National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Academic tip-off
30-member panel puts full-court press on improving men’s basketball APR
30-member panel puts full-court press on improving men’s basketball APR
|
By Gary T. Brown
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
If academic reform in men’s basketball were a game, the group charged with implementation treated its initial meeting like the first five minutes, where tempo and patience are paramount.
The 30-member Division I Men’s Basketball Academic Enhancement Group, which includes presidents, head coaches, commissioners, athletics directors and faculty representatives, began a thorough and patient process August 10 in Indianapolis of understanding perspectives, sharing information and identifying factors and characteristics that may contribute to basketball’s three-year average Academic Progress Rate being the lowest among all NCAA sports.
To facilitate their work, members near the end of the meeting agreed to appoint subcommittees to focus on the following areas:
NCAA President Myles Brand appointed the enhancement group after a similar panel successfully addressed academic improvement in baseball. Brand has asked the basketball group to submit recommendations and proposals to the Division I Board of Directors by the end of 2008.
Group Chair Dan Guerrero, who also was a member of the baseball panel, urged a patient approach to develop strategies that enhance academic performance and graduation rates in Division I men’s basketball. Guerrero said that approach involves airing personal opinions to better understand various stakeholder perspectives, but it also involves thinking beyond those individual perspectives to act on the game’s behalf.
“As this group of experts works through the process over the next 10 to 12 months, it will be important for them to not only think beyond their own points of view, but also beyond perspectives from those outside the game,” said the athletics director at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Guerrero noted because public interest in men’s college basketball is so high, many stakeholders — from fans and media to youth coaches and parents — suggest a number of potentially distracting solutions based on perception or myth.
“We must get past the hypotheticals and build a knowledge base that spans the entire spectrum and not just the perspectives each member personally enjoys,” he said. “We can’t jump to conclusions, and we must test whatever recommendations we develop against that knowledge base.”
The review is timely, given basketball’s continued lag in the APR. More troublesome is the fact that beginning next year, basketball won’t be spared by a statistical adjustment that had been added to balance sports teams with smaller squad sizes. Administrators and coaches knew from the start of the APR that the first three years would include the adjustment, but that the four-year data set would be considered statistically sound enough to speak for itself. The projections for men’s basketball without the squad-size adjustment are that more than 40 percent of teams could wind up under an APR score of 925. In fact, about 70 teams could be below 900.
While group members acknowledged a number of possible factors to low APR performance, many pointed to the transfer culture as a prime suspect. The group spent ample time looking at data that said, among other things, that men’s basketball teams on average are composed of more than one-fourth transfer students, with many from two-year institutions. Previous studies show the latter group fares less well academically in college than other student-athletes.
Men’s basketball already has forgone the one-time transfer exception that some other NCAA sports have, meaning transfers must sit out a year before playing for their new team. But that apparently hasn’t deterred student-athletes who want more playing time somewhere else or are moving because of a coaching change.
But many also noted a pervasive “professional mentality” as a contributor both to transfers and to a non-academic focus upon entering college. Coaches on the committee said elite players are influenced from as early as grade school that they can play professionally. While pro ball is illusory for many young basketball players, enough professional opportunities have emerged world-wide that many do in fact realize their dream, though for most it is not at the level they imagined.
Syracuse University coach and group member Jim Boeheim said he has had several nonstarters end up on professional teams overseas. He said the players get pressure from parents and summer league coaches from an early age to pursue the dream.
“Fifteen years ago the questions at home during recruiting visits were about academics and how are you going to help my son get his degree,” Boeheim said. “Now, it’s where do I work out and how many pro teams am I going to see?”
But while the coaches on the group acknowledged the transfer problem, they don’t like the fact that losing kids — even those who are academically sound — counts against their APR. They said they understand being responsible for their players’ academic progress, but they believe many reasons for transfer are beyond their control.
The group discussed several APR adjustments or alternatives that would address transfers but did not reach consensus on any. Some said in fact that adjusting the APR would serve only to “postpone” the real problems — whatever they are.
“The discussion certainly was energetic right off the bat,” Guerrero said, “and in the end it served to refocus our mission. We have to work within the context of academic reform to find a way systematically to improve the graduation and academic success of student-athletes. We’re not starting from ground zero.”
In that vein, NCAA President Brand also told the group not to take on more than it could control. For instance, while most basketball stakeholders understand the negative outside influences on the youth game, this particular committee was established to address the collegiate environment. Controlling youth basketball would have to be a collaborative effort.
“Don’t think of the entire basketball experience in ways that reach beyond college,” Brand told them. “We have to work with other organizations on those problems, but you should remain focused on what you can accomplish at the collegiate level and within our governance structure.”
But Brand also urged members to be bold within those parameters. He told them to “think expansively” and be willing to recommend what could be difficult for the governance structure to accept.
Besides Boeheim, other coaches on the group are Cy Alexander of Tennessee State University; Paul Hewitt of the Georgia Institute of Technology; Ron Hunter of Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis; Bo Ryan of the University of Wisconsin, Madison; Phil Martelli of St. Joseph’s University; and Herb Sendek of Arizona State University.
The presidents on the group are Gretchen Bataille of the University of North Texas; Greg Geoffroy of Iowa State University; Walter Harrison of the University of Hartford; Sidney Ribeau of Bowling Green State University; Stephen Weber of San Diego State University; and Robert Buininks of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.
Dividing into subcommittees is the same approach the baseball academic enhancement panel took. Guerrero said members will conduct several conference calls over the next few months before convening again in person January 15 in Nashville, Tennessee.
“This first session was generally an informational meeting, an exchange of ideas among coaches, administrators, presidents and NCAA staff,” he said. “But it’s a 40-minute game. The next steps include addressing specific issues through small working groups and developing additional research.”
The Division I Men’s Basketball Academic Enhancement Group during its August 10 meeting identified the following five focus areas for future study. Each subcommittee likely will be chaired by a president who serves on the group. Subcommittees will conduct one or two conference calls before reporting to the full group via conference call in October. The group’s next in-person meeting is scheduled for January 15, 2008, immediately after the NCAA Convention in Nashville, Tennessee.
The 30-member Division I Men’s Basketball Academic Enhancement Group, which includes presidents, head coaches, commissioners, athletics directors and faculty representatives, began a thorough and patient process August 10 in Indianapolis of understanding perspectives, sharing information and identifying factors and characteristics that may contribute to basketball’s three-year average Academic Progress Rate being the lowest among all NCAA sports.
To facilitate their work, members near the end of the meeting agreed to appoint subcommittees to focus on the following areas:
- The effect of transfers on APR and academic performance.
- The lure of professional careers in basketball that contribute to student-athletes departing college early as an “0-for-2” in the APR.
- The academic preparation for student-athletes entering college and the academic support from institutions once they are enrolled.
- Coach/player access — countering the nonscholastic influences that affect prospects and their educational commitment at the high school level.
- A review of the playing and practice season.
NCAA President Myles Brand appointed the enhancement group after a similar panel successfully addressed academic improvement in baseball. Brand has asked the basketball group to submit recommendations and proposals to the Division I Board of Directors by the end of 2008.
Group Chair Dan Guerrero, who also was a member of the baseball panel, urged a patient approach to develop strategies that enhance academic performance and graduation rates in Division I men’s basketball. Guerrero said that approach involves airing personal opinions to better understand various stakeholder perspectives, but it also involves thinking beyond those individual perspectives to act on the game’s behalf.“As this group of experts works through the process over the next 10 to 12 months, it will be important for them to not only think beyond their own points of view, but also beyond perspectives from those outside the game,” said the athletics director at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Guerrero noted because public interest in men’s college basketball is so high, many stakeholders — from fans and media to youth coaches and parents — suggest a number of potentially distracting solutions based on perception or myth.
“We must get past the hypotheticals and build a knowledge base that spans the entire spectrum and not just the perspectives each member personally enjoys,” he said. “We can’t jump to conclusions, and we must test whatever recommendations we develop against that knowledge base.”
The review is timely, given basketball’s continued lag in the APR. More troublesome is the fact that beginning next year, basketball won’t be spared by a statistical adjustment that had been added to balance sports teams with smaller squad sizes. Administrators and coaches knew from the start of the APR that the first three years would include the adjustment, but that the four-year data set would be considered statistically sound enough to speak for itself. The projections for men’s basketball without the squad-size adjustment are that more than 40 percent of teams could wind up under an APR score of 925. In fact, about 70 teams could be below 900.
While group members acknowledged a number of possible factors to low APR performance, many pointed to the transfer culture as a prime suspect. The group spent ample time looking at data that said, among other things, that men’s basketball teams on average are composed of more than one-fourth transfer students, with many from two-year institutions. Previous studies show the latter group fares less well academically in college than other student-athletes.
Men’s basketball already has forgone the one-time transfer exception that some other NCAA sports have, meaning transfers must sit out a year before playing for their new team. But that apparently hasn’t deterred student-athletes who want more playing time somewhere else or are moving because of a coaching change.
But many also noted a pervasive “professional mentality” as a contributor both to transfers and to a non-academic focus upon entering college. Coaches on the committee said elite players are influenced from as early as grade school that they can play professionally. While pro ball is illusory for many young basketball players, enough professional opportunities have emerged world-wide that many do in fact realize their dream, though for most it is not at the level they imagined.
Syracuse University coach and group member Jim Boeheim said he has had several nonstarters end up on professional teams overseas. He said the players get pressure from parents and summer league coaches from an early age to pursue the dream.
“Fifteen years ago the questions at home during recruiting visits were about academics and how are you going to help my son get his degree,” Boeheim said. “Now, it’s where do I work out and how many pro teams am I going to see?”
But while the coaches on the group acknowledged the transfer problem, they don’t like the fact that losing kids — even those who are academically sound — counts against their APR. They said they understand being responsible for their players’ academic progress, but they believe many reasons for transfer are beyond their control.
The group discussed several APR adjustments or alternatives that would address transfers but did not reach consensus on any. Some said in fact that adjusting the APR would serve only to “postpone” the real problems — whatever they are.
“The discussion certainly was energetic right off the bat,” Guerrero said, “and in the end it served to refocus our mission. We have to work within the context of academic reform to find a way systematically to improve the graduation and academic success of student-athletes. We’re not starting from ground zero.”
In that vein, NCAA President Brand also told the group not to take on more than it could control. For instance, while most basketball stakeholders understand the negative outside influences on the youth game, this particular committee was established to address the collegiate environment. Controlling youth basketball would have to be a collaborative effort.
“Don’t think of the entire basketball experience in ways that reach beyond college,” Brand told them. “We have to work with other organizations on those problems, but you should remain focused on what you can accomplish at the collegiate level and within our governance structure.”
But Brand also urged members to be bold within those parameters. He told them to “think expansively” and be willing to recommend what could be difficult for the governance structure to accept.
Besides Boeheim, other coaches on the group are Cy Alexander of Tennessee State University; Paul Hewitt of the Georgia Institute of Technology; Ron Hunter of Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis; Bo Ryan of the University of Wisconsin, Madison; Phil Martelli of St. Joseph’s University; and Herb Sendek of Arizona State University.
The presidents on the group are Gretchen Bataille of the University of North Texas; Greg Geoffroy of Iowa State University; Walter Harrison of the University of Hartford; Sidney Ribeau of Bowling Green State University; Stephen Weber of San Diego State University; and Robert Buininks of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.
Dividing into subcommittees is the same approach the baseball academic enhancement panel took. Guerrero said members will conduct several conference calls over the next few months before convening again in person January 15 in Nashville, Tennessee.
“This first session was generally an informational meeting, an exchange of ideas among coaches, administrators, presidents and NCAA staff,” he said. “But it’s a 40-minute game. The next steps include addressing specific issues through small working groups and developing additional research.”
Basketball Academic Enhancement Group focus areas
The Division I Men’s Basketball Academic Enhancement Group during its August 10 meeting identified the following five focus areas for future study. Each subcommittee likely will be chaired by a president who serves on the group. Subcommittees will conduct one or two conference calls before reporting to the full group via conference call in October. The group’s next in-person meeting is scheduled for January 15, 2008, immediately after the NCAA Convention in Nashville, Tennessee.
- Transfers (incoming and outgoing). This subcommittee will study the impact on retention and eligibility points. Should a program lose a retention point if the transferring student-athlete is in good academic standing? Should the student-athlete transferring to another institution be required to achieve a specific requisite GPA to receive financial aid? Should academic standards for incoming transfers, particularly 2-4 transfers, be strengthened? Should a year of residence be imposed on all 2-4 transfers?
- The “0-for-2 phenomenon. This group will examine the effect of the pursuit of professional careers by evaluating anecdotal data that a significantly high percentage of student-athletes pursue or realize professional playing careers. Members also will evaluate waivers for those who depart the institution after the final season (eighth semester issue), and gather data related to reasons for 0-for-2s and of student-athletes’ perceptions. The subcommittee also will review the possible impact of coaching changes. How can academic-improvement plans help?
- Academic preparation and academic support. Members will review issues regarding better academic preparedness before collegiate enrollment (remedial/developmental courses, selected academic redshirts, use of courses beyond high school). Should it be a Division I membership requirement for institutions to provide summer financial assistance to attend summer school before the initial year and thereafter? Are institutions providing appropriate levels of academic support services (for example, academic tutoring/study halls, academic personnel on road trips)? Should institutions be able to provide former student-athletes athletically related financial aid beyond six years? Does the five-year academic plan proposed for football have value in basketball or should basketball earn a fifth season?
- Coach/player relationships. Should coaches be allowed greater access to prospects to assist with decision-making and to establish mentoring relationships? How can we counteract nonscholastic influences that affect prospects and their educational commitment at the high school level? Would modifications of summer evaluation periods help the problem? Would greater access after enrollment during the summer lead to better academic performance? Should some period of skill instruction be allowed in the summer? Should skill instruction be eliminated after the Final Four until the end of the academic year with comparable allowances for the summer? Should a coach’s lifetime APR record be maintained? Should coaches be held accountable for graduation rates?
- Playing and practice seasons. Should changes be made regarding the length of the season, maximum contest limits, maximum weekly contests, days when competition can occur, missed class time and national schedules?
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy