2011 Academic Rule Changes

[Highlander]

Stillwater NewsPress June 16, 2011 NCAA changes up credit rules
STILLWATER, Okla. — Division I football’s academic scorecard will change Aug. 1.

Football players in the Football Bowl Subdivision and Football Championship Subdivision must pass nine credit hours each fall or be suspended for the first four games of the following season. There is a way to earn enough credit hours to eliminate or reduce the suspension.

The NCAA adopted this rule change in April to reverse declining Academic Progress Rates for Division I programs, ensure more players stay eligible and are making progress toward their degree, University of Oklahoma Athletic Director Joe Castiglione said.

Castiglione was chairman of the Football Academic Working Group that developed this rule change and others that are still under development and could be implemented. The task force formed in 2008.

Research shows football players who experience academic success as freshmen tend to be better students and complete the steps necessary to receive degrees, he said.

“We prioritized what we thought would have the most impact and that was successful completion of hours,” Castiglione said.

The NCAA rule that is being replaced required students to take a minimum of 12 hours a semester and pass six to remain eligible. The players also had to pass a total of 18 hours in the fall and spring and successfully complete a certain percentage of the courses needed to earn their degree. It’s 40 percent after four semesters, 60 percent after six semesters and 80 percent after eight semester.

“Some student-athletes felt six hours was the maximum they had to complete as opposed to the minimum,” Castiglione said. “It wasn’t necessarily widespread, but there was a strong correlation between the completion of hours and the lower APR scores.’

Oklahoma State punter Quinn Sharp was ruled ineligible for the Alamo Bowl after he failed to pass six hours in fall 2010. He has regained his eligibility.

Under the new rule, a football player who doesn’t pass nine hours would be suspended for the first four-games of the following season.

A first-time offender could have the four-game suspension lifted if he passed a total of 27 credit hours in fall, spring and summer. Repeat offenders could only reduce their suspension to two games by earning the 27 credit hours.

Division I football Academic Progress Rates for 2010 declined from 949 to 947. Eligibility scores slipped from 939 to 937 while retention fell from 949-948.

Looking at just the Football Bowl Subdivision schools, the eligibility scores dropped from 943-939.

APR numbers are part of a formula. The NCAA implemented Academic Progress Rates eight years ago.

Universities can earn two-points per student each semester. If a student successfully completes eligibility requirements, the university gets a point. If the same student stays in school and continues to work toward a degree, the university gets another point. The total points for a program are entered into an NCAA formula to produce the APR score.

APR scores are generated for each men’s and women’s program at a university. However, the eligibility requirements differ from program-to-program.

The NCAA uses these academic scorecards to penalize programs that fail to meet a minimum score 925. The penalties range from public reprimands to lost athletic scholarships.

In late May, the NCAA announced postseason bans for teams at eight schools – Cal-State Northridge, Chicago State, Grambling, Southern University, Baton Rouge and Louisiana-Monroe. Of the eight, five were basketball teams and three were football teams.

One of the issues with APR is no one know what it actually measures. It’s not as clear-cut as graduation rates or as straight forward as a percentage of students who successfully completed their eligibility and degree requirements.

“There is a lot of discussion as to what APR actually does,’ said Marilyn Middlebrook, Oklahoma State University’s associate athletic director for academic affairs. “It was designed to increase graduation rates. There is a lot of discussion as to whether it really does what it is supposed to do. That’s a simplified version, but it was supposed to increase graduation rates.”

The rule change doesn’t affect the basic eligibility and degree requirements. Football players must still be full-time students each semester and pass 18 credit hours in fall and spring and complete their degree-requirement percentages, Middlebrook said.

The big change is earning nine-credit hours in the fall semester, Football players could earn six in fall and 12 in spring and remain eligible, she said. Now, they will have to earn nine in fall.

“We will have to monitor more closely and make sure they do. We would to hope they pass 12 or 15 each semester, but those that are at-risk kids it will be more of challenge,” she said.

 

[Highlander]

SEC Commissioner Mike Slive proposes agenda for change

July 20, 2011

Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive proposed an “agenda for changeâ€￾ in the NCAA world in a speech at SEC Media Day.
“We don’t have the luxury of acting as if it’s business as usual,â€￾ Slive said. “Intercollegiate athletics has lost the benefit of the doubt.â€￾
Slive outlined his plan, which is comprised of four parts. Slive hopes the plan will “stimulate a national discussion with the hope that we will see significant action in the forseeable future.â€￾

The four primary areas form the basis of this agenda, with quotes from Slive as transcribed by ASAP Sports:

Redefine the benefits available to our student-athletes.
“The first step is to develop a plan to provide these additional benefits to student-athletes in an equitable manner through a redefined grant-and-aid program linked to the full cost of attendance. We recognize that this proposal may be a financial hardship on some, yet at the same time economics cannot always be the reason to avoid doing what is in the best interests of our student-athletes.â€￾

“We should also have a national discussion on establishing athletic scholarships as multi-year awards. … (and) we should consider extending the opportunity for student-athletes to seek a baccalaureate degree through the provision of funding beyond the current permissible six-year window for awarding athletic scholarships.â€￾

Strengthen academic eligibility requirements for incoming freshmen and two-year transfers.
“The existing approach of conducting a review of their credentials only at the end of high school is not always effective. A suggested approach is to include a full analysis of a prospects’ academic performance throughout his or her high school career.â€￾

“Three components of this proposed strategy are: first, consider increasing the minimum GPA required for first-year athletic competition from a 2.0 to a 2.5 in the 16 required core courses. Second, consider establishing an annual satisfactory progress rule at the high school level. Third, and this is important, this new model, if adopted, could result in the return of the partial qualifier category for certain enrolling freshmen. Specifically prospects who meet the current academic standards for initial eligibility, but who fail to meet the proposed new standards I just outlined, would be permitted to enroll, receive aid, engage in limited practice during their freshman year, but they would not be permitted to compete until an academically successful year in residence was fulfilled at the institution.â€￾

Modernize the recruiting rules.
“It’s time to push the reset button on the regulatory approach to recruiting in order to move away from the idea that recruiting rules are designed to create a level playing field. … Rules governing text messaging and phone calls won’t alter that fact.â€￾

“We suggest change in three areas: First, permit the effective use of personal electronic communication between prospects and institutional staff members to include phone calls, text messaging, Facebook, Twitter and other social media avenues. Second, rather than continuing a recruiting calendar with differing rules for off-campus recruiting activity, contact days, evaluation days, let’s simply establish days in which it’s permissible for coaches to engage in off-campus recruiting. Third, we should encourage the adoption of rules to ensure that the recruitment of prospects is conducted within the secondary educational environment in the academy while promoting the direct interaction between our coaches, prospects and their families. We seek to hold the historic approach to recruiting through the scholastic setting rather than through third parties and so-called ‘handlers.’â€￾

Continue to support the NCAA’s efforts to improve the enforcement process.
“Included in this suggested agenda for change is a clear statement in support of President Emmert and Vice President of Enforcement Julie Roe Lach to restructure the NCAA enforcement process in order to effectively focus resources on cases of core importance in a timely fashion.

“At the same time it’s our obligation as members to provide direction to enforcement in the form of legislation that can be clearly understood and enforced. Our goal is to work closely with President Emmert to initiate a comprehensive reform effort intended to produce a greatly streamlined NCAA manual that governs only enforceable issues, again, of core importance that goes to the heart of what we do.â€￾

“We have become increasingly aware that these two limited definitions [major and minor] may not adequately distinguish the actions associated with the violation.â€￾

 

[Highlander]

NCAA committee approves increase in APR cut line

INDIANAPOLIS — NCAA leaders are finally backing up their words with actions.
Less than 24 hours after President Mark Emmert called for immediate changes in college sports, the NCAA's board of directors approved a measure that would include postseason bans if teams fall below the new Academic Progress Rate cut line. The new mark for the four-year rolling average will increase from 900 to 930. In October, NCAA leaders will consider when the new rules will take effect.

While the APR discussion already was on Thursday's docket before this week's two-day presidential retreat, it was the first chance university presidents could prove this time would be different.

They did.

"The very clear message from them (university presidents) was to start doing things now in August when you have the Division I board meeting and when you come back in October, in January, in April, this is something that needs to be done as Mark says in months, not years," Oregon State president Ed Ray said. "I think they would feel very good with the actions the board took, and saw that we are moving quickly and responsibly forward."

Yes, it's only one step.

But it's a big one. The board voted unanimously to approve Emmert's push to impose harsher penalties for teams that underperform in the classroom, including postseason bans if they fall below the cut line.

There will be more discussion in October on how to implement the new APR structure and proposed sanctions. Walt Harrison, president of the University of Hartford and chairman of the committee on academic performance, said he expects the penalty structure to be phased in during a three- to five-year period.

And it's likely any team with a four-year average below the cut line will be ineligible even if the team score is improving. Current rules allow teams to be granted waivers if a team score improves significantly.

"That's one of the things we'll have to study between now and October, but the direction I'm getting from the board is not too much leverage there," said Harrison, whose committee proposed increasing the cut mark. "If there is any appeal at all, it is going to be tightly defined and there may not be any."

Emmert and South Florida president Judy Genshaft, the board's chairwoman, also have bigger plans for down the road. They said Wednesday and reiterated Thursday the need for stronger sanctions for NCAA rule-breakers, a major edit of the massive 439-page rule book and tougher academic standards for incoming freshmen and junior college transfers.

Other changes could include allowing schools to cover the full cost of attendance rather than just the cost of tuition, room and board, fees and books, and providing scholarships on a multiyear basis. Currently, scholarships are awarded one year at a time. Those decisions could be left up to the individual conferences, but the NCAA still would have to approve the change.

Emmert hopes all of that can be approved within the next 12 months -- a virtual whirlwind compared with the traditionally deliberative NCAA legislative process that can take years.

First up: the APR.

NCAA statistics show athletes graduate at a higher rate that nonathletes and academic performance has steadily improved among all sports. The most recent numbers, released in May, showed the overall average score for athletes jumped three points to 970. Two of the lower-scoring sports -- baseball (959) and men's basketball (945) -- had a five-point jump over the previous year. Another low-scoring sport, football (946), had a two-point jump. NCAA officials have said a score of 900 correlates to a graduation rate of roughly 50 percent.

In other action, the board agreed to do away with the single-year APR scores and will only use the four-year rolling average to determine postseason eligibility; agreed to continue providing funding for low-resource schools to help the academic performance of athletes and look at new ways to help those schools; decided to take another look at improving the standards for incoming freshmen and junior college transfers; and will consider including family members among the definition of third-party influences, a definition that also includes agents.

It also decided not to permit conference or school television networks to broadcast any high school programming, a definition Emmert said will extend beyond athletic contests.