SAN ANTONIO -- The Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet, which met February 16-18, reviewed research involving student-athlete academic profiles before and after changes to the Division I initial-eligibility standards.

The research compares outcomes for prospective student-athletes in 2002 and 2003 and could ease reservations that existed when Division I decided to remove standardized test scores from the initial-eligibility sliding scale. Data show in fact that student-athletes entering Division I institutions in 2003, on average, are as prepared for college academics as those who entered in 2002.

The data indicate that the difference in the percentage of prospective student-athletes on a Division I institutional request list who met various initial-eligibility standards in 2002 (Prop 16) vs. the sliding scale used in 2003 was negligible. High-school academic profiles of Division I recruits also showed core grade-point averages for 2002 to be 3.340 compared to 3.330 the following year. Average test scores (in SAT units) went from 1079 in 2002 to 1083 in 2003.

NCAA researchers also were able to look at the freshman-year academic performance of those student-athletes. Those numbers also showed similarities between the two classes. For example, the average GPA of the class in 2002 was 2.760, and in 2003 it was 2.770. In terms of retention, 86.3 percent of the 2002 class re-enrolled in the second year, while 87.4 percent of the 2003 class did so.

"There is no evidence in the data that says students are less prepared on average, and their college outcomes are very similar to the students who enrolled in 2002," said Todd Petr, NCAA managing director of research. "There is no evidence to suggest a change in academic performance, at least through the freshman year."

In addition to reviewing eligibility data, the cabinet also forwarded an amendment to Proposal No. 03-24 that requires full academic year awards to be offered in equal amounts for each term of the academic year.

The cabinet voted to move this initiative forward as emergency legislation.

The cabinet's subcommittee on financial aid believes this will ease membership concerns about the way financial aid is distributed to student-athletes. The subcommittee heard anecdotal evidence that some institutions offer an incoming student-athlete a scholarship that is not equally divided between each term. For instance, a scholarship covering 70 percent of costs could be distributed with 20 percent of the aid coming in the fall and 50 percent in the spring, which would actually be the playing and practice season for the sport.

Subcommittee members believe such policies create an atmosphere that results in a tryout situation for the fall. If a student-athlete withdraws from the sport during the fall term, his or her aid may be provided to another student-athlete during the following term.

"The concern is that an institution would be tempted to backload the award," said cabinet Chair Alan Hauser, the faculty athletics representative at Appalachian State University. "They lessen the award for the first semester thinking that if the student-athlete doesn't work out then not a lot of aid would be lost. The cabinet wants to be sure -- in fairness to the student-athletes -- that they not suffer because the coach made a mistake in recruiting."

This amendment also addresses concerns regarding the autonomy and discretion of an institution to award aid for less than a full academic year in those cases when it knows a student-athlete will graduate at midyear and not return to the institution.

Cabinet members believe that in such cases, an institution shouldn't be required to offer a full year of financial aid.

Other issues

In other actions, the cabinet's subcommittee on amateurism and agents made several recommendations on legislative items, one of which involved an amendment of NCAA Bylaw 12.5.1.1 that would prohibit an institution, conference, or noninstitutional or nonprofit agency from using the name, picture or likeness of a student-athlete for retail sales, provided the student-athlete has eligibility remaining. The cabinet voted to sponsor this leg- islation for the 2005-06 governance cycle.

The recommendation addresses a perceived exploitation of student-athletes. Examples include selling jerseys or bobblehead dolls with a student-athlete's name or likeness.

Cabinet members noted, though, a distinction between producing items with a student-athlete's name, picture or likeness for sale versus providing those items as part of a marketing or promotional event such as give-a-ways at games.

Two national surveys have been conducted regarding this subject and the results indicated that most member institutions are not using student-athletes in this manner. Still, the prevailing thought is that institutions should be held to the same standards as other entities.

The cabinet also reviewed a nonlegislative issue regarding an "obvious waiver" scale for individuals lacking one of fewer core courses in an area other than English.

The subcommittee on initial-eligibility issues received a presentation showing several sliding scales to help establish a line in which waivers meeting certain academic criteria are routinely approved by the NCAA staff.

Subcommittee members eventually voted to recommend a sliding scale that would decrease the number of waivers in this area to about 50 percent.

"We've had the English obvious waiver for a number of years, and I would venture to say that most of you who are in compliance probably don't know who the obvious waivers were on your campus," said subcommittee chair Thurston Banks, the faculty athletics representative at Tennessee Technological University. "I don't think it has been a problem, and it's worked very well and is handled at the Clearinghouse. Although this was not a unanimous vote, it was a majority vote by the subcommittee."

Some subcommittee members felt this was too much of a drop off and preferred a line that would reduce the number of waivers in this category by about 30 percent.

The debate carried over into the main full cabinet meeting, where members tabled the issue until the research staff is able to provide the entire cabinet with the presentation at its June meeting.

"This is me speaking for myself and not as the chair of the cabinet, but if we can find some happy middle ground, we can go far enough to alleviate the deluge of appeals without letting people in who by and large would be academic risks," Hauser said. "If you let people in and 2 or 3 percent don't make it, that seems to me to be worth the risk. If you got to the point where 30 percent of the people don't make it, then you have a problem."

The subcommittee will also meet with the subcommittee on continuing eligibility to develop a recommendation concerning a waiver policy that would overturn partial approvals.

The cabinet's subcommittee on recruiting recommended that the cabinet sponsor an amendment to Proposal No. 03-32 that would allow an increase the number of pages in printed recruiting materials from 200 pages to 208.

The reasoning for the recommendation is that media-guide press runs are done in sets of 16-page "signatures." A 208-page guide allows for 13 signatures and would cost institutions no more additional expense than it would to produce a 200-page publication.

Other highlights

Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet
February 16-18/San Antonio

• Recommended changes in waiver policies and procedures regarding the use of misadvisement or misapplication as a mitigating circumstance for not meeting initial-eligibility rules. The institution involved would be required to submit a written explanation from the person or persons responsible for providing erroneous information.

• Agreed to sponsor legislation for the 2005-06 legislative cycle to allow an enrolled men's ice hockey student-athlete to enter the National Hockey League Draft one time during his college career without jeopardizing his eligibility in the sport.

• Voted to not support Proposal No. 04-99-A that would reduce the number of official visits in Division I-A football from five to four. The cabinet's subcommittee on recruiting originally supported the proposal but now doesn't think it is appropriate for this rule to apply only to I-A football.

• Voted to support Proposal No. 04-119-B, which would establish a more flexible recruiting calendar in men's basketball, with the following two amendments: (1) reinstating the current April contact period to observe nonscholastic events that are approved, sanctioned, sponsored or conducted by applicable state or national high school preparatory school or two-year college association only on weekends during which national standardized tests are not administered; and (2) increasing the number of recruiting person days from 120 to 130.

• The subcommittee on amateurism and agents discussed Proposal No. 04-60, which would create an international student-athlete clearinghouse. The subcommittee strongly recommended that the NCAA staff continue to develop a model for this concept.