Grappling With Gpas

TWO YEARS AGO, when the NCAA released the first Academic Progress Rate (APR) scores, UC Davis wrestling coach Lennie Zalesky had no idea that his team would become what he calls "a black eye for the university." His program had a solid academic record and would later be honored by the National Wrestling Coaches Association for outstanding achievement in the classroom.

But out of a possible 1,000 on the APR, the NCAA's new gauge of whether schools are responsibly educating their athletes, Davis's wrestling program scored 885: The acceptable minimum is 925. Because two wrestlers left school in the year that was under review (2003--04)--causing UC Davis to be marked down on the APR--the program was deemed negligent.

"You looked at the other schools below 925, and it was embarrassing to be lumped with them," Zalesky says. Particularly disconcerting: Several teams from Sacramento State--Davis's rival and a school it considers a less-refined neighbor--were also flagged. " Washington Monthly ranked us the 17th-best [academic] school in the nation, and now the perception here was that the wrestling team did something to diminish that," Zalesky says.

The APR has forced UC Davis and other schools to change the way they operate. It renders graduation rates less important than how student-athletes are doing while in school. As a result, teams are moving to a new way of recruiting, educating and even coaching players.

Every scholarship athlete can earn two points per term toward a team's APR: one point for being academically eligible and one for remaining at the school. To calculate the APR, the NCAA takes the points a team earns and divides it by the team's possible maximum; the resulting percentage (with the decimal point removed) is a program's APR. Scholarships can be forfeited if the score dips below 925.

The fear of losing scholarships has made coaches more reluctant to run players off or take on academically at-risk recruits. "Many things have changed, but we've seen the most significant shift in recruiting," says Kevin Lennon, the NCAA's vice president for membership services. "In the past, coaches might have had autonomy over who they brought in. Now there is a greater institutional review of recruits."

Coaches ask questions they never would have before, like, Does this recruit have a girlfriend who might prompt him to drop out? Some coaches get weekly updates on their athletes' academic progress, a practice that once was solely the concern of support staff.

Predictably, the APR has stirred controversy, particularly when the first round of scholarship reductions was announced in March 2006. Of the 6,112 Division I teams, 105 lost scholarships; a mere handful were major conference teams in football and men's basketball, the sports that the APR was expected to affect most. The biggest names were San Diego State's football program, which forfeited four scholarships, and the men's basketball programs at Arizona State (two) and DePaul (one).

The results drew skepticism. "The big schools that have a history of not graduating kids--the schools that the APR was created for--are they now suddenly doing things differently?" asks an AD at a smaller-profile school. "Or are they just hiding kids in classes and majors that can keep them eligible?" Adds Davis's Zalesky, "If athletes we bring in here, kids who come in with an average GPA of 3.2 and a minimum 1500 [of 2400 on the] SAT, don't make it sometimes, how are the athletes at these other schools making it? It makes you wonder what they are pulling."

The new system has also caused a shift in team dynamics. "It can change the way you coach," says former major leaguer Ed Sprague, baseball coach at Pacific. "You ask yourself questions like, If I don't give this kid immediate playing time, will he transfer, and what does that mean for my APR?" Sprague needs to be especially sensitive to this possibility because his sport (unlike football and basketball) permits athletes to play immediately upon transferring.