The Division I Committee on Academic Performance is asking for more data on transfers from two-year institutions in order to set future standards that improve academic performance for those individuals.

At its October 27-28 meeting in Indianapolis, the committee identified the type of information it would want to collect as part of the annual Academic Performance Census.

Those items include:

• Total number of credits earned at the two-year college

• Total number of math, science, English and physical education credits earned at the two-year college and the number that transferred to the four-year institution

• Total number of remedial credits a student-athlete is required to take at the four-year college.

• Total number of transferrable credit hours applicable to the student-athlete’s degree

• Overall grade-point average at the two-year college

• Grade-point average in transferrable courses that apply to the student-athlete’s degree program

• Number of two-year institutions attended

• Whether the student-athlete earned an associate’s degree

• Number of seasons of competition used at the two-year college(s)

• Total number of terms of full-time enrollment after earning an associate’s degree

• Total number of nontraditional courses earned immediately prior to transfer

The CAP will ask the membership, particularly groups that have discussed the 2-4 transfer issue such as the working groups for football and men’s basketball, for feedback about whether those items will garner the appropriate information on which to base future policy decisions. The group will finalize the list of data items at an upcoming meeting.

While CAP members recognize that the additional data could pose a burden on some institutions, they believe the benefits of having the data – being able to identify a successful two-year transfer and create policies to encourage two-year transfers that fit the successful academic profile – are worth the effort.

Academic enhancement groups in baseball, football and men’s basketball are among those in the governance structure that already have lamented a dearth of data concerning two-year transfers. The Academic Cabinet, which made the issue of 2-4 transfers one of its top priorities, also believes these data will assist in deliberations about core-course requirements for 2-4 transfers and the idea of an academic year in residence. At its meeting last month, the cabinet recommended that CAP collect 2-4 transfer data as part of the APR collection process.

In other business, the CAP discussed a recommendation from a Board of Directors subcommittee created to examine the concept of an Academic Progress Rate for head coaches. The Board subcommittee wanted to attach head coaches to their team’s APR report, noting the team’s APR for each year a head coach is employed.

Committee members supported the Board’s interest in greater APR transparency and wanted additional time to finalize a recommendation. CAP members want to more fully explore whether the report should include references to others on campus in addition to the head coach (for example, academic staff, athletics director or even the president). The group also wants to hear more from the Board about the goals of the initiative, including whether the primary objective is to provide information that may help campus administrators in the hiring process.

The CAP will continue to discuss the concept, seeking feedback from coaching associations and other groups, as well as exploring if there is better data available to help officials make hiring decisions or gauge the academic commitment of a coach.

CAP members also talked about how student-athletes who graduate with eligibility remaining should figure in the APR calculation. While graduation is considered the ultimate goal, which would support an argument that graduates should not be included in the APR cohort, some committee members also think that even graduated student-athletes, if they are still competing for an institution, should be academically engaged.

The group discussed several methods of changing the way graduates are treated in the APR, including removing them from the cohort completely and awarding a bonus point for graduation. The group examined data showing the impact those methods would have on the overall APR and its relationship to the Graduation Success Rate.

Though the CAP decided not to change its policy of including graduates with eligibility remaining in the APR cohort, members agreed the issue merits additional discussion as more data become available.