The Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics contributed feedback to the NCAA's recent academic-reform efforts during the commission's latest meeting November 8 in Washington, D.C.

Commission members heard from Division I Committee on Academic Performance (CAP) Chair Walter Harrison about the release of first-year Academic Progress Rate (APR) data and adjustments in the APR that forgive the retention point for student-athletes who leave in good academic standing for a career in professional sports. That adjustment, which was approved by the Division I Board of Directors in August, has raised concerns from some people who believe it "waters down" the APR as an academic accountability metric.

Commissioners did express some concern about appeals, but in general they thought reform was on the right track.

"We feel that the APR and the other elements of reform are on course," said Southern Methodist University President R. Gerald Turner, the commission's vice chair stepping in for current chair Thomas K. Hearn Jr., who was unable to attend the meeting.

Turner and the rest of the commission, though, urged the CAP to "reject attempts to dilute the program through the appeals process."

Once the second-year APR data are compiled and released later this winter, teams will be assessed contemporaneous penalties based on whether they meet the proscribed 925 APR cut-off score and whether student-athletes had left the team and would have been academically ineligible had they stayed. Institutions will have a chance to appeal those penalties, but Turner said the Knight Commission would prefer CAP to be stingy in granting waivers.

The commission also endorsed plans being considered by the NCAA to provide financial incentives to institutions for high academic achievement and improvement. Clifton R. Wharton, president emeritus of Michigan State University who shares commission vice chair duties with Turner, said such an incentives program addresses what the commission has long believed should be academic-based distributions.

"In the commission's 2001 report, we recommended that revenue distribution be changed to consider values such as academic performance," Wharton said. "Financial rewards must be tied to the values higher education believes are most important. The current distribution formula, with its emphasis on winning, is out of line with those values."

Summit planned

The Knight Commission also announced it will host a summit on "the collegiate athletics experience" in January. Turner said the upcoming summit represents a new direction for the Knight Commission: viewing reform through the eyes of students and athletes.

The summit will be open to the public, and students, athletes, and scholars who specialize in sport administration and education will be urged to attend. Panelists at the summit would include current student-athletes and those who recently have graduated. Individuals with expertise in student matters also will be invited. George Washington University will host the event. Turner said discussion is expected to focus on issues students face when they become athletes or as they are planning to be athletes.

"As we've met with experts both from on our campuses and off, we've determined that it would be a good time to hear directly from current students -- and from recent graduates who may have some reflection and advice to give us on the state of intercollegiate athletics," said Turner.

Details of the summit will be made known as they become available. The commission has a meeting scheduled for January 30.

The commission also heard from a faculty panel on reform issues that included Percy Bates, faculty athletics representative from the University of Michigan; David Ridpath, an assistant professor at Mississippi State University; and Virginia Shepherd, a professor at Vanderbilt University.

Ridpath serves as the executive director of the Drake Group and Shepherd co-chairs the faculty-senate-based Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics. Both groups have been key monitors of reform, and each has suggested a variation of "academic disclosure" proposals that would shed light on student-athletes' academic choices and reveal whether athletes cluster into certain disciplines.

While the commission did not comment specifically about those proposals, members did agreed that faculty ought to deepen involvement in athletics issues and continue efforts to promote reforms.

"We hope faculty groups continue their involvement and diligence in academic reform because of the unique role they have in the oversight of intercollegiate athletics," Turner said.

Initial-eligibility waivers

The commission also received a report on incoming athletes' academic profiles for the past three years since the NCAA revised rules for initial eligibility. NCAA officials said that athletes' academic profiles have not changed in the aggregate since 2002, when the Association extended the "sliding scale" between test scores and high school grades to allow players with low SAT scores to play in college, as long as they had high grades.

Commission members did raise concerns over an increase in the number of waivers the NCAA has granted to entering students who do not meet those standards. "Subjecting under-prepared athletes to the simultaneous stresses of Division I sports, college life, and academics is a recipe for failure," Wharton said, "especially given the NCAA's tougher standards for continuing eligibility."

Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president for membership services, said data on those students' collegiate academic performance will drive the number of waivers given to students with similar profiles in the future.