The Baseball Academic Enhancement Working Group reviewed data at an October 22-23 meeting that show first-year baseball student-athletes in 2004-05 with significantly higher grade-point averages and SAT scores than their peers in basketball and football.

The data also revealed, though, that as the student-athletes progressed in their undergraduate academic careers, those in baseball tended to earn fewer credit hours per year than their basketball and football counterparts.

"It states that baseball players are capable of producing academically," said Ron Wellman, the chair of the working group and athletics director at Wake Forest University. "But the culture they enter after enrollment is sometimes not conducive to that type of academic production. We have to find ways to change the culture and establish expectations academically just as we do athletically."

The Division I Board of Directors has charged Wellman’s group to recommend ways to improve baseball’s lagging Academic Progress Rates, which are among the lowest in men’s sports. The Board appointed the panel last spring after pulling back on a proposal to reduce the number of regular-season games in baseball. The presidents instead wanted to give experts in the sport a chance to address academic concerns through different measures. The Wellman panel is expected to report findings to the Board by April 2007.

Working-group members noted that among the entering student-athlete cohort for 2004-05, those in baseball came with high school GPAs of 3.32 on average and an average SAT score of 1,063. Men’s basketball student-athletes posted averages of 2.99 and 963, while football’s averages were 3.06 and 990. But baseball student-athletes who returned to the same institution for their sophomore year registered a cumulative GPA of 2.79 — higher than basketball (2.57) and football (2.56) — but credit hours earned for baseball student-athletes were 28.9 compared to 30.4 for basketball and 30.0 for football.

The trend holds true for two- and four-year transfer student-athletes in baseball as well.

The data led working-group members to suspect that low APRs in baseball are a function of slower progress toward degree, which is impacted by the sport’s significant movement within and outside the four-year college system.

Working-group subcommittees in eligibility, retention and financial aid shared concepts about improving academic performance. Two members from each subcommittee will select the best of those recommendations in the coming months. Some of the concepts could include increasing academic requirements for two-year college transfers, establishing a minimum amount of financial aid per student-athlete, limiting roster sizes and encouraging summer school as a more viable option for student-athletes.

But curbing the sport’s high transfer rates continues to occupy most of the working group’s attention.

When examining high school academic characteristics of two-year transfers, 85 percent of the baseball student-athletes attending junior college in 2004-05 would qualify academically to compete in Division I. By comparison, only 61 percent of basketball and 62 percent of football student-athletes would have been academic qualifiers.

Working-group members said many of the baseball student-athletes attend junior colleges for reasons other than academics, however. Some of the decisions center on the individual’s dreams of playing professional baseball.

Under Major League Baseball draft rules, players at junior colleges are eligible for selection in their freshmen or sophomore year. If the player attends a four-year college, he is not be eligible for selection until his junior year.

If a student-athlete’s main focus is draft status, he may be taking only enough courses to be eligible, rather than focusing on progress toward a degree. If those draft plans don’t pan out, though, the student-athlete might have to scramble academically.

Since baseball student-athletes do not compete during the fall term, those who don’t meet NCAA progress-toward-degree requirements may be eligible for practice and financial aid and can use the fall term to earn academic eligibility.

Some working-group members believe that changing certification of eligibility from the spring to the fall and requiring all baseball student-athletes to be eligible for competition to receive aid would put more emphasis on academic work being completed in the spring term. That approach also might prompt baseball student-athletes to consider taking summer classes to maintain progress toward degree.

It is an option basketball and football student-athletes use to improve their academic standing or take courses that keep them on track for a degree.

But unlike football and basketball, which offer full grant-in-aids, the extra expense of attending summer school is a factor for baseball programs that are allowed only 11.7 equivalencies for the entire squad.

A high participation in summer leagues also impedes baseball student-athletes’ opportunities to attend summer school. Because major-league scouts use the summer leagues to evaluate prospects, most baseball student-athletes with professional aspirations participate in them. Working-group members don’t want to discourage student-athletes from aspiring to be professional ballplayers, but they are concerned that student-athletes are not putting the appropriate emphasis on progress toward degree.

The working group also discussed various financial aid models, including a concept of establishing minimum awards across the board. Such a leveling of aid packages could reduce the incentive for student-athletes to transfer. Research shows student-athletes who transfer are less likely to obtain a degree than those who remain at one institution for their entire college career.

Capping squad size is another possibility. While working-group members do not have a number in mind, they do believe some type of cap would force coaches to be more selective in recruiting. Some programs now, for example, bring in 40 or more student-athletes in the fall, creating a tryout atmosphere.

The working group will vet these proposals in membership forums, beginning with the Division I Issues Forum during the 2007 NCAA Convention, the January American Baseball Coaches Association convention and at the Division I Board of Directors meeting January 8.

The working group will meet again in late January or early February to finalize its report, which will be delivered to the Board in April.