The charge given to the NCAA Baseball Enhancement Working Group is clear, but finding a solution to the multitude of issues isn’t nearly as simple.

The 26-member working group composed of athletics directors, conference commissioners, coaches, faculty athletics representatives and the executive director of the American Baseball Coaches Association gathered for the first time August 3-4 in Indianapolis to begin devising a plan to improve the academic performance of baseball student-athletes.

The directive comes from the top. When considering a possible reduction in the number of regular-season games at its April meeting, the Division I Board of Directors decided instead to find the root of baseball’s academic problems. The sport’s Academic Progress Rate and Graduation Success Rate are among the lowest in all sports and the presidents want to know why — and what can be done about it. While they suspected that the length of the season plays a role, they also acknowledged more systemic concerns. Thus, the Board sent the working group on a fact-finding mission and said in no uncertain terms that maintaining the status quo would not be an option.

One of those Board members, University of Hartford President Walter Harrison, landed on the working group, as did former Board member Don Beggs, president at Wichita State University. That presidential involvement helped engage working-group members in a frank discussion about the unique circumstances that have led to baseball’s academic troubles. Among items cited were the frequency of transfers in and out of four-year programs, the sport’s recruiting culture and baseball student-athletes’ desires to play professionally.

Wake Forest University Athletics Director Ron Wellman, who chairs the working group, appreciated the presidential influence. He said he and his peers understand fully the charge from the Board, and the challenges in finding any one solution that fits all.

"Anything we come up with is going to be controver-
sial in

one way or

another," he said. "Some people in fact will want the culture simply to remain the way it is. But that is unacceptable. We have to change the culture if we want college baseball to be strong."

Because it was the group’s first meeting, it progressed naturally into more of a brainstorming session than one that produced concrete proposals. But members know they’ll need specifics soon — the Board asked for recommendations by April 2007. If the presidents don’t like what they see by then, season-reduction legislation could be back on the table.

"The challenge is coming up with ideas that can be accepted by the membership as a whole," said Big 12 Conference Commissioner and working-group member Kevin Weiberg. "As with other areas, when you consider ideas to improve academic performance, you also have to consider the other effects that might cause the idea not to be fully supported by the membership."

To facilitate its work, the group divided into three subcommittees. Weiberg chairs the retention subcommittee. The others focus on eligibility and financial aid.

Weiberg’s group has its work cut out for it, since the transfer rate is so high in baseball. Among the more populated transfer cohorts is that from two-year to four-year schools. In 2004-05, for example, more than two-thirds of all transfers in baseball were junior college student-athletes moving to a four-year program.

More recent data from the Academic Performance Program show that student-athletes on that transfer path don’t fare well academically, either — in any sport. Student-athletes in that cohort lost the retention point in the Academic Progress Rate more than 18 percent of the time and lost the eligibility point 19.9 percent of the time. Almost 10 percent of them ended up as the dreaded "0-for-2," which may prevent the team from replacing the scholarship, depending on the squad’s APR.

The outcomes are even worse in baseball. Two-to-four transfers lost retention points 21.8 percent of the time and eligibility points 22.2 percent of the time. About 9 percent were 0-for-2s. All are higher numbers than those for baseball student-athletes who never transfer or student-athletes who transfer from one four-year institution to another.

"It’s an issue that we are going to have to address," Weiberg said. "Right now we’re simply trying to understand it. Is it related primarily to the Major League Baseball draft? Is there another factor at play that leads to a lot of junior college transfers being in this mix? The data clearly point to this as being a real problem."

Recruiting culture

Mike Gaski, the head coach at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, believes fixing it is a two-way proposition. Institutions must invest more time in the student-athletes, and student-athletes must invest more in their academic future, he said.

"Clearly the numbers aren’t lying," said Gaski, who also is the president of USA Baseball. "They show this group is at risk more than any other. We would be doing a disservice to the future of our sport if we didn’t do something in this area."

Among suggestions from working-group members was to raise admission standards for the transfer cohort — perhaps even require junior college transfers to have A.A. degrees so they are more prepared to meet academic standards.

The transfer issue doesn’t stop there, either. Another cohort includes student-athletes who transfer from a four-year institution to a junior college and then back to a four-year school. For example, suppose a student-athlete has a successful freshman season in a four-year program and believes that if he goes to junior college for his sophomore season he may be selected in the Major League Baseball draft. The same student-athlete staying at a four-year institution would have to wait until the end of his junior season to become eligible for the draft.

Since professional baseball has an extensive minor-league system, about 1,500 players are selected each June. In 2005, 43 percent of those players (645) attended four-year institutions, 36.2 percent (543) came from junior colleges and 20.9 percent (313) were drafted out of high school.

Of the Division I student-athletes who were drafted and signed, 25 percent lost the retention point, and 16 percent lost the eligibility point in the APR calculation.

That has contributed mightily to baseball’s low APR. Two-year APR data show baseball programs averaging a 931 score, ahead of only football and men’s basketball. Teams must be at 925 or above to avoid possible immediate penalties (one-year loss of scholarships) and at or above 900 to avoid harsher sanctions (the historically based penalties, which include possible recruiting and postseason restrictions).

Right now, 57 baseball teams are below the 900 benchmark.

"There are way too many programs that are sub-900," Gaski said. "There has to be some common characteristics among those universities and programs. If we can identify what those are, maybe we can come up with some solutions."

Other issues

Since so many players are selected each year in the draft, it may lead student-athletes to believe they have a realistic shot of landing on a major-league roster. And with players being selected out of high school and junior colleges, coaches often over-recruit because they aren’t sure who will actually be on campus once the academic year begins. That can put a coach in an awkward position when it comes to dividing the 11.7 grants-in-aid allowed for baseball.

Gaski, Louisiana State University coach Paul Mainieri and University of Florida coach Pat McMahon provided first-hand accounts of sitting in the living rooms of prospective student-athletes and their families and discussing financial aid. They said coaches frequently are left trying to explain why the prospect is worth a certain percentage of the scholarship pool.

"It’s embarrassing to try and value a kid’s worth," Gaski said. "It is demeaning to the kid, it is demeaning to the family and it is demeaning to us as coaches."

Some working-group members believe stabilizing financial aid could limit student-athletes’ desire to transfer, which could in turn enhance the academic environment. But they also realize that increasing equivalency limits would be a challenging proposition for many schools.

Working-group members also talked about how student-athletes’ professional aspirations affect the college model. Going pro often means gaining exposure in the wood-bat summer leagues frequented by Major League Baseball scouts. That can detract from student-athletes’ academic pursuits since it hinders their ability to attend summer school.

But Wellman said it gets tricky in a hurry when you tinker with how student-athletes who want to play professionally accomplish that goal.

"I don’t know if you want to change their desire to advance to professional baseball," he said. "What we need to change is the culture of student-athletes not caring as much as they need to about their academic lives while they are in college. We need to address that issue to make sure that baseball players are doing everything they possibly can to earn their degree and pay attention to academic pursuits."

That’s indeed the bottom line, and most working-group members thought the initial meeting was an effective lead-off batter for the initiative.

"I thought it was a good meeting with the presidents and the other administrators in the room," Gaski said. "We were candid and took the gloves off. We didn’t play patty-cake. We explained the reality in terms of recruiting and in terms of trying to retain players."

The group will meet again this fall.