The Division I Basketball Academic Enhancement Group has reaffirmed its support for a mandatory summer-school plan for incoming freshmen that makes member institutions responsible for assessing those players’ academic preparedness and for properly acclimating them into the campus educational climate.

Prospects identified through the assessment as needing an academic head start must enroll in six credit hours in the summer session and pass three to be eligible for the fall. Those student-athletes, as well as other players who opt for classes in the summer even if they are making sufficient academic progress, may participate in up to eight hours per week in athletically related activities, including two in skill instruction.

The BAEG developed the model over the past year and approved it in April. The group revisited the concept during July 16 and 20 conference calls to hear feedback from group members who had presented the plan at spring conference meetings. That final call for input aligned with the group’s promise to be as transparent as possible in its effort to achieve better academic outcomes for Division I men’s basketball student-athletes.

The summer-school plan is the BAEG’s most significant – and perhaps most controversial – recommendation in its final report, which will go to the Division I Board of Directors on August 6. The plan has been questioned for being mandatory and for its potential to upset competitive equity because some institutions may have more resources to fund summer sessions than others.

The BAEG did consider whether to recommend the plan as a recommended practice rather than a requirement (as a way of protecting institutional autonomy, in addition to mitigating the cost concerns), but members rejected the notion.

Many like the accountability that comes with requiring institutions to follow through on their academic assessment of prospects. If the review reveals that students would be subject to academic challenges without the summer head start, then BAEG members say the school is obligated to put those students in a position to succeed academically.

Others cite NCAA data that reveal a greater likelihood of academic success for students who participate in the so-called “summer-bridge” programs.

Mostly, though, members want to stick with the mandatory element not just because they think it’s right but also because it’s the best procedural approach.

Since the plan is likely to be developed as a legislative proposal, it will be formally vetted by the membership, as has been promised all along. BAEG members acknowledge that the mandatory element of the program could be voted down, but they believe it’s best to at least start with consideration of a requirement rather than a recommendation.

“It also sends the message that this is how strongly our group feels that this program will benefit student-athletes who otherwise might become academic casualties,” said BAEG Chair and UCLA Athletics Director Dan Guerrero. “Many schools already apply a similar approach for their incoming freshmen, and the data show the desired results.”

Coach/player relationships

The other element of the summer-school plan that has been attacked is the “trade-off” of summer school for the ability to participate in structured athletics activities. Some stakeholders, particularly faculty members, are concerned that coaches could emphasize court-work over coursework.

Interestingly, though, some early critics of the proposal now appear to believe that the coach may in fact be the factor that keeps the student-athlete on campus in the summer. In other words, if the player isn’t in summer school and can’t access the coach (because of NCAA restrictions), then the player is likely to be with a traveling team or exposed to greater influence from people who probably don’t have the player’s academic interests in mind.

“A few critics of the ‘access’ component during the summer don’t understand today’s culture regarding men’s basketball,” Guerrero said. “And they also don’t understand that the vast majority of coaches are in this business in the first place because they’re interested in helping young people get an education and be positioned to live better lives. We believe this plan allows the coach to develop the kind of relationship that will have a positive influence on these young men.”

Faculty members on the BAEG, however, maintain that the athletics activities associated with the summer plan will get the most pushback as the proposal makes its way through the governance structure. They urge coaches to counter the criticism.

“It’s incumbent on all of us, but more so on coaches, to get people to understand the intent of this plan from an educational perspective,” Guerrero said. “Having players succeed academically is in the coach’s best interests, and keeping those players on campus in the summer is an approach that our data support – and which stakeholders should appreciate. There’s nothing underhanded or covert about this proposal.”

Other recommendations

Among other recommendations in the plan the Board will receive August 6 is an ongoing discussion about an academic “year in readiness” for two-year transfers – a cohort that typically underperforms academically.

The BAEG referred this issue to the Division I Committee on Academic Performance and the Division I Academics Cabinet for further study once more data on the two-year cohort become available. While some group members and other constituents assume a year in readiness would help, they don’t want to recommend a change without data to support it.

The group also is recommending a revised playing-and-practice-season model that reduces the number of regular-season games to 28 (or 26 plus a multiple-team event) and provides a “staggered” schedule for the start of team practice beginning October 1 (four of the eight allowable hours devoted to practice the first week, eight of 12 the second week and then regular practices with the current 20-hour week beginning October 15).

While the Board of Directors has the authority to act immediately on any of the recommendations at its August 6 meeting, the presidents likely will accept the report and charge staff with drafting legislative recommendations that will be reviewed at the Board’s October meeting and then placed into the current 2009-10 legislative cycle.