From the beginning, leaders of the academic-reform movement have operated under the premise that change is most likely when a carrot accompanies the stick.

Of the two, one would think the carrot would be easier to develop. But even though decision-makers have struggled to create a fair and meaningful set of penalties to prompt a change in academic behavior, they have struggled equally hard to reward reform.

For now, the only “incentive” in place for academic achievement — other than helping to ensure that intercollegiate athletics is part of the educational experience — is a public-recognition program that acknowledges the top 10 percent of teams in each sport based on the Academic Progress Rate. While the public ranking is expected to be effective over time, more tangible incentives for academic achievement, such as financial rewards, have been debated but so far set aside.

Interestingly, there is precedent for a financial-incentives model to encourage athletics achievement. For years, Division I has rewarded athletics excellence through financial distributions based on the number of sports schools sponsor and the scholarships they award. The division also distributes dollars to institutions based on their performance in the men’s basketball championship.

While Division I has debated the “who gets how much” of those distributions — funded almost entirely by the bundled-rights agreement with CBS and ESPN — members have rarely questioned the existence of a financial carrot for athletics performance.

The consensus isn’t so clear, though, when it comes to rewarding academic achievement. One of the early groups charged with the concept (the Incentives/Disincentives Working Group) wrestled with and eventually passed on a financial-reward structure, and its successor (the Division I Committee on Academic Performance) is encountering similar travails.

Todd Turner, athletics director at the University of Washington, chaired the first group, whose very name suggested that incentives would be forthcoming. But to the possibility of a fiscal approach, Turner said, “In the absence of new revenue, we couldn’t in good conscience recommend a financial incentive.”

Indeed, the only “incentive” Turner’s group or anyone else at that time could think of for academic achievement was not to get a disincentive. But there had to be more, people said. Surely there was a meaningful way other than punishment to prompt performance. After all, the distribution model has worked for athletics achievement — why not academics?

The CAP, chaired by University of Hartford President Walter Harrison, stuck its toe in that water last fall when members developed a three-pronged reward system based on absolute and real-time academic achievement, significant academic improvement and a grant program that would help under-performing schools get the resources to achieve. It was a meaningful program with a $10 million price tag. But while the concept was strong, the funding could not be found in the current budget.

Realizing that such a program did not have its own line item in the Association’s existing bankbook, CAP members looked to the future and proposed allocating a small percentage of funds from the incremental increases in the remaining years of the television contract. That seemed harmless enough.

When it was presented to the Division I Board of Directors in October, the presidents reacted warmly to the idea of financial rewards but they neither endorsed nor opposed the suggested source of funding. As the idea trickled through the membership, it quickly lost steam.

Philosophically sound

For the most part, the problems were practical. The most obvious hindrance was that revenues for the remaining years of the contract were known in advance and, quite frankly, already spent.

“Most major conferences have done long-term forecasting of distributions based on assumptions such as the average number of units earned,” said Conference USA Commissioner Britton Banowsky, who also is a member of the CAP. “So drawing dollars from the contract is a political challenge, particularly if it involves taking from the middle of the membership. That political reality is something we have to address and ultimately ask ourselves how important such incentives are.”

Banowsky hits on the primary philosophical debate: Should the NCAA essentially pay institutions for what they’re supposed to be doing anyway?

Banowsky, who in his position is prompted to see the issue from both sides, says he understands how some might suggest that the NCAA shouldn’t reward schools for doing what is expected of them. “But most people appreciate the need for some positive reinforcement of academic achievement, particularly given the current emphasis on winning,” he said. “In talking about NCAA values, like it or not, the system has been built on rewarding competitive success. Historically, our competitive assets like access to postseason and resources have consistently been aligned with winning.”

Part of the idea behind reform, Banowsky said, is to realign some of those assets so that those who perform well academically are rewarded, and those who under-perform consistently are penalized.

“As is often the case, though,” he said, “the practical issues become the most difficult to resolve, such as sources of funds and methods of distribution. Philosophically, at the CAP and Board level at least, members can get there on the notion that we should be rewarding in a meaningful way the quality academic achievement.”

