Curriculum change

NCAA's new academic measures could have effect on field

More in this column: • Uprising in Georgia • Temple in need of sanctuary • Worth noting: Political Bloom

So, what was your reaction when you heard about last Sunday's New York Times article alleging academic misdeeds in the Ohio State football program?

Was it shock and outrage? Or, as has come to be the case with such things, was it more like, "Duh -- like we didn't know most football players are dummies."

While the timing of it is a coincidence, it's worth noting that an NCAA task force on Tuesday formally submitted its proposal for a long-awaited system that would reward and punish teams based on the academic progress of their players. The potentially revolutionary measure, combined with new academic standards set to go into effect this fall (see chart), are part of a growing reform movement intended to curb poor graduation rates in Division I football and basketball.

"I've been working in athletics for 27 years, and this is the first time our presidents and chancellors have come forward and said we need to get this right," said Vanderbilt AD Todd Turner, chairman of the task force.

The NCAA's New Academic Requirements Effective for this fall's freshman class: A player must complete 40 percent of his degree requirements (up from 25 percent) and post a minimum 1.8 GPA by the end of their second year to remain eligible. Those numbers rise to 60 percent (up from 50) and a 1.9 after the third year and 80 percent (up from 75) and a 2.0 after four. Effective for all classes, beginning this fall: Players must complete a minimum of six credit hours per semester and 18 per academic year (excluding summer) to remain eligible. Effective fall, 2005 (but available starting this fall): Prospective freshmen must adhere to a new sliding scale for eligibility that puts more emphasis on GPA while lowering the minimum test score (from 820 to 400 on the SAT). Partial and non-qualifiers will no longer be accepted. Effective fall, 2008: A prospective player must complete 16 core courses in high school to gain freshman eligibility, up from 14. Currently under proposal for fall, 2004: If a player leaves in poor academic standing, his team would not be able to replace his scholarship for one year. Teams would be subject to a new system of rewards and penalties based on an Annual Academic Retention Rate (AARR). In the formula currently proposed, a team could gain two "points" per athlete per semester, one for sufficient academic progress and one for retention. Data would be collected over a four-year period and compared with the school's overall student body and with other teams in its sport. If deemed to have earned an unacceptable percentage of possible points, the team would be subject to a series of penalties, beginning with a warning and progressing to a loss of scholarships, denied access to championships and restricted NCAA membership.

The goal is to weed out those athletes who wouldn't otherwise belong in a college classroom have little intention of graduating, putting the onus on coaches to be more selective in recruiting and pay closer attention to players' academic progress once on campus.

"If you want to play college athletics, you better be a college student," NCAA president Myles Brand warned at an academic reform summit in May.

The reality, though, is that coaches, facing the same pressure to win regardless, will continue to be hard-pressed to pass on a player who can help, especially with the NCAA lowering the minimum test scores needed for freshman eligibility.

If both coach and player can adjust to the new standards, great. If not, though, there could be dramatic effects on the actual product on the field.

Starting in 2005, when the upcoming freshman class will be entering its third year, players will have to complete 40 percent of their degree work to remain eligible, up from 25 percent. It's foreseeable that when that day comes, hordes of players across the country could suddenly find themselves ineligible.

"It's going to be a challenge for some of our student athletes to maintain these new requirements in the sport of football," said Gerald Gurney, associate athletics director for academic affairs at Oklahoma. "When we see something like Georgia Tech losing 10 football players to eligibility, this may become more commonplace unless football coaches pay strict attention during the course of year to not just winning football games but grade reports and how their students are progressing academically."

While most everyone in college athletics agrees that some sort of academic reform is needed, there is no shortage of potential unintended consequences already floating around.

For one, coaches may have to alter their approach to redshirts. Under the new system, if a freshman is deemed a risk to eventually fall behind in the classroom, you might as well play him right away and save that redshirt in the event he has to sit out a year down the road.

There is also concern that the new progress requirements will discourage players from pursuing challenging majors, or even changing majors, for fear of losing eligibility.

Then there is the potentially disastrous effect they could have on junior college recruits, who have become so crucial to some Division I-A programs.

Not only are these players more prone to be academically challenged, but they may need to attend summer sessions to gain the necessary credits, which, at a budget-strapped juco program, may not always be available. And seeing as most I-A coaches are looking for immediate help when they tap a juco player, they may be turned off if the player needs a redshirt a year to catch up academically.

"The cards are really stacked against these kids," said Kevin Lustgarten, publisher of JCFootball.com. "I have talked to a number of recruiting coordinators at D-I schools. Some of them have told me they're going to lay off taking JC kids."

None of the recently enacted standards, however, would carry near the effect of the potential "Incentives and Disincentives" system devised by Turner's committee.

Replacing its outdated graduation rate formula with a new metric, the Annual Academic Retention Rate (see chart), the NCAA would collect data about a team's academic performance over a four-year period and, if deemed to be at an unacceptable level, would levy a series of penalties against the team, beginning with a warning and escalating to scholarship reductions, postseason bans and financial sanctions.

Sunday's Times article alleged widespread academic misconduct among members of Ohio State's national championship team. Two other recent title teams, Tennessee and Miami, were subjects of similar accusations as well.

To send a question or comment for Stewart's Mailbag, click here.

 

Related information

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video