After more than three years of research, deliberation and debate, the Division I Board of Directors has arrived at an academic-reform destination it believes will enhance the integrity of college sports.

The Board culminated one of the most far-reaching reform efforts in NCAA history April 29 in Indianapolis with the formal adoption of a package featuring more accurate measures for student-athlete academic progress and strong penalties that hold institutions and teams accountable for meeting tougher standards.

The Board's action completes the second phase of the reform package. Board members addressed the first phase last year with the adoption of increased core courses and enhanced initial- and progress-toward-degree requirements that became effective for the 2003 entering class. The four proposals adopted at the Board's most recent meeting fortify those standards through both short-term and long-term accountability measures.

The foundation of the package is Proposal No. 03-112, which establishes a research-driven Academic Progress Rate (APR) for all sports teams based on student-athlete academic progress and retention. Teams with high APRs will include student-athletes who have maintained eligibility and stayed on track to earn a degree.

Proposal Nos. 03-113 and 03-114 set forth the penalty structure based on the APR. Proposal No. 03-113 puts historically based penalties (disincentives) in place for teams that do not perform according to a four-year rolling APR average. A new Committee on Academic Performance (CAP) will determine the "cut points" in the APR that will subject programs to being penalized. Under-performing teams would be warned and then issued disincentives that increase in severity if the academic under-performance continues. The penalties range from loss of scholarships and NCAA postseason opportunities to restricted membership status.

Proposal No. 03-114 provides a more immediate disincentive. The so-called "contemporaneous" penalty precludes teams below the APR cut line from replacing the scholarship of a student-athlete who leaves the institution and wouldn't have been academically eligible had he or she returned. Board members took action to ensure those penalties will be applied based on student-athlete academic performance beginning next year. That means the contemporaneous penalty will be applied as early as fall 2005, while the historically based penalty structure will begin in fall 2007.

The reform package also includes Proposal No. 02-72, which establishes a Graduation Success Rate (GSR) based on a six-year window for graduation and including all scholarship student-athletes entering the institution. The GSR provides a more accurate alternative to the current federally mandated graduation-rates methodology that does not track transfer student-athletes.

"The package represents landmark legislation," said NCAA President Myles Brand. "These are strong and well-thought-out reforms that are critically necessary to ensuring that student-athletes are academically successful. For the first time, the NCAA will have the ability to hold institutions and teams accountable for the academic progress of their student-athletes."

Board Chair Robert Hemenway, chancellor at the University of Kansas, called the Board meeting "a significant event in the history of the NCAA."

"We're fulfilling the NCAA mission, which is that the education of student-athletes is paramount for member institutions. We can't do that without having tough academic standards and without sending a clear message to student-athletes that if you come to our institutions to participate in intercollegiate athletics, we're going to do everything under our power to make sure you graduate," Hemenway said. "What we did today will result in enhanced standards, improved measurements in how successfully those standards are being met, and increased accountability on the part of institutions, athletics departments, teams and student-athletes."

Application of the package

Now that the structure for academic reform is in place, the next step will be for the newly appointed CAP to implement the details, the most immediate of which will be recommending to the Board an APR cut point that will determine which programs are subject to the contemporaneous penalty. Board member and University of Hartford President Walter Harrison has been chosen to chair the CAP.

Harrison's group will review data already being collected that calculate APRs for each of the more than 6,000 Division I athletics teams and will decide, probably by next December, what threshold represents satisfactory success. The Board already has seen preliminary APR data and the effect that various cut points (for example, 50th, 40th, 30th and 20th percentiles) would have on certain sports.

Board members likely will consider CAP's recommended cut point in January 2005. Schools then would be notified of the APR cut points in advance of the 2005-06 academic year. This fall, schools will be notified of how their teams would have fared based on pilot APR data already collected on some sports. Though teams won't be subjected to penalties in 2004-05, the "practice run" will let institutions know how the program is intended to work.

'Five/eight' eliminated

As expected, the Board's adoption of the academic-reform package led the presidents to rescind legislation in men's basketball designed to do what they believe the academic-reform package will do better. The "five/
eight rule," adopted several years ago to address roster attrition in men's basketball, restricted coaches from signing more than five initial counters in a given year and more than eight in a two-year period. The Board's adoption of Proposal No. 03-76, which eliminates the limit on initial counters, in effect renders the five/eight rule unnecessary.