CAP Chair Harrison said there is precedent for that, too. NCAA schools, he said, pay many people who are involved with supporting students to increase academic performance and graduation rates. “We certainly do that with deans, academic advisors and other kinds of support services,” Harrison said. “I don’t have a problem with providing rewards for people to do their jobs well. That’s what universities ought to be doing.”

But when philosophy meets reality, sparks fly. Harrison said most presidents wouldn’t balk at the notion of monetary incentives for helping students achieve academic success — as long as the dollars are new.

“It’s Association politics, pure and complicated,” he said. “We’ve proposed taking money from the increases in the contract, and that seemed to be the easiest way to do it because it was coming from funds currently not being budgeted. But from some people’s point of view, if you’ve projected increases based on those dollars, it may not be money you’re losing, but it is money you were planning on getting.”

Turner explained the resistance as not only a budgetary matter, but also a matter of how the dollars do the most good.

The intent of the current financial distribution model, he said, is to support programs across the board. Access to those dollars helps schools administer competitive programs and provide opportunities in all sports. “While noble in intent, it doesn’t seem to be consistent and fair to reduce someone’s revenues that they are using to run a really good program to reward a few that are doing an exceptional job academically,” he said. “I’m not troubled by rewarding people for academic achievement financially or otherwise, but the practical question is, ‘Where do you get the money?’ ”

If the answer is that there is no budget excess from which to fund an academic incentives program and there is no interest in reallocating current distributions, then do those factors affect Division I’s desire to reward or encourage academic success in the first place?

University of Connecticut President and Board of Directors Chair Phil Austin said it’s a conundrum that needs broader discussion.

“Division I needs to have a protracted discussion and hope that some consensus emerges that will take into account these very legitimate feelings of both support for the concept of funding rewards and concern over the source of funding,” he said.

Only public scrutiny for now

It’s a discussion that may last several months. The Board may not even talk about incentives again until August since the presidents are preoccupied with implementing the remaining details from the disincentives side of reform — in particular, the historically based penalty phase. They seem comfortable, at least for now, with the public-recognition component as the lone incentive. But the budget for even that is unclear since the presidents asked staff to explore funding assistance from NCAA corporate partners to boost publicity efforts for subsequent APR achievement announcements.

In other words, the public-recognition component benefited from the fact that it didn’t require any dollars to launch.

Turner, though, emphasized that the public ranking may be more effective than people might think. He said as horrified as institutions are about appearing on the penalty list, there will be a reciprocal amount of joy over the public spotlight shining on academic achievement.

“Don’t forget that there is significant value in being recognized publicly for strong academic achievement, just as there is a huge penalty for being recognized publicly for under-performance,” Turner said. “From an institutional standpoint, a lot of positives result from being recognized at a high level. Schools use that to attract faculty, to recruit student-athletes and to underscore a positive image for the school.”

If there was a significant award presented based on academic achievement, Turner would make it “front and center” at Washington, he said, “because it is consistent with what the institution is trying to achieve.”

Conference USA’s Banowsky said that ultimately, presidents are responsible for setting the direction of the NCAA, and they will have to determine whether additional incentives should come with dollar signs attached.

“The whole conversation is that we have to find the dollars in the system, but there’s currently not a budget surplus,” Banowsky said. “Frankly, most people feel we need to do more, but we struggle to get there with funding.”

Proposed rewards structure

The Division I Committee on Academic Performance submitted the following rewards and incentives package to the Board of Directors in October. CAP members proposed allocating $10 million to the program, including direct financial payments to academically achieving programs. The Board in January approved the public-recognition component but has yet to deliberate further about possible payouts or other programs.

Awards for absolute academic performance

Public recognition program

• Top 10 percent of teams in each sport based on Academic Progress Rate (including ties at 1000) honored. 

Rewards for team achievement

• Awards for top academic achievement, based on team performance.

Awards for academic improvement

• Awards for top academic improvement, based on team performance.

Academic support partnerships and need-based institutional grants

Academic improvement grants

• Provide assistance to penalized institutions that show a steady improvement of team APRs and can demonstrate a financial need (for example, because of limited financial resources).
• Matching-grant program that requires commitment of institutional funding.

Academic support partnerships

• Programs focused on providing academic support for historically under-performing student-athlete populations, and assisting institutional personnel in their implementation of academic policies and procedures.