This is the second in a two-part NCAA News series examining the use of nontraditional coursework to meet NCAA eligibility requirements. Today’s installment explains the reasons that legislation proposed in 2008-09 failed and what the governance structure will examine in the future. Earlier this week, the News explained the current rules governing nontraditional coursework.

The Division I Academic Cabinet will continue to work toward updating legislation to modify the use of nontraditional coursework to meet eligibility requirements, attempting to overcome some of the roadblocks the concept faced in the 2008-09 legislative cycle.

Carolyn Callahan, chair of the Academic Cabinet, said the issue is important for two reasons:

• The growth of online and other nontraditional courses in the current economic and technological climate is accelerating, and
• Outdated legislation creates the potential for abuse in an area where such courses may not be legitimately applied for graduation or where there could be students who represent a college or university in athletics competition but never step foot on the campus for a class.

Several proposals addressing the use of nontraditional courses to meet eligibility requirements were defeated by the Legislative Council in the 2008-09 cycle. A proposal modifying the use of nontraditional coursework to meet initial-eligibility requirements will receive consideration at the 2010 Convention next month.

Council chair Joseph D’Antonio visited with the cabinet this fall to talk about some of the issues his group identified with last year’s proposals and to encourage development of new ones.

D’Antonio identified a desire to maintain institutional autonomy over academic offerings as one of the stumbling blocks faced by the proposals last year; however, current rules don’t prohibit student-athletes from taking their academic coursework in many nontraditional ways.

“When we looked at the proposals, especially the alternative proposals last year where we started getting into some of the hybrid models (which allowed student-athletes to meet up to 50 percent of the respective eligibility requirements using coursework taken in a nontraditional manner). If that rule had passed, it would have gone against current institutional policies,” D’Antonio said.

Callahan agreed that institutional autonomy was important to preserve, but she said the proposals in 2008-09 allowed institutions the ability to adopt many of their own policies and still remain within the rule. She said the cabinet will continue to work on those concepts.

“Institutional autonomy has to be respected up to the point where that autonomy represents a threat to the integrity of the athletics programs,” Callahan said. “The legislation that was proposed still allows for considerable institutional autonomy, and we will examine it further to ensure that we provide enough flexibility that programs on a particular campus are not denied to a student-athlete because of our legislative restrictions.”

The issue is complicated by different policies and academic offerings at different institutions. Some might offer entire degree programs through an online format, while others have minimal courses delivered through nontraditional means. Some might argue that student-athletes who take courses nontraditionally and don’t have the time commitment of physically attending a class might have an advantage over other student-athletes who must take the time to go to class.

D’Antonio and those opposed to the proposal identified the “perception issue” as another stumbling block. D’Antonio noted that the use of nontraditional coursework by student-athletes, particularly in the high-profile sports, could cause some in the media and the general public to doubt the quality of education that is delivered through nontraditional means.

“Perceptions are critical in two ways. On the one hand, we need to avoid the sense that we are trying to control the offerings of colleges and universities,” Callahan said. “On the other, the public would certainly be dismayed to find a student-athlete competing who has never attended a class on the campus he represents.”

D’Antonio predicted that the Council would be receptive to further debate on the issue and would have an “open mind” to any future concepts.

“It is important to not create a situation where lack of control results in a way around student-athletes truly being students at the schools they represent,” she said. “And we want to make sure everyone understands we are not trying to limit the opportunities for student-athletes.”

The Academic Cabinet meets next in February.