Board members believe that the academic-reform package -- particularly the contemporaneous penalty -- provides a stronger incentive for coaches to recruit with retention in mind. NCAA President Myles Brand referred to the five/eight rule as a "blunt instrument," developed with good intentions but having had the unintended consequence of penalizing some academically well-performing teams that occasionally suffered unusual and legitimate roster attrition. For instance, the five/eight rule did not provide relief for student-athletes who left the program for personal reasons or who left early for the NBA despite being in good academic standing.

Basketball coaches in general had opposed the five/eight rule since its inception because they felt it was too restrictive and inflexible. Many people now believe that the contemporaneous penalty could be a more effective deterrent. Preliminary APR data in fact indicate that about 75 percent of men's basketball programs would fall in the lower half of Division I sports teams. That means whatever cut line is established to determine teams that are subjected to penalties likely would identify a disproportionate number of men's basketball teams. Thus, those under-performing men's basketball teams that had been accustomed to being able to sign up to five initial counters in a given year would -- under the contemporaneous penalty -- be unable to replace any academic casualty. Pilot APR data show a number of teams that would suffer more consequences under the contemporaneous penalty than they would have under the five/eight rule.

Some Board members, though, worried that because the contemporaneous penalty would not be applied until fall 2005 that there would be a gap or a loophole this coming year in which the recruiting culture the reform package is designed to change would return. Indeed, the repeal of the five/eight rule, which comes during the National Letter of Intent signing period, means teams will be able to award up to 13 scholarships for the 2004-05 academic year.

One Board member proposed keeping the five/eight rule in place for another year to guard against any slippage in reform momentum. But others reasoned that the long-term penalties based on APR data already being collected take into account current student-athlete academic progress and retention. For example, current student-athletes and student-athletes signed this year who leave next year in poor academic standing will lower that program's APR, which could subject that team to contemporaneous penalties in fall 2005. Ultimately, the Board believes there is enough accountability already in place through the APR structure to allow the five/eight rule to be eliminated.

Student-athlete well-being

In addition to the academic-reform proposals, the Board acted on more than 70 legislative items as part of the final leg of the new Division I single annual legislative cycle. In the past, the Board acted on legislation twice annually, but the new cycle establishes the Board's April meeting as the single end point for proposals other than those deemed to be emergency or noncontroversial.

Among measures adopted were two dealing with student-athlete well-being. One, Proposal No. 02-83-A, establishes a student-athlete's individual maximum financial aid limit as the cost of attendance, and allows student-athletes to receive aid based on athletics ability up to the full grant level, plus permit non-athletics aid (for example, academic scholarships) up to the cost of attendance.

The Board also took steps to increase the scope of another student-athlete well-being proposal regarding medical coverage. The Management Council already had approved Proposal No. 03-139 (as amended by Proposal No. 03-139-1), which allows institutions to pay for a student-athlete's medical expenses resulting from an athletically related injury or illness, provided the expenses are necessary for the student-athlete to return to competition.

Board members, however, thought the amended version of the proposal overly compromised the base proposal by restricting the provision only to athletically related injuries. The Board preferred the more expansive base proposal that would have allowed institutions to provide medical expenses regardless of whether the injury or illness was athletics related. Importantly, the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee also supported the base proposal more than the amended version. Thus, the Board declined to adopt Proposal No. 03-139 as amended by Proposal No. 03-139-1 and adopted the more expansive provisions of the original Proposal No. 03-139 as emergency legislation to be effective immediately.

The Board overturned two other proposals that the Management Council had approved at its April meeting. One was Proposal No. 01-5, which would have established championship site-selection criteria that wouldn't base selections solely on the size of the bid guarantee, and would give higher-seeded teams priority. The Board defeated the proposal because it in effect created an unfunded mandate, since implementing the proposal would cost several million dollars that had not been allocated in the next budget cycle.

Board members also overturned Proposal No. 03-59, which would have allowed prospective student-athletes to earn a maximum of one core-course unit in the summer immediately after high-school graduation and before initial full-time collegiate enrollment. The Board thought the measure opened possible instances of abuse and did not align with the current academic-reform movement.

