When an NCAA working group was assembled several years ago to study pressing college basketball issues, it was charged with "changing the culture" of the sport, particularly the negative influence of the nonscholastic environment during the summer.

Similarly, in 2004 when recruiting practices in football were reported to have breached ethical boundaries, a task force was appointed to "change the culture" of official visits to a process in which prospects choose colleges based on where they can best be educated, not entertained.

Now another culture change is afoot.

When the Academic Progress Rate (APR) was developed last year, educators designed it not only as an accountability measure for student-athlete academic success but also as an incentive to "change the culture" of admissions policies and academic-support services to ensure that schools hold up their end of the NCAA's educational mission. In other words, take fewer chances with academically at-risk prospects, minimize whatever chances are taken by strengthening post-enrollment academic support and maintain eligibility for all student-athletes -- even those who intend to transfer or go pro.

Evidence indicates that the intended culture change is underway. Oklahoma State University for example is funding two additional hires in academic services and compliance. The University of Georgia is implementing a system that tracks progress toward degree for every student-athlete and evaluates how coaches fare with "at-risk" recruits. Loyola Marymount University anticipated academic reform with a mandatory 15-unit rule that puts athletes on track to complete their degrees in four years. Texas A&M University, College Station, officials are putting freshmen through "personality inventory" assessments that help pinpoint academic interests and align student-athletes with appropriate majors more quickly.

But there's also evidence of resistance. For example, only four months after the APR was rolled out, some Division I members already are challenging its design. While most administrators and coaches agree that the APR should emphasize eligibility, its equal emphasis on retention is under debate. Of most concern is whether student-athletes who leave for the pros or transfer to another institution while academically eligible should count against a team's APR.

There's also doubt that a culture change will occur unless certain sports with high instances of transfer walk up to why those transfers are occurring, rather than relying on transfer rates as an excuse for academic performance. Some people believe the established practice of "running off" players based on athletics performance needs to change, and they wonder whether the APR alone can be the change agent without a broader philosophical commitment from institutions. There already is suspicion, for example, that football teams with a high number of contemporaneous penalties might sacrifice a fourth-string tackle over an initial counter when taking those penalties.

And NCAA officials already are bracing for what they believe will be an abundance of waiver requests related to the APR once the next round of data is released. If the expected deluge occurs, some people wonder whether that reflects inequities in the system or a more fundamental resistance to change. Interested constituencies, including the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, are standing by to judge the strength of the NCAA's reform resolve.

Both NCAA President Myles Brand and NCAA Vice-President for Membership Services Kevin Lennon have said publicly that some legitimate modifications may be made, but they would not support the removal of retention as part of the APR's accounting for academic success. They and other educators involved in developing the APR structure would prefer the behavior change the APR was meant to encourage over the system being weakened.

"You hear initially from everyone that they're in favor of academic reform," Lennon said. "Yet, we also say that our implementation of reform is evolving, which in fact it is. But does 'evolving' mean tweaking the APR or adjusting behavior? In other words, how much of this is changing a metric to reflect what people believe is reality versus people going about changing the current reality that speaks more to the values of higher education?"

APR as a tool

The latter question is key if reform is to have its intended effect. Lennon said he already has seen encouraging signs. At a recent conference meeting, for example, league presidents asked Lennon how he and other officials expect the system to be "manipulated." In other words, Lennon said, the CEOs were savvy enough to understand the real-life implications of complying with the APR, yet supportive enough to prevent its erosion. He said reform always has a better chance if presidents are behind it.

Another sign of support came from an athletics director who told Lennon how the school's baseball coach had successfully convinced players to delay their draft opportunities until after their senior rather than junior year, which current rules allow. While such a practice has a nice outcome for the coach -- he gets to keep his talent longer -- it also means the players are more likely to graduate.

"Now is that change due to values or an APR correction?" Lennon said. "To me, that's more of a value-based effort because you're getting the students closer to graduation."

But other efforts may be more APR-induced. One school is considering a degree program that requires fewer credit hours, which would affect how student-athletes meet the "40-60-80" progress-toward-degree benchmarks. Another is mulling a mandatory class attendance policy for student-athletes.

Would such creative thinking have been applied were it not for the APR? And does that matter as long as higher APR scores and increased graduation rates are the outcome?

Greg Sankey, an associate commissioner of the Southeastern Conference and longtime member of the Division I governance structure, said reform probably will prompt a mixture of value-based behavior change and attempts to fit the status quo into compliance. He said some people in higher education will see the importance of making the behavior adjustments, while others will see the importance of recruiting premier athletes. The latter will be tempted to fit square "status-quo" pegs into round "reform" holes, he said.

"But we're not talking about people who are completely lacking in understanding of what they do and where they live, and that at the collegiate level education is not an important part of the equation," Sankey said. "Because of that, they understand there is a new standard that has been set, and the expectation has been put upon them as to how they get their programs to meet that standard. And if they don't, there's an outcome they don't particularly care to encounter, like the loss of scholarships."

