This is the first in a two-part NCAA News series examining the use of nontraditional coursework to meet NCAA eligibility requirements. Today’s installment explains the current rules and the proposals in the 2008-09 legislative cycle that failed to gain consensus among the membership. On December 30, the News will examine why the proposals failed and what the governance structure will consider in the future.

Earlier this year, Division I Board of Directors chair James Barker identified the increasing frequency of nontraditional coursework on the transcripts of potential and current student-athletes as an issue that will need entire division’s attention.

Barker’s comments came in the wake of the membership’s defeat of proposals that would have modified regulations regarding the use of courses delivered outside a traditional classroom to meet initial- and continuing-eligibility requirements.

Some of the discussion surrounding the proposals (2008-32 A and B and 2008-35 A and B) indicated that the current rules governing nontraditional courses aren’t clear – including what is acceptable to meet eligibility standards now – and whether the proposals would have expanded or narrowed what nontraditional coursework can be used to meet NCAA academic requirements.

Current legislation governing the use of nontraditional coursework for initial eligibility, full-time enrollment and progress-toward-degree requirements dates back to the mid-1990s, before the proliferation of correspondence, online and mixed courses. Standards differ slightly depending on the type of course and the type of eligibility sought, and the legislation addresses only certain types of courses (for example, extension or correspondence) without speaking to some of the newer forms of course delivery (online education).

Initial eligibility (for prospective student-athletes)

Prospective student-athletes have the most up-to-date NCAA policies to follow. In 2000, the Division I membership adopted rules to regulate the use of nontraditional courses to meet initial-eligibility requirements (Division II adopted similar rules). Courses must meet the regular requirements of a core course. Additionally, the instructor and student must have access to each other, a student’s work must evaluated by appropriate academic authorities and the course must be acceptable for any student. The course also must be placed on a high school transcript.

Full-time enrollment (for current student-athletes)

To be eligible for competition, student-athletes must be considered enrolled full time at their institution and be enrolled in a minimum of 12 credits per term. Full-time enrollment requirements are typically fulfilled at the “home” or “certifying” institution, and student-athletes cannot use correspondence courses (from any institution) to meet these requirements. Extension courses may be combined with hours taken in residence to meet full-time enrollment requirements.

Legislation permits courses taken from a second institution to count toward full-time enrollment, so long as the home institution recognizes the student as enrolled full time and the courses will appear on the transcript at the home institution.

Progress toward degree (for current student-athletes)

In general, all courses offered at the “home” institution, including those offered through nontraditional methods, can be used to fulfill progress-toward-degree requirements, provided they meet all other legislative requirements to be counted.

The only specific legislation governing nontraditional coursework taken from the home institution relates to distance-learning courses (no definition of “distance learning” exists in the bylaws). It specifies that such courses can be used for progress-toward-degree purposes so long as the student-athlete’s work is evaluated by appropriate academic authorities according to regular academic policies, the course is available to all students and it appears on the transcript.

Correspondence, extension and “credit by examination” courses taken at an institution other than the “home” institution can’t be used for progress toward degree.  However, traditional, virtual/online courses and distance-learning courses taken at another institution are permitted because they are not expressly prohibited in the bylaws. 

Attempts to update the rules

As Barker noted to the Board in August, these rules can’t always be clearly applied as new technologies develop that affect the way education is delivered to students (and student-athletes).  Individual institutions make their own decisions about what types of education to offer for credit toward a degree. While the attempt to update the way nontraditional courses can be used for NCAA eligibility was not successful in 2008-09, Barker encouraged the governance structure to try again.

The proposals that were defeated would have modified how nontraditional courses can be counted for full-time enrollment and progress-toward-degree requirements.

Proposals 2008-32-A and 2008-32-B would have allowed student-athletes to count for full-time enrollment nontraditional courses taken at their institution. Proposal No. 2008-32-A allowed the use of such courses to meet the FTE requirements with some restrictions, and 2008-32-B allowed the use of such courses to meet up to 50 percent of the minimum FTE requirements with the same restrictions as 2008-32-A. The proposed restrictions included regular interaction between students and instructor, the course is acceptable for degree credit and is available to any student.

Proposals 2008-35-A and B would have allowed student-athletes to count nontraditional courses taken at institutions other than the one they attend to meet credit hour and percentage-of-degree requirements (with similar restrictions on the construction of the course). Proposal 2008-35-A had no restrictions on the number of courses allowed per term, but 2008-35-B limited the number of nontraditional courses from other institutions acceptable for PTD requirements to 50 percent of the minimum requirements per term.

The proposals were defeated in part because of a lack of clarity about current rules. Some were concerned about the potential for abuse, while others worried that the new rules would be more restrictive than current legislation. Still others thought the proposals infringed upon institutional autonomy.

So where is the Division I membership headed next on this issue? The NCAA News will publish an analysis of the various issues and viewpoints on December 30.