SAN FRANCISCO -- The adjustments the Division I Board of Directors made to the Academic Progress Rate (see story, page 1) had their genesis within the Division I Committee on Academic Performance.

CAP members at their July 25-27 meeting developed the revision to the calculation of the APR that allows for adjustments in specific situations, including when a student-athlete leaves an institution to pursue a career in professional athletics.

After discussion about whether to adjust the APR and debating what factors are within an institution's and/or student-athlete's control, the committee determined that student-athletes who earned the eligibility point in the APR calculation for the last semester or term they were enrolled at an institution before turning pro would be excused from the retention portion. In essence, the student-athlete who is eligible to return to an institution but instead turns professional would count as a "1-for-1" under the amended APR. Under the original APR, the same student-athlete would be recorded as a "1-for-2," losing the point for retention.

CAP members discussed the meaning of "professional," including the various sports that could be involved in such an adjustment, and decided to more clearly define the term at a later date. The definition likely will include a documented relationship with a professional team, organization or tour, receipt of significant prize money and/or other acts clearly documenting the student's intent to professionalize.

Committee members believed that since rules for drafting student-athletes and for entering the professional ranks in sports without a formal draft are set by the professional leagues and not by the NCAA, student-athletes who decide to enter the drafts or turn professional are outside of an institution's control. The committee also decided it did not want to discourage coaches in all sports from recruiting the best possible athletes; however, members wanted to ensure that the student-athletes who attend NCAA institutions make appropriate academic progress.

Refusing to make the adjustment, committee members believed, would not prevent student-athletes from leaving institutions early to pursue a professional career.

Several members pointed out that the number of student-athletes who would take advantage of the professional-sports adjustment is miniscule when compared with the total number of student-athletes in that sport. Also, mathematically, the effect of the "1-for-1" instead of the "1-for-2" is not as substantial as preventing a "0-for-2" from occurring.

Other situations that warrant an adjustment under the committee's rationale include the discontinuation of a student-athlete's degree program or sport, incapacitating physical or mental circumstances supported by medical documentation and extreme financial difficulties resulting from a specific event.

NCAA staff and the CAP subcommittee on data collection and reporting will determine whether adjustments are warranted.

The committee also decided that some circumstances should not be considered for an adjustment, including a student-athlete who departs an institution due to a coaching change, because of an academic suspension or disciplinary problem or because athletically related aid was reduced or not renewed.

Work on incentives

The committee also recommended to the Board a basic incentives framework that could potentially reward a quarter of Division I institutions for high or improved academic achievement under the APR system.

The program would begin in the 2006-07 academic year and could include public recognition for team academic achievement, financial rewards for top institutional academic achievers, overall student-athlete academic performance at a higher level than the student body and/or significant APR improvement. Grants also may be awarded to penalized institutions/teams that have shown an upward trend in APR, despite minimal institutional resources.

Committee members hope that eventually, $10 million could be allocated annually to the incentive program, though the initial allocation is not expected to be that large. Members felt that the amount was important so that it would get the attention of officials at all institutions, about $100,000 per institution that is chosen to receive funding.

The committee conceded that the $10 million figure was "reaching for the stars a little bit."

Britton Banowsky, CAP member and commissioner of Conference USA, said he believed the program could be successful.

"This is something that is very important," Banowsky said. "It's symbolic; it's shifting resources for academic improvement."

Members also recommended that any grants distributed through the incentives program should not be used for campus athletics operating budgets.

The committee directed NCAA staff to find possible sources for the funding, including corporate sponsorships, surplus funds and future anticipated revenue increases. Any funding for the program would not include re-allocated dollars.

The committee also recommended  that the Board support another amendment to the APR calculation to award a bonus APR point to former student-athletes who leave the institution without graduating but who return to earn a degree. The committee recommended institutions receive a "1-for-0" added to the team's APR in the term the student-athlete graduates.

To qualify for the bonus point, the former student-athlete must have been included as part of the APR cohort while in his or her initial tenure at the institution. If the student-athlete attended the institution before the implementation of the APR, he or she would have to have met the definition of the cohort during his or her tenure.

The committee felt the extra point could be a major incentive and something that might offset some of the more-publicized disincentives associated with the APR. The bonus point also would help reach the ultimate goal of the APR and academic reform in general -- to increase graduation rates of student-athletes.

The bonus point also would not award any extra points to a team's APR than the student-athlete would have earned had he or she remained in school to complete a degree. Keeping the bonus at a lower level discourages institutions from recommending that student-athletes delay graduation to allow their team or institution to achieve a higher APR.

Institutional mission

In other business, the committee recommended a policy concerning waivers of contemporaneous penalties to include institutional mission as a consideration. In the waiver process, a team's APR, if below the cut line of 925 and above 850, will be compared with the institution's most recent student-body federal graduation rate, and teams with an APR that shows an expected graduation rate higher than the federal graduation rate of the entire student body at an institution will be considered for a waiver based on institutional mission.

If a team's projected graduation rate is 10 percentage points or more above the student body rate, the team will receive an automatic waiver of contemporaneous penalties, if the team APR is 850 or higher.

Committee members felt that the 850 floor was important, because an APR of 850 translates roughly to a graduation rate of 25 percent. While the squad-size adjustment is in place, the team's upper-confidence boundary must be 850 or higher to qualify to apply for an institutional mission waiver.

The waiver requests will be reviewed when a team's projected graduation rate (based on the APR) is fewer than 10 percentage points above the graduation rate of the student body. To receive a waiver in such a circumstance, an institution must show that its resources are significantly limited when compared with other similar institutions. Characteristics included in the comparisons will include: who is served by the institution (age, housing status and economic status of the student body); academic experience at the institution (entrance requirements, academic characteristics overall) and available educational resources (student-to-faculty ratio, funding, tuition).

Other recommendations included:

• A revision to the APR to help equalize the differences that occur between semester and quarter institutions. The change to the computational formula was recommended to CAP by the Data Analysis Research Network based partly on first-year APR data.

• Legislation to define the restricted-membership penalty faced by teams in the historical penalty structure. The committee recommended that restricted membership be applied to an institution's entire athletics program as well as the low-performing team for one year. Restricted membership prohibits an institution's sports teams from participating in any NCAA championships.

• Student-athletes whose teams are subject to historical penalties under specific conditions should be allowed to transfer schools without being subject to the one-year residence requirement. One of the specific conditions is that all of a student-athlete's remaining postseason competition opportunities are eliminated due to the historical penalties. The student-athlete must remain eligible to qualify for the benefit.