Most talk of Division I reform lately has been of the long-term variety, but at least one academic reform initiative may be on a much faster track if a plan developed by the NCAA Academic Consultants continues to gain momentum.

The consultants, a group appointed by the Board of Directors two year ago to review the Association's eligibility standards (also known as Proposition 16), are proposing significant changes to both initial and continuing eligibility that would put prospects on a more stringent -- and more reliable -- path toward a degree.

The plan, which was presented at the Division I forum January 14, relies on high-school variables to predict first-year college outcomes and "ratchets up" continuing-eligibility standards to ensure that student-athletes are on track to graduate on time.

Not only was the plan presented at the forum in front of about 350 Division I members, but the Management Council and Board of Directors also received an in-depth look into the changes that could reshape a student-athlete's progress toward graduation. And so far, reaction to the consultants' concepts seems absent of the controversy Division I has become accustomed to with previous big-time issues such as basketball reform and amateurism deregulation.

A key component of the consultants' plan is to require freshmen to have completed 24 semester or 36 quarter credits with at least a 1.800 grade-point average before the start of the second year, and then achieve subsequent "benchmarks" of 40, 60 and 80 percent of degree requirements in good academic standing before the start of the third, fourth and fifth years, respectively. The percentages are up from the current 25, 50 and 75 before the start of the third, fourth and fifth years.

The new requirements ensure that student-athletes who meet the annual eligibility requirements will complete at least 120 credit hours after five academic years, with the corresponding grade-point average that satisfies institutional graduation requirements.

The benchmarks -- particularly those in the first two years -- also are intended to protect student-athletes during the most "at-risk" points of their academic career. The NCAA's Academic Performance Census, the research foundation on which the consultants have based their proposals, shows that two-thirds of student-athletes who had completed fewer than 24 credit hours leave school before the second year, and two-thirds of those who achieve less than a 1.800 grade-point average also leave before that time.

"Early intervention is critical in helping graduation," said Jack McArdle, a University of Virginia professor who also is a research consultant for the NCAA. "The new progress-toward-degree proposals reflect that. They are intended to make those who before looked like nongraduates look like graduates."

David Knight, a member of the Academic Consultants and faculty athletics representative at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, told the forum audience that the consultants arrived at the 24-hour and 1.800 GPA benchmarks based on data showing that student-athletes who achieve those mileposts have a reasonable chance of graduating.

"The current rules emphasize eligibility more than they do academic achievement," Knight said.

"The new information led us toward realizing that we're missing an opportunity in the freshman year," said McArdle. "It was early on where the successes and failures were happening."

Initial-eligibility changes

Other proposed changes in continuing-eligibility standards include the very words that describe them. The consultants want them to be called "progress-toward-degree" standards, which better reflect the intent.

Also, a student-athlete's GPA required to graduate must be maintained beginning with the third year of enrollment (instead of the current 90 percent-95 percent rule). The consultants also are exploring the concept of establishing penalties for underperformance and incentives for academic success. Possible examples of penalities include the elimination of "replacement" scholarships and/or some sort of postseason restriction; possible incentives could be additional scholarships or practice opportunities. Those ideas, however, are in the development stages.

As for initial eligibility, the consultants believe their plan achieves a blend of improving graduation rates while minimizing the disparate impact on minority groups, both of which are presidential desires.

The plan continues to use high-school variables -- number of core courses, core-course GPA and test score -- to set the entrance bar, but there are proposed differences in the look of and the weight given to the variables.

The consultants are advocating an increase in the number of core courses from 13 to 14, a change they say will improve a prospect's academic preparedness without disparate impact. The data show the average number of core courses completed is 17, and that an increase to 14 would not affect ineligibility rates for minorities.

Many presidents, in fact, favor an even greater increase in the number of core courses, but so far, the consultants have not chosen to recommend a drastic change there.

They do recommend a move away from the 820 test-score cutoff. The presidents balked initially but have since become receptive to the idea. Whether the sliding scale should be extended completely or whether there should be a different cutoff has not been determined. As McArdle said, however, "Extending the sliding scale is the best way to address disparate impact without compromising graduation rates."

That thought was reinforced by University of Washington Faculty Athletics Representative Rob Aronson, who said, "Moving the cut score is not lowering standards, as is often perceived, but actually is a more accurate standard."

Though the test-score cut remains under debate, no group has recommended moving from the 2.000 GPA cut.

If the test-score cut is completely extended, that would delete the current partial-qualifier category. One issue that would remain, then, is whether schools could give athletically related financial aid to nonqualifiers. That has been requested, but the consultants -- as well as presidents -- have been reluctant to recommend that change.

The consultants are proposing an aggressive timeline for the proposals, introducing them for the Management Council's initial review in April, which would put them on an October completion track if approved. In such a case, the consultants have proposed that the entering class of 2003 be able to achieve initial eligibility either under the current or proposed rules, and that the 2004 class would be held to the new standards.

Other forum topics

In addition to a look at academic reform, Division I forum attendees heard reports from the Football Study Oversight Committee and the newly created Board of Directors Task Force.

The Football Study Oversight Committee presented updates on membership criteria changes for Division I-A football institutions, and a review of proposed changes for postseason bowl certification standards that the committee will act on at its February meeting.

The task force presentation was highlighted by remarks from chair and Rutgers President Francis Lawrence, who told the forum crowd to expect significant changes in the near future.

"Those of us who function in higher education have learned that change is important, but difficult," he said. "The task force feels that change is necessary, and we're taking this seriously.

"We want to correct some of the problems and we want to be seen as being in charge of correcting those problems -- and when I say we, I mean everyone in this room."

Lawrence challenged the room to consider methods of implementing meaningful academic reform. He questioned the appropriateness of the federal graduation rate as a true measure of the academic success of student-athletes, and he asked the audience what an accurate snapshot of academic performance rates should look like.

He also asked whether there should be incentives or penalties established for successful or underperforming programs, whether meaningful penalties would change behavior, and whether ineligibility for postseason play or a reduction of scholarships would be appropriate penalties.

There were no replies from the audience to his inquiries.

"I take your silence to mean that you're enthusiastic about change," Lawrence said with a grin. "Let me assure you that there will be some."