New NCAA research indicates that less than 1 percent of eligible student-athletes took advantage of a controversial new rule that is the subject of a Division I override vote at the January Convention.

Only 25 student-athletes who compete in one of the four sports not eligible for the one-time transfer exception and graduated with eligibility remaining continued to participate in athletics at an institution other than the one from which they graduated. Earlier this year, the Division I Board of Directors adopted Proposal No. 05-54, which allowed student-athletes who received their undergraduate degree to transfer to another institution for graduate work and be immediately eligible for financial aid, practice and competition, no matter the student-athletes’ prior transfer history.

The rule is designed to allow student-athletes to pursue their academic goals while continuing to compete.

The NCAA research staff evaluated use of the rule by surveying compliance coordinators at all Division I schools. Of the 326 active Division I members, 301 responded.

Eighty-four institutions indicated that they had a total of 112 incoming graduate transfer student-athletes who would be competing in 2006-07. Of those, 25 compete in one of the four sports not eligible for the one-time transfer exception (men’s and women’s basketball, the Football Bowl Subdivision and men’s ice hockey). Student-athletes in those sports are the most significantly affected by the new rule.

The remaining student-athletes participate in sports in which they are eligible for the one-time transfer exception under specific conditions; however, the survey did not ask how many were certified for the 2006-07 academic year with that exception.

Academic Progress Rate data showed that 14,457 student-athletes graduated during the 2004-05 year and 4,830 of them had eligibility remaining at the time of their graduation and were thus eligible to take advantage of the new rule. Only 112 graduates transferred, and researchers acknowledge that figure is likely high because some football student-athletes would have been eligible to use the one-time transfer exception.

Pacific-10 Conference Commissioner Tom Hansen said the research supports keeping the new rule in place.

"The new rule is a good rule and it does offer a very unique subset of student-athletes an opportunity to pursue a degree beyond their bachelor’s degree and continue to compete," Hansen said. "Based on anecdotal reports and on the (new) data, it’s my feeling that there has not been any abuse and most of those student-athletes who have (taken advantage of the rule) were transferring for all the right academic reasons and not for athletics reasons."

Hansen acknowledged that a few student-athletes used the new rule to transfer for athletically related reasons, including a student-athlete who transferred from an institution in the Pacific-10 to a school in another conference because his father was the coach of a conference team.

Hansen said he doesn’t believe the "superior athletes" that many fear will create a "free agency" market among graduate student-athletes will choose to pursue graduate degrees to continue competing — they will most likely become professional athletes after graduation, he said.

"They’ve fulfilled their undergraduate mission; they’ve completed their undergraduate education," he said. "They ought to be free to go to graduate school where they wish."

However, National Association of Basketball Coaches Executive Director Jim Haney does see the possibility of student-athletes or their advisors shopping their remaining eligibility to different institutions after graduation if the rule stays. He said just because the data show few took advantage of the rule this year doesn’t mean more won’t in the future.

"It’s a new piece of legislation and it would require those who’d like to take advantage of it knowing that it exists and also planning for it," Haney said. "I would have been surprised if it had shown a higher frequency."

While Haney said the intent of the legislation — to allow student-athletes to pursue advanced degrees at an institution of their choice while continuing to compete — was admirable, the unintended consequences include an underground recruitment of the graduated student-athlete.

"We want kids to graduate, and it’s all wonderful, but I think we have to anticipate that the integrity of the game could be significantly marred," he said. "The purity is hard to debate, but the reality of what’s going to happen is factual. It will happen. The same people who took advantage of recruiting rules when these kids were prospective student-athletes (will take advantage of this rule)."

Grant Teaff, executive director of the American Football Coaches Association, said he didn’t think many coaches would change their minds about wanting the legislation overturned. The primary concern of coaches is the possibility of student-athletes who have grown, learned and developed under the tutelage of one coach could take that experience elsewhere when it begins to blossom. He also believes football coaches are concerned about the same type of recruiting atmosphere Haney describes.

However, he believes no one should be too upset about the outcome.

"Nothing is ever as good as it seems and nothing is ever as bad as it seems, it’s always somewhere in between," Teaff said.

During the override period, 46 member institutions requested an override of the legislation. The Board upheld the rule in August. Whether the new data will have an impact on the override vote remains to be seen.

"It’s something that each institution has to look at," said Kate Hickey, associate athletics director at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, and chair of the Division I Management Council.

Teaff said he has no idea what will happen.

"I don’t think you can predict what they’re going to do," he said.

The postgraduate proposal isn’t the only override vote on the table this year. The NCAA Football Championship Subdivision members of the Board in April defeated a measure to add a 12th regular-season game in football, which prompted an override request. The Football Bowl Subdivision adopted the 12th game last year.

The FCS members of the Board defeated the 12th-game proposal despite what was considered to be wide support at the committee and Management Council levels.

The override votes are scheduled at 2:30 p.m. January 6 during the legislative forum. A five-eighths majority of active members present and voting is required to override any legislation. These will be only the second and third override votes since Division I went to a representative structure in 1997. Delegates at the 2006 Convention in Indianapolis approved override votes on increasing scholarships in three women’s sports. An override attempt regarding women’s soccer scholarships was defeated.