progress-toward-degree components are to be voted upon this fall. Whatever enhancements are passed would apply to entering student-athletes who enroll on or after August 1, 2003. Current student-athletes would base eligibility on the existing standard.

Incentives/disincentives

The Board also addressed the next "stage" of the academic enhancement package, which includes development of an annual academic progress 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.

Board members discussed what such a graduation success rate might look like but took no action. The presidents also conducted a preliminary review of models that would measure in "real time" an annual academic progress rate. Those issues are slated for further Board review in November and are not expected to be considered for a final vote before April 2003.

The Board did, however, take action on an issue related to the third stage of the academic enhancement package. The presidents charged the Management Council with appointing a representative committee to recommend incentives and disincentives designed to encourage improved academic success and higher graduation rates.

The incentives/disincentives concept has received varied feedback from the Division I membership. Some say such a program is unnecessary, while others contend that only incentives should be proposed and not disincentives. Further, the Academic Consultants noted 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.

The Board acknowledged those concerns but still felt it was prudent to pursue additional study. 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.

Board members also forwarded a set of guiding principles developed by the Academic Consultants that would be used in the review, including:

Basing incentives and penalties on the to-be-developed academic success rate and not the federal graduation rate.

Applying incentives/disincentives to all sports equitably.

Developing sport-specific penalties designed to impact the sport program that fails to meet an identified standard (as opposed to the entire athletics program).

Developing a package that changes the culture surrounding poor academic achievement.

A vote on any proposed incentives/
disincentives package 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.

Other highlights

Division I Board of Directors
August 8/Indianapolis

Heard a presentation from representatives of the NCAA Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee (MOIC) about the lack of diversity in the Division I-A football coaching ranks. The Board agreed that the issue of diversifying football coaching staffs should be a priority in Division I and noted that recommendations from the MOIC would be included in the final report of the Football Study Oversight Committee this fall (see related story, page 1).

Supported the concept of an out-of-season conditioning model for football student-athletes and directed the Division I Football Issues Committee to finalize the details of the proposal, consider whether the concept should be proposed as emergency legislation and initiate the legislative process.

Adopted a package of emergency legislative proposals that had been approved by the Management Council in July. (The proposals are listed in the August 5 issue of The NCAA News.) The Board also approved a Management Council recommendation to defeat Proposal No. 99-106 (organized competition), which is no longer necessary in light of the direction provided the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Subcommittee regarding reinstatement conditions for competition on a professional team.