The Board adopted all of the other proposals the Management Council submitted. For a complete list, see the April 29 issue of The NCAA News.

Summer financial aid

In other action, the Board provided further direction on an issue regarding financial aid being given to incoming prospects to begin school the summer before their freshman year.

The Management Council defeated a proposal to expand an existing program in men's basketball to all sports, but Board members in January asked the Council to reconsider its position. The Council continued to struggle with the issue during its April meeting, producing a tie vote on a motion for the Board to adopt the provisions of the original proposal as emergency legislation. Ultimately, the Council recommended that the concept be referred to the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet to better define "at-risk" student-athletes (parameters used to define those eligible to receive aid) and to reconsider the financial ramifications among Division I schools. Council members emphasized their support of giving prospective student-athletes an academic head start, but they were divided on the practical application of the idea.

Board members, however, thought the issue shouldn't rise or fall depending on the "at-risk" label. They would prefer different parameters, such as a cap on the number of prospects who would be afforded the opportunity. They also weren't persuaded by cost concerns or competitive-equity concerns about having prospects on campus earlier to work on athletics skills.

The Board thus adopted the provisions of expanding the summer financial aid program to all sports and agreed to establish a task force composed of two Board members and two Management Council members to work out the details so that it could become effective in summer 2005. That group will report back to the Board in August.

Components of the disincentives package

Academic Progress Rate -- a point system based on student-athlete retention and progress toward degree. Each student-athlete is awarded one point for remaining with the program and one point for being in good academic standing. Team APRs are calculated term by term.

Committee on Academic Performance -- a newly appointed committee chaired by University of Hartford President Walter Harrison charged with administering the disincentives package and determining the levels of performance that will subject programs to penalties.

APR cut points -- points in the APR calculation under which teams will be subject to penalties.

Contemporaneous penalty -- an immediate disincentive issued to under-performing teams (as determined by the APR cut point) beginning in fall 2005. The penalty precludes an institution from re-awarding the scholarship of a student-athlete who leaves the program and would not have been academically eligible had he or she returned.

Historically based penalties -- a system based on a rolling four-year average APR in which under-performing teams (as determined by the APR cut point) would be subject to penalties that increase in severity if the under-performance continues.

Filters -- levels of analysis for determining disincentives through the historically based penalty structure. The first filter compares a team's APR to all Division I sports teams; the second comparison is with all teams in that sport only; and the third comparison is with student academic performance at the team's institution.

Graduation Success Rate -- a calculation that serves as a more accurate alternative to the current federally mandated graduation-rate methodology that does not track transfers. The GSR will be used in the third filter to ensure that institutional mission is part of the analysis.

Other highlights

Division I Board of Directors
April 29/Indianapolis

Reviewed a preliminary report from the NCAA Recruiting Task Force, a group established in February in response to a number of allegations at Division I campuses of improprieties during campus visits. The Board supported task force recommendations that would change the structure of official visits and urged the group to recommend even stronger measures that would increase institutional accountability for behavior during those visits.

Discussed the Board's newly appointed Division I-AA/I-AAA Presidential Advisory Group, which met for the first time in March. The group was established in response to concerns by both commissioners and presidents that it is difficult to engage presidents and conference members in governance discussions when a conference is not represented on the Division I Board of Directors. The four main objectives of the advisory group are (1) to enhance the level of engagement by presidents and the Division I-AA/
I-AAA conferences in the NCAA governance process, (2) to provide an opportunity for better appreciation and understanding of issues facing Division I, (3) to improve the level of communication among institutional presidents and conference members regarding governance issues, and (4) to augment the level of Division I-AA/I-AAA presidential influence in Division I decision-making.

In light of the changing landscape in Division I-A, the Board revisited enhanced Division I-A membership standards that become effective in August and agreed to review whether the football attendance criterion would have unintended consequences. In addition, the Board agreed to review the appropriate effective date for penalties that apply to institutions that do not meet the new criteria.

Heard a presentation from Jim Haney, executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches, about the NABC's partnering efforts with the NCAA to enhance the good of the game.