Indeed, Lennon said the APR in particular was in many ways a carrot-and-stick approach. The way to measure academic success -- through the APR -- is a tool that attracts people's attention. "That's not encouraging just high thinking; that's simply a classic behavioral model -- incent and punish," he said.

But reform in general, he said, was not meant to be punitive. He said the broader package -- especially the new progress-toward-degree benchmarks based on research that does show the 40-60-80 model leading more toward graduation -- will lead to more value-based epiphanies from the membership.

"The eligibility standards are causing educators to realize that they need to recruit prospects to their campuses who in fact can do the work," he said.

Anticipating reform

An example of such a realization is at Loyola Marymount, where Athletics Director William Husak anticipated reform several years ago and established a policy requiring student-athletes to take 15 units per semester, putting them on pace to finish in four years with no summer school needed. That is more demanding than the NCAA's 40-60-80 five-year eligibility progression.

The school's foresight paid off. Loyola Marymount earned an APR score of 991. Eleven of the school's 16 sports earned a perfect score of 1.000 and each was above a .967.

"When we instituted the rule for our student-athletes to take 15 units per semester, part of our motivation was, one, give our student-athletes an advantage in completing their degree in four years, and, two, anticipation of academic reform becoming a reality," Husak said.

At the same time the rule was implemented, Husak said, Loyola Marymount also was building a new academic center and hiring a full-time academic coordinator. "The creation of those, along with the 15-hour rule, has really put our athletics program in great academic shape," he said.

Oklahoma State Associate AD for Compliance Rick Allen said his school experienced a similar awakening when President David Schmidly and Athletics Director Harry Birdwell huddled last summer to prepare for reform. The result was more staff devoted toward academic performance.

While Allen believes most institutions had student-athlete academic interests at the forefront even before reform, he said the APR has forced many to change their approach to retention issues. Allen said one approach that won't change, however, is basing roster decisions solely on the APR.

"I just came out of a meeting with our head football coach who said he wouldn't let the APR dictate his decisions about whether players with disciplinary problems or other distractions stay on the team. He said if it's better for the team to remove that player, then that's more important than the hit it would cause in the APR," Allen said.

At Texas A&M, Associate AD for Academic Affairs Steve McDonnell said students who have not declared a major upon entry into the university go through a series of workshops that helps them make a sound decision by the beginning of their sophomore year. The thinking, McDonnell said, is that if they can decide on a major by then, the likelihood of them meeting the 40 percent eligibility requirement entering their third year is much better.

"Typically what they do in the first year anyway is take general education courses that apply to just about any major. What we want to do is make sure that in their second year they take courses that clearly apply to a particular major," McDonnell said.

The program includes discussions with other student-athletes who already have declared their majors, and presentations from representatives of each of the undergraduate colleges during a "majors decision symposium."

Would the program have been developed if not for academic reform? Maybe not to the current degree, McDonnell said, though the institution employed some of the same tactics previously.

"But we're being much more intentional about it now as a direct result of reform," he said.

Complying with integrity

In the end, institutions are going to have to make their own decisions about how they do business under the reform paradigm. While academic reform certainly is a regulatory effort, the culture change reform was intended to create probably can't be regulated. As Lennon said, when it comes to issues such as admissions policies, course offerings, degree selection and academic-support services, schools have to police themselves.

Much like compliance with Title IX, there are different paths to take, and the way to go about increasing APR scores and ensuring that student-athletes meet enhanced eligibility requirements will vary among institutions.

"Did we expect institutions to adopt a cookie-cutter approach when reform was in the planning stages? Probably not," Lennon said. "But I think most institutions would agree that the APR and accompanying reforms have re-energized the focus on the educational mission.

"Maybe the fact that institutions get there is more important than why they get there."

The APR itself also may undergo a facelift from time to time. The Division I Committee on Academic Performance, the group charged with implementing and overseeing the reform structure, meets July 25 in San Francisco to, among other things, develop directives under which waivers from contemporaneous penalties will be granted. The committee also will delve into developing meaningful incentives for academic success (as opposed to just disincentives) and begin considering how the historically based penalty structure will apply.

Clearly, there's plenty of work to be done, but administrators don't want to lose the foundation that has been built so far. Because implementation of reform is so fluid, though, many people are taking a wait-and-see approach before they judge whether it indeed prompts a culture change.

"For example," the SEC's Sankey said, "I don't think there is a model yet on how to manage APR issues on campuses. The answer is yes, there clearly is a heightened awareness on campuses about having someone be responsible for overseeing the impact of the APR. But I don't know that such awareness automatically results in a school having its own 'APR-ologist.' "

As for the culture change, Sankey agreed that the waiver process will be key. "The desired change may be minimized until people see just how serious the NCAA is about implementing the penalties," he said.

That may in turn reveal how serious Division I is about change.