When Tennessee Technological University Faculty Athletics Representative Thurston Banks heard a research presentation at the recent Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet meeting, he realized what he was seeing supported what many people suspected all along.

Banks and the rest of the AEC Cabinet's initial-eligibility subcommittee he chairs were the first membership group to see data from the entering class of 2003 indicating that eliminating the standardized test-score cut in the initial-eligibility sliding scale has not negatively affected the academic performance of qualifiers.

"When the decision was made to eliminate the test cut, there was concern as to whether that would disproportionately change the data pool," Banks said. "But there doesn't appear to be any change, and if there is, it's in fact a very modest improvement."

Indeed, high-school academic profiles of Division I recruits in 2003 under the new standards showed core grade-point averages of 3.330 compared to 3.340 the previous year. Average test scores (in SAT units) actually increased to 1083 from 1079. Overall, the change resulted in more student-athletes being declared eligible without a drop in college academic performance. In other words, the new qualifiers are just as academically capable as the old qualifiers.

NCAA researchers predicted similar outcomes several years ago when the Division I Academic Consultants began proposing measures that eventually became the first phase of the recently completed academic reforms. Modifications to initial-eligibility requirements that included an increase in core courses from 13 to 14 and the elimination of the test-score cut were among the first reform concepts the Board of Directors approved in October 2002.

The consultants, who had been appointed by the Board and charged with recommending ways to maximize graduation rates while minimizing any adverse impact on minority students, cited research indicating that a key means of minimizing adverse impact was to eliminate the over-weighting of test scores used in determining initial eligibility. They noted that the cut score on the test was weighted twice as much as the 2.000 cut on high-school GPA.

"Data indicate that the GPA is a better predictor of college success and should be weighted at least equally, if not higher, than the test score when using these variables to predict success in college," they reasoned in forwarding Proposal No. 2002-22-B.

The change in effect allowed prospective student-athletes with low test scores but with high GPAs to be eligible.

Some interpreted the proposal as a loosening of standards, and that the elimination of the test-score cut would open the admission gates too wide for academically at-risk student-athletes. Presidents, though, were persuaded by research showing that student-athletes made eligible by removing the cut were as likely, if not more likely, to graduate than some current qualifiers under the previous eligibility standards.

"These proposals were informed by the best research we've ever had," Board Chair Robert Hemenway said at the time. "They represent policy that is data-based, and there is little that is arbitrary about the decisions we've reached."

Though the research includes just one year of data so far, results support the revised initial-eligibility standards that became effective for 2003. Data show that prospects who wouldn't have qualified under the old rules perform as well -- or better in some cases -- as prospects under Prop 16.

Researchers believe the change affected about 500 prospects who qualified with test scores under the previous 820 cut but with the accompanying GPA to achieve eligibility. NCAA Managing Director of Research Todd Petr noted a reciprocal reduction in the number of qualifiers with test scores slightly above 820, which leads researchers to suggest that prospects perhaps aren't taking the standardized test multiple times to qualify, as they might have been before.

"Based on this information and other patterns in the data, we believe that the predominant change in the test/GPA patterns of Division I recruits relates to changes in testing behavior of student-athletes who previously were at or just above the 820 SAT minimum," Petr said. "The new standard eliminates the need to take the test multiple times, and the results we're seeing show that those recruits perform just as well academically, if not better, than before."

Petr also noted that minority prospects make up most of the new cohort of qualifiers. The NCAA Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee had long supported a full sliding scale, or at least one that extended the test-score cut, to account for the same type of cases revealed in this latest research.

"The double cut (GPA and test) under Prop 16 left out what some people referred to as a 'disenfranchised group,' " Banks said. "There was a strong argument at the time that, based on research, we should have a full-range index because statistically, that disenfranchised group was just as likely to graduate as the qualifiers we had in the main part of the pool.

"The new research makes it difficult for anyone to criticize a person with a high GPA and low test score who didn't meet the old index being in the new pool, because those people are proving to have the same graduation potential as the previous pool."

Petr noted that only one year of data is available on students entering under the new initial-eligibility rules. "The NCAA will continue to monitor these students as they move through their college careers, in a continuing effort to determine if the changes in initial-eligibility rules caused any unexpected consequences," he said. "It does appear, however, that those students entering under the new standards in 2003 are performing as expected through their freshman year in college."

Initial-eligibility research summary

Significant findings from research on revised initial-eligibility standards effective for the entering class of 2003 that eliminated the test-score cut in the sliding scale:

• Similar academic profiles are seen before and after the rule change among men's basketball and football players.

• More prospective student-athletes are being declared academically eligible after the change in initial-eligibility standards.

• Increases in the number of Division I prospects meeting the TEST-GPA index but with SAT scores below 820 (that is, "old partial qualifiers" and "new qualifiers") appear to match decreases in the number of recruits who barely met the test standards of Prop 16 (that is, "low qualifiers").

• Scholarship athletes who met the new initial-eligibility standards but had low test scores are dramatically outperforming academic qualifiers with low high-school GPAs and test scores above 820.

• Participating first-year student-athletes who did not meet the current initial-eligibility standards performed worse academically than any group of students meeting the rule, including those with test scores below 820.