The Division I Men’s Basketball Academic Enhancement Group will get down to brass tacks this Friday when members begin prioritizing recommendations generated in previous sessions.

At its third in-person meeting April 25, the basketball group – a committee of presidents, coaches and administrators formed last year to identify factors that affect the sport’s standing at the low end of the APR – will begin whittling a working document from its five subcommittees into a final report. The purpose will be to consider differing views within the committee, find consensus to the extent possible and then begin to build a sequence of recommendations to influence positive change.

Members also will hear preliminary feedback from the National Association of Basketball Coaches, which reviewed some of the group’s proposals during the NABC convention last month.

The five subcommittees the group appointed have been reviewing academic preparation and support; coach/player relationships; playing and practice seasons; transfer issues; and the “0-for-2” phenomenon as it applies to the APR. In addition to the two in-person meetings for the full committee (the most recent of which was in January), the subcommittees have convened via conference calls throughout the last eight months – some met in person at the Men’s Final Four.

Concepts raised so far have ranged from an “academic year in readiness” to alternative progress-toward-degree requirements to significant changes in the playing and practice season. Among the ideas that appear to have the most momentum are those dealing with the summer environment.

One suggestion resembles the “summer bridge” model many Division I schools already offer, but is much more targeted toward academic outcomes. It would require institutions to offer financial aid for the summer term, and then require the student-athlete to pass six hours for fall-term eligibility. In exchange, the new model would afford more access from coach to student-athlete and allow some limited athletically related activities – eight hours per week (over eight weeks), with no more than two devoted to skill-related instruction. In other words, enrollment in the summer term would trigger access for the coach, and successful completion of the six hours would trigger eligibility for the student-athlete.

The idea would be to require all incoming players (and transfers from two-year colleges) to complete the summer structure for their first two years. Transfers from a four-year school would be required to participate in the structure for one summer, even if they had completed two summers at the previous institution.

The proposal also would require a life-skills component, which could be among the six credit hours, depending on how the life-skills course was structured.

At the back end of the model, institutions would not be permitted to conduct required athletics activities after the playing season has ended during the academic year.

The idea was among several that the subcommittees identified regarding the summer – more than one subcommittee in fact identified the summer as an area ripe for changes that could benefit academic performance.

UCLA Athletics Director Dan Guerrero chairs the group. He was a member of a similar panel for baseball two years ago.