ANAHEIM, California -- Division I presidents are continuing their drive toward academic reform. Pausing only briefly to celebrate the recent adoption of a CEO-driven strengthening of initial- and continuing-eligibility standards, the Division I Board of Directors and the Board Task Force turned up the heat on discussions about the next step in the reform movement that will hold institutions accountable for achieving academic progress.

Meeting January 13 in conjunction with the NCAA Convention, the Board spent significant time on two issues: developing a measure of "real-time" academic progress and establishing incentives for schools to stick to it.

The so-called academic "snapshot" would serve as a useful alternative to the federally mandated graduation-rates data. Presidents have long believed that the six-year rates data do not provide an accurate measure of academic success because student-athlete transfers and other nongraduates who leave in good academic standing do not count toward institution totals. Thus, presidents are interested in developing two supplemental rates that will provide a more accurate and more expedient measure of academic progress for NCAA institutions and teams.

The first proposed measure is being called an "Annual Academic Progress Rate" (AAPR), which would provide a real-time snapshot of teams' academic success that is simple, fair, and legally and statistically defensible. Presidents believe such a measure is necessary before implementing an incentives/disincentives package that requires institutions and teams to meet the new bar.

The development of the AAPR will be based largely on a pilot study that will launch right away. Division I institutions will be asked to submit six-year data on football, men's and women's basketball, baseball, and men's and women's cross country and track and field (about 80 programs for each sport) by March 1. Forms will be provided online to facilitate the process, and each school will be asked to provide data only on one or two sports in order to reduce the burden on institutions. The data will focus on eligibility, retention and graduation for all years of attendance by individual students. The pilot study should be completed by April.

That will give the Board data on which to base the AAPR, which could be formulated as early as the Board's April meeting. The group already has looked at models that would calculate individual teams' academic success at a given time. The models include a point system based on roster retention and eligibility. But Board members want the pilot study data before they begin plotting Xs and Os.

They're also wanting to gather data on a reference group to which to compare the student-athlete cohort, similar to the student-athlete vs. student body comparison in graduation rates. That goal is complicated, however, because student-athlete eligibility doesn't have a companion standard in the student-body population.

The second supplemental rate the Board is interested in pursuing is an NCAA graduation success rate, which would be similar to the federally mandated rate in that it would track only scholarship athletes, but it would remove from the calculation those student-athletes who leave the institution while in good academic standing and would retain in the calculation those student-athletes who leave the institution while ineligible. Presidents believe this rate would better reflect the graduation landscape in Division I. Board members, in fact, noted that some members of Congress might look favorably on such a rate that could over time be used more as a national standard rather than the current method.

Of the two rates under consideration, the AAPR is the one upon which incentives and disincentives will be based for individual teams. The Board Task Force discussed those rewards and penalties in more detail before the full Board meeting. Task force members emphasized the need for meaningful disincentives, such as access to postseason competition, financial sanctions, scholarship limitations or even restricted membership. So far, the list of suggestions regarding incentives and disincentives has been tilted toward the latter, but task force members also talked about incentives, though some were quick to point out the philosophical concern about rewarding institutions for essentially "doing what they are supposed to be doing."

The task force also noted that while the lion's share of incentives and disincentives should be tied to the AAPR, members did discuss the possibility of implementing some disincentives even before an AAPR is established, such as restricting the re-awarding of an athletics scholarship to a new student-athlete when the original student-athlete fails academically.

An update on the entire academic reform package, including the AAPR and the incentives/disincentives piece, was provided at the January 13 Division I forum.

As for next steps, the task force and the Board hope to have enough information about incentives and disincentives, as well as the AAPR and the graduation success rate ready in time to distribute for feedback at conference spring meetings and NCAA Regional Seminars.

The Management Council and Board likely will consider legislative proposals in October 2003, and hope to implement some incentives and disincentives in 2004.

Other highlights

Division I Board of Directors
January 13/Anaheim, California