After hearing from conferences concerned about a possible mandatory two-year summer school attendance requirement for incoming men’s basketball student-athletes, the group behind the proposal is thinking about changing its scope.

The Division I Men’s Basketball Academic Enhancement Group had spent the better part of two previous meetings considering a concept that would require prospective student-athletes to successfully complete three hours of summer school, along with learning and life-skills training and testing before the first semester, and then six hours during the summer between the freshman and sophomore years, as a way of ensuring proper academic progress toward graduation.

Several conferences, though, were troubled by the mandatory nature of the proposal, in part because of the costs associated with providing financial aid and housing for the additional terms and also because schools that already meet the academic benchmarks in the current reform structure would still be subject to the requirement. Some conferences considered such an imposition inappropriate.

In response, the BAEG, meeting December 3 in Chicago, said it would consider tailoring the summer school concept to entering student-athletes who were identified by institutions as being academically “at risk” (parameters of which would be defined by the school). Those student-athletes would be required to successfully complete three credit hours before the first fall term and complete learning and life-skills training. Then, any mandatory attendance in the subsequent summer term would be based on whether the individual met specified academic benchmarks during the first year. The BAEG also is considering whether a team’s Academic Progress Rate would have a bearing on summer school attendance for student-athletes.

BAEG Chair Dan Guerrero, director of athletics at UCLA, said the group’s “new direction” on the summer school proposal reflects the process members have employed from the start. “While the group has deliberated about a number of recommendations, the intent was always to be transparent about the process and listen to feedback from the membership,” he said. “The feedback on several items gave us the context to re-evaluate the original proposals. We felt there was merit in discussing them further and in some cases revising the approach to deal with the issue.

“There are schools that have met every standard that has been set by the NCAA relative to academic performance. As we contemplated those particular schools in those situations, it made sense for us to move in a new direction.”

Guerrero said the summer school concept still has merit, particularly since existing data show conclusively that all students who  attend summer school before the first year graduate at higher rates than those with similar academic profiles who don’t. “It makes sense for us to evaluate the population of men’s basketball players and determine whether the summer school approach should remain as a requirement for a significant portion of that group,” Guerrero said. “We will attempt to achieve a consensus on what ‘at-risk’ means, but if not, we will reach an adequate compromise that should satisfy most of those who have expressed concern with our preliminary conclusions.”

Other recommendations

In other action at the BAEG’s December 3 meeting, the group supported decreasing the maximum number of games by one to 28 regular-season games (or 26 regular-season games and one qualifying multiple-team event).

BAEG members also are considering a gradated on-court practice schedule in the fall, beginning with restricted sessions October 1 and increasing to the current 20-hour-per-week maximum by October 15 (the current start date). Guerrero emphasized the progression as necessary to acclimate student-athletes into the basketball season, and that the measure does not add any hours of athletically related activities to the overall schedule.

The group also continued to discuss the concept of a “year of readiness” for entering men’s basketball student-athletes who may satisfy NCAA initial-eligibility standards but do not satisfy institutional admissions standards and are not predicted to succeed academically and graduate in a timely manner. Those student-athletes would be eligible for financial aid and be allowed to practice at home during the year of readiness, but BAEG members noted that some recruiting-equity concerns could be raised if national standards are not established to determine those student-athletes who would be subject to the year of readiness.

The group directed the staff to continue to gather data for review at the BAEG’s next meeting to help examine potential standards as well as the composition of any impacted cohort.

The group also continued to discuss the year-of-readiness concept for two- year college transfer student-athletes. The discussion related to whether both qualifiers and nonqualifiers should be subject to the year of readiness and what requirements should be satisfied while in attendance at the two-year college to be eligible immediately on transfer to a Division I school. The BAEG requested additional data regarding how many two-year college transfers are nonqualifiers and how such individuals  are performing academically at Division I institutions.

The BAEG, which will conduct at least one more in-person meeting, is expected to complete its work by the end of the academic year. Members will forward recommendations to the Division I Board of Directors for consideration at the Board’s August or October 2009 meetings, and legislative items will be included in the 2009-10 cycle. Both the Academics Cabinet and the Committee on Academic Performance will have roles in considering data and the BAEG recommendations as well.

The group had hoped for an earlier conclusion, but Guerrero said the breadth of review and the complexity of the issues have caused members to take a more patient approach.

“It’s no surprise that this has been a complicated project because we’re dealing with complex issues. The fact that we’re past the calendar year and into 2009 is indicative of that,” Guerrero said. “In the end, no matter what is done, it would be highly unusual to have consensus from all stakeholders on every detail. I feel confident that we are on good footing, that we’ve laid a good foundation for a set of recommendations that will be substantive and meaningful – and that they will have received considerable deliberation by all the individuals on the committee.”