National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Academic panel adjusts postseason eligibility issue
|
By Michelle Hosick
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
The Division I Committee on Academic Performance recommended that the Board of Directors sponsor legislation to eliminate the bylaw that allows student-athletes from institutions that are banned from participating in team championships to participate in individual championships.
The CAP met April 23-24 in Indianapolis.
The Board of Directors agreed to sponsor the legislation at its April 26 meeting (see story, page 1). The measure will enter the 2007-08 legislative cycle. The Management Council requested that CAP review the legislation after several members expressed concern about the rule during that group’s January meeting. The Council will have the opportunity to vote on the measure at its January meeting.
Elimination of the bylaw would prevent student-athletes on ineligible teams taking away point opportunities at individually scored championships from student-athletes on eligible teams. Some committee members believed that allowing individuals from ineligible teams to compete at championships sent a contradictory message, though others sympathized with student-athletes who had met their obligations athletically and academically but would be unable to compete due to the behavior of teammates — or student-athletes who were no longer with the team.
In the third phase of the Academic Performance Program’s historically based penalties, teams with Academic Progress Rates below 900 could be subject to postseason competition restrictions. Committee members said they believed penalties are incurred as a team, and that excluding all members of an ineligible team — despite individual academic performance — was the fairest solution.
Allowing participation for individuals from an ineligible team could potentially change the overall outcome of a team championship because of the way individual performances are scored. In some situations, individuals from ineligible teams could take points away from individuals from eligible teams who could have pushed a team over another in point totals. According to members of the NCAA championships staff, a similar situation occurred in a 2006 championship and scoring was disrupted. That situation was the result of an infractions penalty.
Additionally, championships have participant caps, and allowing participation for individuals from ineligible teams also would eliminate from contention participation of individuals from eligible teams.
Initial data show that few teams that have individual competition at championships would be subject to the postseason competition restriction. Additionally, the postseason competition restriction does not take effect until the third phase of historically based penalties, so most student-athletes will know well in advance of the possibility that their championships participation is in jeopardy.
The bylaw was part of the initial legislative package that came from the original working group that pre-dated CAP, though members of that group who also are CAP members recalled that there was no true consensus on the item at that time.
Discussion of transfer data
In other business, CAP members discussed initial research on the impact transfer student-athletes have on the APR. Data show that most models that tinker with the APR to give some sort of “credit” for transfer student-athletes would lessen the rate’s ability to predict graduation.
Since graduating more student-athletes is the end goal of academic reform, CAP members hesitated to recommend any changes that would considerably alter the predictive ability of the APR without additional study and review.
The metric was designed to provide a real-time snapshot of term-by-term academic progress toward graduation. Research shows that transfer students are less likely to graduate than other students, and when they do graduate, they tend to take longer than students who remain at a single institution for their entire collegiate careers.
Data also show that the sports with the largest percentages of transfer students to the institution are those with the lowest APRs — men’s basketball, baseball and football. In men’s basketball and baseball, many of those transfer students are coming from two-year colleges. Additionally, squads that have the lowest APRs generally have eligibility problems and would not necessarily benefit from a change in the retention portion of the metric.
Additionally, research suggests that a rate that allows credit for transfer student-athletes who leave an institution while eligible would actually increase the number of penalties in addition to being less predictive of eventual graduation. Also, the APR benchmarks of 900 for historically based penalties and 925 for more immediate sanctions would need to be adjusted based on the results of the new metric.
In other discussion, CAP members warned that many coaches and athletics administrators will be astonished when the squad-size adjustment is eliminated for most squads with the next year of APR data collection. The total number of penalties will increase dramatically, especially among squads in sports that are benefiting the most from the adjustment currently, such as men’s basketball.
NCAA staff outlined a clear plan for informing teams who were “saved” from penalties by the squad-size adjustment in the most recent data collection year, including mailings and phone calls to different institutional contacts. The information was also included with each team’s most recent APR report.
April 23-24/Indianapolis
The CAP met April 23-24 in Indianapolis.
The Board of Directors agreed to sponsor the legislation at its April 26 meeting (see story, page 1). The measure will enter the 2007-08 legislative cycle. The Management Council requested that CAP review the legislation after several members expressed concern about the rule during that group’s January meeting. The Council will have the opportunity to vote on the measure at its January meeting.
