National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
CAP considers giving APR adjustments for transfers
Group reviews data revealing transfer’s impact on student-athlete graduation
Group reviews data revealing transfer’s impact on student-athlete graduation
|
By Michelle Brutlag Hosick
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
PORTLAND, Oregon — The Division I Committee on Academic Performance is considering permitting institutions to seek adjustments to the Academic Progress Rate for transfer student-athletes who achieve a specific grade-point average before transferring. The committee met July 9-10 in Portland, Oregon.
While no final decisions were made, committee members acknowledged that sometimes coaches and institutions have little control over whether a student-athlete transfers. At the same time, research shows student-athletes who transfer, regardless of the reason, are less likely to graduate, and those who do graduate take longer to do so.
In continuing the discussion, the committee members reviewed more data about the impact transferring has on student-athletes and the characteristics of student-athletes who transfer, including grade-point average. The committee also looked at what providing flexibility within APR adjustments for specific transfer student-athletes would do to the distribution of APRs.
The committee did not set a specific GPA benchmark, but most members agreed it should be set so that the likelihood of graduation is at least as high for the transfer student-athlete as for non-transfers. If the concept were to be approved, transfer student-athletes meeting the criteria would be treated similarly in the APR formula to student-athletes who depart for careers in professional athletics. That is, for each transferring student-athlete meeting the standard, the team would receive one eligibility point and the retention portion of the equation would be washed away. Essentially, the transfer-student-athlete who fulfills the to-be-determined criteria would become a “1-for-1” instead of a “1-for-2.”
The committee will discuss the concept further at its meeting in October.
The group also discussed the role of the APR Improvement Plan in a team’s progress toward raising its rate, and revised the guidelines for teams whose APR falls below 925. Teams below 900 — and teams submitting waivers, applying for Supplement Support Funds or subject to the data-review process — must submit APR Improvement Plans that include specific APR goals for the immediate year and each subsequent year until the team’s multi-year APR reaches 925. Institutions will be contacted this fall with instructions regarding the process for reporting plans to the national office.
The institution must set realistic goals for APR improvement. For example, predicting that a team with a multi-year APR of 850 will achieve a single year APR of 1,000 each year is not practical. However, the committee expects an institution to set logical improvement goals, in keeping with its characteristics and resources, which will help a team reach the 925 benchmark in a reasonable amount of time.
Also, the goals must demonstrate improvement in the areas in which a team needs the most work. For example, if the team has more significant problems with retention than eligibility, the plan must set forth an outline for improving retention as well as the overall APR. The goals submitted by institutions as part of the APR Improvement Plan may be used in the waiver process.
Continuing with the improvement theme, the committee directed the appeals subcommittee to work with the staff to continue to consider institutional resources when considering waivers for historically based penalties through a more precise model. The committee examined a model that divides Division I institutions into different categories depending on characteristics such as average per capita institutional expenditures, per capita athletics expenditures and per capital Pell Grant expenditures for the campus. Each category looks at a standard of improvement used to analyze historically based penalty waivers.
The committee decided to approach the waiver process that way because members believe that an institution’s resources significantly affect the level of improvement that is realistic.
Members also began preliminary discussions about allowing student-athletes to complete a year of “academic readiness” at an NCAA institution. The model would permit first-year student-athletes to complete remedial coursework while receiving aid and practicing with their team but before becoming eligible for competition.
Permitting the year of academic readiness would allow student-athletes who are ill-prepared for whatever reasons for the rigors of collegiate academics an opportunity to adjust to college life and become engaged as a student, without the full complement of demands experienced by a student-athlete who is eligible for competition.
The idea emanated from conversations with the National Association of Basketball Coaches earlier this year and will be more fully explored by the Men’s Basketball Academic Enhancement Working Group, which is scheduled to begin meeting next month. The group is expected to discuss a number of issues raised by CAP, including whether the student-athletes would count against a team’s scholarship limit and when the five-year clock would start.
The committee also slightly altered how it calculates improvement as a factor in determining historically based penalties. The committee decided to allow more flexibility in determining whether a team has truly improved or if the increase in a team’s APR was more likely a chance occurrence. The change will result in a greater number of teams meeting the improvement criteria.
July 10-11/Portland, Oregon
While no final decisions were made, committee members acknowledged that sometimes coaches and institutions have little control over whether a student-athlete transfers. At the same time, research shows student-athletes who transfer, regardless of the reason, are less likely to graduate, and those who do graduate take longer to do so.
In continuing the discussion, the committee members reviewed more data about the impact transferring has on student-athletes and the characteristics of student-athletes who transfer, including grade-point average. The committee also looked at what providing flexibility within APR adjustments for specific transfer student-athletes would do to the distribution of APRs.
The committee did not set a specific GPA benchmark, but most members agreed it should be set so that the likelihood of graduation is at least as high for the transfer student-athlete as for non-transfers. If the concept were to be approved, transfer student-athletes meeting the criteria would be treated similarly in the APR formula to student-athletes who depart for careers in professional athletics. That is, for each transferring student-athlete meeting the standard, the team would receive one eligibility point and the retention portion of the equation would be washed away. Essentially, the transfer-student-athlete who fulfills the to-be-determined criteria would become a “1-for-1” instead of a “1-for-2.”
The committee will discuss the concept further at its meeting in October.
The group also discussed the role of the APR Improvement Plan in a team’s progress toward raising its rate, and revised the guidelines for teams whose APR falls below 925. Teams below 900 — and teams submitting waivers, applying for Supplement Support Funds or subject to the data-review process — must submit APR Improvement Plans that include specific APR goals for the immediate year and each subsequent year until the team’s multi-year APR reaches 925. Institutions will be contacted this fall with instructions regarding the process for reporting plans to the national office.
The institution must set realistic goals for APR improvement. For example, predicting that a team with a multi-year APR of 850 will achieve a single year APR of 1,000 each year is not practical. However, the committee expects an institution to set logical improvement goals, in keeping with its characteristics and resources, which will help a team reach the 925 benchmark in a reasonable amount of time.
Also, the goals must demonstrate improvement in the areas in which a team needs the most work. For example, if the team has more significant problems with retention than eligibility, the plan must set forth an outline for improving retention as well as the overall APR. The goals submitted by institutions as part of the APR Improvement Plan may be used in the waiver process.
Continuing with the improvement theme, the committee directed the appeals subcommittee to work with the staff to continue to consider institutional resources when considering waivers for historically based penalties through a more precise model. The committee examined a model that divides Division I institutions into different categories depending on characteristics such as average per capita institutional expenditures, per capita athletics expenditures and per capital Pell Grant expenditures for the campus. Each category looks at a standard of improvement used to analyze historically based penalty waivers.
The committee decided to approach the waiver process that way because members believe that an institution’s resources significantly affect the level of improvement that is realistic.
Members also began preliminary discussions about allowing student-athletes to complete a year of “academic readiness” at an NCAA institution. The model would permit first-year student-athletes to complete remedial coursework while receiving aid and practicing with their team but before becoming eligible for competition.
Permitting the year of academic readiness would allow student-athletes who are ill-prepared for whatever reasons for the rigors of collegiate academics an opportunity to adjust to college life and become engaged as a student, without the full complement of demands experienced by a student-athlete who is eligible for competition.
The idea emanated from conversations with the National Association of Basketball Coaches earlier this year and will be more fully explored by the Men’s Basketball Academic Enhancement Working Group, which is scheduled to begin meeting next month. The group is expected to discuss a number of issues raised by CAP, including whether the student-athletes would count against a team’s scholarship limit and when the five-year clock would start.
The committee also slightly altered how it calculates improvement as a factor in determining historically based penalties. The committee decided to allow more flexibility in determining whether a team has truly improved or if the increase in a team’s APR was more likely a chance occurrence. The change will result in a greater number of teams meeting the improvement criteria.
Other highlights
Committee on Academic PerformanceJuly 10-11/Portland, Oregon
- Responded to a Division I Board of Directors request that the committee develop Academic Performance Plan penalties specific to baseball teams who earn a four-year APR under 900. Among the penalties under consideration is a more stringent playing and practice season reduction than teams in other sports face. In response, the committee appointed an ad hoc group that will report back to the full committee in October.
- Reviewed data on the demographics and trends of “0-for-2” student-athletes — those who left an institution while ineligible — over the three years of APR data now available. The data show that “0-for-2” student-athletes have decreased over the first three years of the program, most notably in baseball and football.
- Heard an update on the progress of proposed revisions to the Division I governance structure, including the concept that CAP be eliminated once all penalties and rewards are developed. CAP members recommended the committee remain intact through the implementation and evaluation of the penalties (four to five years) and then be gradually phased out and its responsibilities assumed by the Academics Cabinet. The committee also recommended that CAP continue to report to the Board.
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy