The Division I Men’s Basketball Academic Enhancement Group at its second in-person meeting January 15 began looking seriously at summer school as a path to improving student-athlete academic performance.

While summer school as an academic antidote might not be a novel notion, the structure the basketball group studied may be among its most innovative ideas to date.

The proposal would require as a condition of Division I membership a summer structure that eases the student-athlete’s transition to the university, acclimates him academically and provides an enhanced but regulated skill-instruction calendar.

Though only a preliminary concept as of now, the proposal in some ways resembles the “summer bridge” model many Division I schools already offer, but is much more targeted toward academic outcomes. It would up the ante on institutions by requiring financial aid for the summer term, and also for the student-athlete by requiring him to pass six hours for fall-term eligibility. The summer bridge program does neither – it is permissive legislation and is not tied to eligibility.

In exchange, the new model would afford more access from coach to student-athlete and allow some limited athletically related activities – eight hours per week (over eight weeks), with no more than two devoted to skill-related instruction. In other words, enrollment in the summer term would trigger access for the coach, and successful completion of the six hours would trigger eligibility for the student-athlete.

The idea would be to require all incoming players (and transfers from two-year colleges) to complete the summer structure for their first two years. Transfers from a four-year school would be required to participate in the structure for one summer, even if they had completed two summers at the previous institution.

The proposal also would require a life-skills component, which could be among the six credit hours, depending on how the life-skills course was structured.

At the back end of the model, institutions would not be permitted to conduct required athletics activities after the playing season has ended during the academic year.

While still in concept form, the group members thought it was an idea worth pursuing. Three of the basketball group’s five topical subcommittees in fact identified the summer term as being part of the solution to basketball’s academic problems.

“It’s one of several examples of the kind of thinking that will be required from this group to change the academic culture in men’s basketball,” said the group’s chair, UCLA Athletics Director Dan Guerrero. “We’re still early in the game, but it’s clear to most members of this group that the summer environment touches many areas of basketball-related reform. The group will continue to study this model and others, but there are many questions left to answer.”

Among those questions would be how to ease the burden for low-resource institutions that may not have the means to fund a mandatory summer-school program. Another is what to do with players whose successful completion of the summer-school structure earns them a degree in 3 ½ years – if they neglect academics in their final term (the spring term of their senior season), should they counted as APR casualties despite having graduated?

While those issues may be problematic, the basketball group liked the proposal’s tying of enrollment to access and completion to eligibility. Members also liked the addition of the life-skills component to aid in student-athletes’ transitional issues.

“In effect, upon summer enrollment, these incoming men’s basketball recruits would be considered student-athletes under all NCAA legislation,” said San Diego State President Stephen Weber, who chairs the coach/player relationship subcommittee that came up with the idea.

The basketball group – a committee of presidents, coaches and athletics administrators – was  formed last year to identify factors unique to basketball that affect the sport’s standing at the low end of the Academic Progress Rate. A similar approach in baseball resulted in recommendations the Division I Board of Directors adopted last April.

In addition to the summer environment, the group is studying the effect of transfers on academic performance, the academic preparedness of incoming students and the structure of the playing and practice season as areas of concern. So far, though, the focus on summer school may be the most tangible.

In other discussion, the group reacted favorably to an idea the Board of Directors approved just a day earlier regarding transfers. The Board adopted a policy that would treat transfer students that achieve a 2.6 grade-point average or higher, transfer immediately to another four-year institution and earn the eligibility point as a “1-for-1” in the APR formula. The student-athlete must have completed one year at the first institution. The change would be affective with the 2007-08 cohort (collected this fall) and would not be retroactive. The group noted that the Committee on Academic Performance is continuing its review on other transfer issues.

The group’s playing and practice seasons subcommittee report featured ideas to restructure the season, including a dramatic approach to make basketball a spring sport. That concept, though, did not gain momentum from the larger group.

The committee plans to meet again in person at the Men’s Final Four in San Antonio. Until then, the five subcommittees will continue their deliberations.

“This was a good meeting,” Guerrero said. “We’ve narrowed our focus to the areas that strictly affect academic performance in basketball, and we believe we can develop several recommendations from here out that will make a real difference.”