The Division I Committee on Academic Performance continued to ponder the benefits of creating an adjustment in the Academic Progress Rate for transfer student-athletes at its October 30 meeting in Indianapolis.

The group did not come to a decision on the appropriate way to allow for transfer student-athletes in the APR calculations but will continue to discuss the issue at its January meeting.

CAP is considering changing the calculation for transfer student-athletes who meet specific academic criteria such as minimum grade-point average or credit hours earned, as well as subsequent enrollment in a four-year institution as a full-time student.

To receive retention relief, the committee believes a transfer student-athlete should have a similar likelihood of earning a degree as a student-athlete who remained on the same campus throughout enrollment. CAP also believes that transfer student-athletes should be academically eligible at the time of transfer from their first institution for that squad to receive any relief, which also would include fulfillment of progress-toward-degree requirements.

To assist their discussion, committee members reviewed data on Division I transfers, including information from the SCORE study that points to transfers being less likely to graduate and, for those that do earn a degree, taking longer to do so.

Data also show that 13 percent of student-athletes in Division I transferred into their current school. That figure rises to more than 25 percent for baseball and men’s basketball student-athletes. Most of baseball, men’s and women’s basketball and football transfer student-athletes come from two-year colleges.

In the most recent APR collection year, nearly 10 percent of student-athletes who transferred from a two-year college (and 5 percent who transferred from a four-year college) failed in that academic year as compared to less than 3 percent among non-transfers. Statistical analyses indicate that the failure rates of two-year and four-year transfers are higher than expected from the academic qualifications and demographics of those students.

On a by-sport basis, 19.3 percent of football student-athletes with exhausted eligibility who transferred from two-year institutions earned neither the eligibility nor retention point in their last academic term. Four-year institution transfers who exhausted their eligibility failed at a rate of 19.6 percent. Figures for men’s basketball student-athletes are 18.7 percent and 12.6 percent, respectively.

Those figures show that once a transfer student-athlete is no longer eligible for competition, many tend to disengage academically. For non-transfer student-athletes in football and men’s basketball, less than 10 percent fail out of school after exhausting their athletics eligibility. Those figures primarily describe students who were not subject to the current Division I progress-toward-degree standards.

The committee does not want to unfairly penalize teams for student-athletes who transfer for appropriate reasons, many of which may not be related to athletics. Rather, CAP wants to create an accurate tool that accounts for transfers and can predict graduation with an acceptable amount of accuracy — and still be simple to explain. The committee will continue discussion of the issue, with possible recommendations after its January meeting just before the NCAA Convention.

In other business, the committee approved a policy change to increase penalties for baseball teams that reach their second year of historically based penalties. In addition to the current penalty structure for all teams in their second year of historically based penalties (financial aid penalties and reduction in practice time), baseball teams will be subjected to a shorter playing season and fewer contests.

The severity of the reductions will depend on whether the team passes an improvement review. Teams that do meet the improvement criteria will incur a 5 percent reduction (seven days from the playing season and three games). Teams that fail to meet the improvement review will incur reductions of 13 days and six contests (10 percent).

The Division I Baseball Academic Enhancement Working Group recommended the increased penalties, which are expected to be taken at the same time as the other historically based penalties. Teams will first be subject to the increased penalties in the 2009-10 season, with notification occurring in the 2008-09 season. However, because the penalties are associated with a second year of historically based penalties, institutions are expected to have fair warning that they could be subject to the increased consequences.

The committee also discussed several legislative proposals within its purview. Members decided to support two proposals that the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet didn’t, including one that would allow recruited baseball student-athletes who do not receive financial aid to use the one-time transfer exception. CAP members believe the proposal could help some student-athletes in that category remain in school and involved in athletics. They believe the year in residence (as prescribed by legislation effective August 1, 2008) could discourage the student-athlete from both goals.

Additionally, CAP supported a proposal that would allow institutions to award aid for less than one year to noncounters who have either exhausted eligibility or suffered an injury or illness. The committee proposed an amendment that provides an incentive for the student-athlete by making the second term of aid conditional on meeting stated objectives in the first term. Under the proposed amendment, the student-athlete would be able to appeal any decision to not renew aid for the second term.

The Management Council will consider the amendment at its January meeting.

Other highlights
Committee on Academic Performance
October 30/Indianapolis

Received an update on the issue of incentives for women’s basketball teams that perform well academically. The Women’s Basketball Issues Committee began discussing the issue, with a focus on more coach access to student-athletes in the summer, earlier this year. The group is still considering options, including what level of academic success a team would have to reach before incentives take effect and what type of summer access would be appropriate. CAP hopes to hear specific recommendations by its July meeting.

Noted that the wrestling community is beginning to study academic issues, including a high number of student-athletes who earn neither the eligibility nor retention point in their first year in the cohort. The group is likely to meet again in December, and CAP will be kept apprised of its progress.

NCAA President Myles Brand reminded the group that this is a critical year for academic reform, particularly with the elimination of the squad-size adjustment. He said the Board of Directors remains committed to the goals of academic reform and that he believes genuine progress is being made.