In addition to recommending a public-recognition program that honors the top 10 percent of teams in each sport (see story, page 13), the Division I Committee on Academic Performance (CAP) approved a draft appeals procedure for institutions that incur penalties in the historically based penalty phase of the academic-reform structure.

CAP members are seeking membership comment on the draft before finalizing the procedure in April.

Under the proposed process, schools wishing to appeal an occasion-one penalty (the public warning) would file electronically through the Web-based Legislative Services Database at www.NCAA.org. NCAA staff would retain the ability to make the initial decision. The institution could appeal that decision to the CAP subcommittee on appeals, which would render a final decision after a teleconference.

The same process would apply for appeals of occasion-two penalties (financial aid restrictions and recruiting limitations) and one component of occasion-three penalties (restriction from preseason competition).

For the other component of occasion-three penalties (restriction from postseason competition) and for occasion-four penalties (membership status), the appeals procedure would again involve an electronic filing, but staff would not render an initial decision. Rather, the appeal would involve an in-person hearing among the full CAP, institutional representatives and NCAA staff. If the institution believes the CAP abused its discretion in applying the legislation and/or Academic Performance Program policies, it could appeal to a subcommittee of the Division I Board of Directors. The subcommittee’s decision in those cases would not be subject to further review.

CAP members also reviewed the planned format for the public release of the two-year APR and accompanying penalties, scheduled for late February. A copy of the public report, including all aggregate data, will be made available to schools 24 hours before the report is released publicly through the NCAA Web site. An e-mail with a link to the reports will be sent to presidents and chancellors, conference commissioners, and each institution’s athletics director, faculty athletics representative, senior woman administrator and compliance coordinator. In addition, NCAA staff will conduct educational conference calls with the membership and media in conjunction with the public release of APR data.

The CAP noted, however, that the scheduled release may be contingent upon completion of the appeals currently underway from institutions seeking relief from contemporaneous penalties.

The group also reviewed preliminary data from the second year of APR submissions. Though the two-year data set, upon which contemporary penalties will be applied, is not complete, early indications are that the distribution for the 2004-05 cohort appears similar to that of 2003-04, and that the two-year aggregate is contracted — that is, there appear to be fewer teams with perfect APR scores at the top of the range and fewer teams with very low APR scores at the bottom of the range (for example, below 800). Also, early results show that relatively few women’s teams will fall below the 925 cutoff subjecting teams to contemporaneous penalty; however, it appears that many men’s teams in football, basketball and baseball will be below that mark. Because the data set is not complete, though, it is not clear how many of those teams will incur contemporaneous penalties.

The committee also began discussions about possible benchmarks in the historically based component of academic reform. Preliminary data indicate that there may not be a natural “break point” that would serve as a cutoff, so CAP members agreed that setting benchmarks in the historically based penalty phase may require a principled decision based on a rational evaluation of the characteristics of the score chosen. They also agreed that the benchmark will need to correlate to a standard that people find meaningful, such as graduation/success rates.

Other highlights

Division I Committee on

Academic Performance

January 5-6/Indianapolis

* Agreed that all institutions or teams reclassifying to Division I shall begin reporting Academic Performance Program data at the point in the reclassifying process when the institution or team is required to be in full compliance with all Division I legislation. In a related action, the CAP agreed that the timing of penalties and rewards for reclassifying and provisional Division I members replicate that followed by current Division I members.

* Confirmed June 1 as the due date for institutions submitting Graduation/

Success Rate data, since that date coincides closely with the due date for schools to submit federal graduation-rate data.

* Did not support the concept of awarding an APR “bonus point” to an institution for a student-athlete who transfers from the institution then ultimately graduates from another school. Current provisions allow for such a bonus point to be awarded to the institution if the student-athlete leaves but then returns to the same school to graduate. Among reasons the CAP cited for not awarding the point was the administrative burden in tracking such information.

* Reaffirmed its support for the current formula it uses to put the APR scores of teams at semester and quarter schools on an equivalent metric. The formula produces a two-time point APR for quarter schools that is similar to the two-time point formula used by semester schools.