Elimination of the bylaw would prevent student-athletes on ineligible teams taking away point opportunities at individually scored championships from student-athletes on eligible teams. Some committee members believed that allowing individuals from ineligible teams to compete at championships sent a contradictory message, though others sympathized with student-athletes who had met their obligations athletically and academically but would be unable to compete due to the behavior of teammates — or student-athletes who were no longer with the team.
In the third phase of the Academic Performance Program’s historically based penalties, teams with Academic Progress Rates below 900 could be subject to postseason competition restrictions. Committee members said they believed penalties are incurred as a team, and that excluding all members of an ineligible team — despite individual academic performance — was the fairest solution.
Allowing participation for individuals from an ineligible team could potentially change the overall outcome of a team championship because of the way individual performances are scored. In some situations, individuals from ineligible teams could take points away from individuals from eligible teams who could have pushed a team over another in point totals. According to members of the NCAA championships staff, a similar situation occurred in a 2006 championship and scoring was disrupted. That situation was the result of an infractions penalty.
Additionally, championships have participant caps, and allowing participation for individuals from ineligible teams also would eliminate from contention participation of individuals from eligible teams.
Initial data show that few teams that have individual competition at championships would be subject to the postseason competition restriction. Additionally, the postseason competition restriction does not take effect until the third phase of historically based penalties, so most student-athletes will know well in advance of the possibility that their championships participation is in jeopardy.
The bylaw was part of the initial legislative package that came from the original working group that pre-dated CAP, though members of that group who also are CAP members recalled that there was no true consensus on the item at that time.
Discussion of transfer data
In other business, CAP members discussed initial research on the impact transfer student-athletes have on the APR. Data show that most models that tinker with the APR to give some sort of “credit” for transfer student-athletes would lessen the rate’s ability to predict graduation.
Since graduating more student-athletes is the end goal of academic reform, CAP members hesitated to recommend any changes that would considerably alter the predictive ability of the APR without additional study and review.
The metric was designed to provide a real-time snapshot of term-by-term academic progress toward graduation. Research shows that transfer students are less likely to graduate than other students, and when they do graduate, they tend to take longer than students who remain at a single institution for their entire collegiate careers.
Data also show that the sports with the largest percentages of transfer students to the institution are those with the lowest APRs — men’s basketball, baseball and football. In men’s basketball and baseball, many of those transfer students are coming from two-year colleges. Additionally, squads that have the lowest APRs generally have eligibility problems and would not necessarily benefit from a change in the retention portion of the metric.
Additionally, research suggests that a rate that allows credit for transfer student-athletes who leave an institution while eligible would actually increase the number of penalties in addition to being less predictive of eventual graduation. Also, the APR benchmarks of 900 for historically based penalties and 925 for more immediate sanctions would need to be adjusted based on the results of the new metric.
In other discussion, CAP members warned that many coaches and athletics administrators will be astonished when the squad-size adjustment is eliminated for most squads with the next year of APR data collection. The total number of penalties will increase dramatically, especially among squads in sports that are benefiting the most from the adjustment currently, such as men’s basketball.
NCAA staff outlined a clear plan for informing teams who were “saved” from penalties by the squad-size adjustment in the most recent data collection year, including mailings and phone calls to different institutional contacts. The information was also included with each team’s most recent APR report.
Other highlights
Committee on Academic PerformanceApril 23-24/Indianapolis
- Reviewed the latest APR data, which show a reduction in immediate penalties and improvement among baseball and football teams (see story, page 1).
- Discussed the recommendations of the Baseball Academic Enhancement Working Group, including the request to increase Academic Performance Program penalties for baseball teams failing to achieve four-year rates of 900. CAP members will resolve implementation issues during its July meeting, given the Board’s adoption of the additional APP penalties.
- Received an update on the APR data-review program and indicated a desire to expand the program to about 10 percent of all Division I schools each year. Such an increase would allow institutions to cycle through the process once every 10 years. The most recent data review included 14 institutions.
- Began preliminary discussions about the possibility of providing for athletics incentives such as increased access (for example, practice time) for academically high-performing teams.
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy