The first Academic Progress Rate (APR) numbers are out in Division I, and folks already are complaining.

The primary source of displeasure seems to be the retention point. Why, it is asked, should a program be punished when an athlete in good academic standing transfers to another institution or jumps to the pros? After all, coaches cannot control this behavior any more than deans can force newly hired department heads or star faculty to remain at their institution. Furthermore, both transferring to another institution and departing for a professional career may occur for any number of good reasons. And once again, if the kids who leave are in good academic standing, why the penalty?

This is a reasonable question, and the APR formula may indeed need to be adjusted. In addition, there is no harm in having the Committee on Academic Performance take a look at the initial APR figures for unintended and possibly unfair consequences.

Nevertheless, nobody promised that academic reform was going to be entirely painless, and it is far too early to make any radical changes in the APR. More data are needed before significant modifications are seriously contemplated.

Those who have raised concerns about the retention point need to remember that no contemporaneous penalties will accrue unless an ineligible athlete has departed and the program has earned an "0 for 2." Thus, the quick answer to the complaint is that no contemporaneous penalty exists for the loss of an eligible student-athlete, either to another institution or the pros. Also, it is unlikely that a program would fall below the 925 cut score on the basis of the non-retention of eligible athletes alone, even though this is mathematically possible. In most cases, programs that repeatedly fall below this level will lose significant numbers of points for academic problems. Non-retention is not likely to be the primary culprit.

But why was retention included in the first place? Reformers argued that the culture needed to change, that coaches had to more carefully recruit individuals who had a good chance to succeed academically at their institution and who had a genuine interest in receiving a degree. The legislation was designed to discourage the recruitment of academically unqualified or disinterested individuals who would jump to the pros, or transfer to other schoolsthat promised to better showcase their athletic talents. The retention point signifies that universities are not de facto minor leagues and that we want athletes to persist at their home institution to the completion of their degree.

This policy may already be having its intended effect. I have had more conversations with coaches, administrators, athletes and academic counselors about retention and academic standards over the past few months than in the prior several years combined. It is on people's minds. It is surely on coaches' minds as they talk to high-school prospects and attempt to discern the academic and athletics fit between these individuals and their respective campuses. And that is precisely what the legislation was designed to accomplish.

NCAA President Myles Brand made a point recently of underlining important differences between professional athletics and college sports. This distinction is a good one, and the APR retention point is central to this difference. We bring young people to our universities and colleges for four or five years so they might gain the knowledge and skills that are intended to make a tremendous difference in their lives -- differences economically, in the kinds of jobs they can take, and ultimately, in the quality of the lives they will lead. The bachelor's degree, and all of the work and learning that goes into it, is paramount.

This is every bit as true in the arts and sciences as it is in athletics. We do not bring students to our campuses in mathematics, English, music, theater, art or athletics to stay for just a couple of years, only to jump to other schools that offer a better deal, or worse yet, to leave without a full education or a degree. Of course, a few students transfer for good reasons. And occasionally, a genius in poetry or mathematics, or a virtuoso in music or athletics might be well-advised to leave school early and "go pro." But these are exceptions, and solid policies that encourage persistence to the completion of the baccalaureate degree should be in place.

The APR retention point is part of one of these policies. While the progress rate formula may need some refinement in the days ahead, this is no time to change our overall course.

Scott Kretchmar is the faculty athletics representative at Pennsylvania State University and a member of the Division I Management Council.