The Division I Board of Directors has agreed to a key adjustment in the Academic Progress Rate (APR) that eases how student-athletes who leave early for the pros while in good academic standing are counted in their team's APR.

The presidents at their August 4 meeting in Indianapolis adopted a recommendation from the Division I Committee on Academic Performance (CAP) that adjusts student-athletes' APR calculations in such cases as 1-for-1 instead of 1-for-2.

The APR, the metric by which a team's academic progress is judged, awards academically eligible student-athletes two points per term (one for eligibility and one for staying in school). When the rate was introduced this spring, however, feedback particularly from coaches associations in baseball, football and basketball revealed concerns about athletes who turn pro but maintain their academic eligibility.

Many coaches and administrators felt that counting those student-athletes as 1-for-2 (minus the retention point) was unfair since the departure was essentially beyond the institution's control. Advocates for change also argued that forgiving the early departure only when academic eligibility was retained met the spirit of reform, since it still requires student-athletes to accomplish what was asked of them during the academic term and moves them toward the ultimate goal of graduation.

Board members agreed, adopting the adjustment unanimously. The adjustment, included in a directive the CAP will use in determining legitimate reasons why student-athletes are not retained, not only captures student-athletes who leave early for the professional ranks, but also situations considered to be beyond the control of either the student-athlete and/or the team/institution. Those situations include the student-athlete's degree program or sport being discontinued; the student-athlete being unable to compete because of incapacitating physical or mental circumstances; or the student-athlete leaving the institution because of a life-threatening or incapacitating illness or injury suffered by a member of the athlete's immediate family. In all cases, supporting documentation from the institution would be required before the retention point is removed from the APR calculation.

The APR adjustment opportunities would include the 2003-04 and the 2004-05 data cohorts being submitted this fall.

The directive also outlines examples of situations the CAP (and the Board) believes clearly are within the student-athlete's or institution's control and thus would not warrant consideration for an adjustment. They include departures due to lack of playing time, defections that occur after a coaching change, suspensions for academic reasons and/or disciplinary problems, or departures due to a team being subject to sanctions or academic-reform penalties. Student-athletes who leave the institution because their athletically related financial aid was not renewed also would not be considered as meriting an APR adjustment.

It also includes student-athletes who transfer for reasons not included in the previously stated cases. The transfer issue spurred debate, however. Some Board members thought the APR adjustment given to student-athletes who leave for the pros should apply similarly to transfers in good academic standing, but the consensus among the group was to study the transfer matter in more detail before acting.

One president said, "We're engaged in radical reform that's being cautiously implemented. In that vein, let's take a deeper look at why athletes are transferring before we change the parameters."

At issue is whether student-athletes are transferring for legitimate reasons, rather than being "run off" by the coach for athletics under-achievement. Because the latter is something the Board has expressed an interest in curbing, the presidents decided to tread lightly on the idea of providing an APR adjustment for that cohort.

Among other CAP recommendations the Board approved was an APR adjustment that rewards institutions for student-athletes who return to complete their degrees after having left school. Such graduates would earn the institution a "1-for-0" bonus point in the APR calculation for that particular team. The bonus in effect restores the retention point lost when the student-athlete left the institution; however, if the student-athlete had been awarded the 1-for-1 adjustment previously noted, the institution would in effect gain an additional bonus.

The point would be added in the term in which the student-athlete graduated.

The presidents also supported a CAP-recommended incentives concept tied to academic performance that could begin with the 2006-07 academic year. While CAP members purposely did not develop many details until they could gauge the Board's level of support, they agreed to work out the particulars of the program by the Board's October meeting.

Incentives could range from a public-recognition initiative to potential financial rewards for academic achievement, though some Board members were troubled philosophically with tying financial rewards with fundamental educational pursuits.

The Board also approved guidelines that include consideration of an institution's mission when determining waivers for contemporaneous penalties. The institutional-mission filter would apply for teams whose APR exceeds 850 (see CAP story, page 13).

Override vote

Board members also set the stage for Division I's first membership vote at the Convention under the federated governance structure by standing firm on a proposal to increase the maximum number of scholarships allowable in certain women's sports.

The scholarship legislation in question, Proposal No. 04-21, was approved by the Board in April, but afterward a total of 116 Division I institutions -- all either I-AA or
I-AAA schools -- submitted override votes. The 116 total exceeds the 100 needed for the legislation to be suspended until further review by the Board. Thirty override votes are required for the Board to revisit an adopted proposal, while 100 not only requires the Board to revisit the issue but also actually suspends the legislation.

Proposal No. 04-21 would increase the maximum grant-in-aid limitations in women's gymnastics from 12 to 14, in women's volleyball from 12 to 13, in women's cross country/track and field from 18 to 20 and in women's soccer from 12 to 14. The proposal adds participation opportunities but is a cost and/or competitive-equity issue to some institutions. One of the arguments against the measure is that schools with already strong programs in those sports will accumulate even more talent, thus taking away athletes who otherwise would have sought scholarship opportunities at other institutions.

That "stockpiling" concern is a factor in another set of financial-aid deregulation proposals currently under review as well. In that case, however, members of the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee have said the fear is perhaps overblown, since student-athletes would likely prefer the opportunity to play over "riding the bench" as part of a larger talent base.

The Board's decision to uphold its earlier action means that the legislation remains suspended and that a vote of active Division I members will take place during the Division I Legislative Review Forum on Saturday, January 7, at the 2006 NCAA Convention in Indianapolis.

Board members were quick to point out that their decision to stay the course should not be interpreted as "a line in the sand." Rather, they said, it was appropriate for a membership vote to decide this particular matter. "This is an issue that should be resolved at the Convention," one Board member said. "That doesn't mean we've adopted a 'showdown' mentality. It's not an embarrassment, or an indication that the structure isn't working, to go to the Convention floor for a vote. It's the democratic process at work."

Other highlights

Division I Board of Directors
August 4/Indianapolis

• Supported a Management Council request for additional time to review two legislative proposals that do not count non-athletics financial aid against team limits. One, Proposal No. 02-82, regards football and basketball student-athletes, while the other, Proposal No. 03-23-A, is for student-athletes in equivalency sports. The Management Council reviewed the proposals and several alternatives at its July meeting but determined that the options had not been thoroughly vetted throughout the membership to make a decision before the proposals' scheduled effective date (August 1, 2005). The Management Council expects to provide a final recommendation for the Board in October, and that the effective date for any alternatives would be changed to August 1, 2006.

• Noted that the Division I-AA/I-AAA Presidential Advisory Group recommended that the concept of a 12th regular-season game in football be re-introduced in the 2005-06 legislative cycle for fuller discussion among I-AA constituents (the issue was approved in I-A beginning in 2006 but was defeated by I-AA). Additionally, the advisory group and the Board noted that the idea already had been submitted as a proposal to the 2005-06 legislative cycle by a member conference. One Board member noted that the action does not indicate that either the advisory group or the members of that group who sit on the Board necessarily advocate the 12th game. However, they do support a further vetting of the concept.

• Heard a report about a men's college basketball promotional campaign to begin this fall that focuses on the sport's unique position in college athletics, its community-relations benefits and its connection with higher education. The campaign was developed in part with input from the Men's College Basketball Partnership.

• Introduced legislation that would provide institutions, conferences and the NCAA with additional flexibility when determining how names and images of current student-athletes should be used in permissible promotional activities. The proposal is designed to modify legislation outdated by advances in technology without compromising the intent of the bylaw. The proposal, which may be considered by the Board in October as noncontroversial legislation, permits the name, picture or likeness or a student-athlete to be used in any institutional, charitable, educational or nonprofit promotion under specified conditions. The activity, however, still may not include any direct endorsement on the part of the student-athlete. If the Board in October decides the matter should not be approved as noncontroversial legislation, the proposal will proceed into the 2005-06 legislative cycle.