REPORT OF THE
NCAA DIVISION I COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE
1. ACTION ITEM.
Ÿ
Public Recognition Program.
a. Recommendation.
The NCAA Division I Committee on Academic Performance recommends approval of a
team-centered public recognition program that highlights the academic
performance of the top ten percent of teams in each sport based on NCAA Division
I Academic Progress Rates (APR).
b. Rationale.
The general intent behind this incentives initiative is to develop a
team-centered recognition program that is based on team APRs and is simple to
apply and explain. Through this
program, the top 10 percent (including ties) of teams within each sport will be
identified publicly. In addition,
the NCAA staff will seek corporate sponsorship of the program, provided
student-athlete academic achievement remains the central focus. By applying the aforementioned criteria
to two-year APRs, the committee estimates that approximately 17 percent of
Division I sports teams will be recognized and approximately 80 percent of
Division I institutions will have at least one team acknowledged if the program
is activated this year.
c.
Budget
Impact. No immediate budget impact for
2005-06.
[Note:
Funding for future years may be requested during the 2006-08 budgeting
process later this year.]
[Note: This recommendation was approved by the Division
I Board of Directors at its January 2006, meeting.]
2. INFORMATIONAL
ITEMS.
a. Other Incentive
Programs. The committee continues development of
additional incentive programs but at this time is limited in its progress due
to the incomplete 2004-05 APR data set.
The committee remains committed to a program that rewards top academic
achievement and motivates academic improvement. When the complete 2004-05 data
set is available, the committee will continue to develop the incentive programs
with the goal of recommending additional models during the committee’s
April meeting.
b.
Historical-Penalty Structure. Once a
full 2004-05 APR data set is available, the committee will complete development
of the historical-penalty structure. In the interim, the committee asked the
NCAA staff to provide models demonstrating how to conduct sport-by-sport
analysis and resolve institutional-mission issues within the historical-penalty
structure. The committee recognizes
that a “natural break” point in data may not exist; therefore,
establishing benchmarks may require a principled approach, based on a rational
evaluation of the characteristics of the score chosen. The committee recognizes
it needs to determine benchmarks that correlate to a standard that people find
meaningful (e.g., graduation success rate). Further, the committee agreed that the
historical-penalty program should impact fewer schools than the
contemporaneous-penalty program.
The committee will continue to review the two-year data set when it
becomes complete, with the goal of making a formal recommendation to the NCAA
Division I Board of Directors no later than April.
c. Historical-Penalty Appeals Procedures. The committee agreed to circulate a
draft of appeal procedures for historical penalties for membership review and
comment. The committee is seeking
specific feedback from institutions and conferences not later than March 1, to
allow for compilation and final review by the committee during its April meeting. [Attachment]
[Attachment]
d. Awarding
Graduation Bonus Points to an Institution for Student-Athletes who Graduate
from Different Institutions. The committee considered a change to the
current policy for awarding APR graduation bonus points that would allow an
institution to earn a graduation bonus point for a transfer student-athlete who
graduates from another institution.
The group did not support the policy change, noting that once a
student-athlete leaves an institution, that institution rarely retains
responsibility for supporting the transfer student-athlete’s efforts to
complete a degree program at a different institution and, thus, should not
receive “credit” for the student-athlete’s graduation. Further, the committee cited the
administrative burden on institutional staff members to collect data and track
the progress of student-athletes who have transferred to other institutions.
e. Plan for the
Release of NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate (APR)/Contemporaneous-Penalty
Public Reports. The committee reviewed the planned
format for the public release of member institutions’ APR scores and
contemporaneous penalties. The reports are scheduled for release in late
February, with the goal of having final data for all institutions prior to this
release. A copy of the public
report, including all aggregate data, will be made available to member
institutions and conferences 24 hours prior to public release. An e-mail with the electronic link
providing access to the reports will be sent to each institution's
chancellor/president, director of athletics, faculty athletics representative,
senior woman administrator and compliance coordinator. Conference commissioners also will be
notified via e-mail. In addition, the staff will conduct educational conference
calls with the membership and the media in conjunction with the release of
public reports. The committee noted
that institutions have access to their own APR and contemporaneous-penalty data
immediately after completion of the submission process.
f. Educational
and Auditing Initiatives of NCAA Division I Academic Performance Program (APP)
Data. The committee reviewed a letter from the
president of a Division I institution noting concern about the consistency,
accuracy and integrity of the APP data being collected. The committee noted the concepts
identified by the NCAA Division I Committee on Academic Performance
Subcommittee on Data Collection and Reporting during its July 2005 meeting,
which provide mechanisms for auditing APP data. After further development and review of
those concepts, the full committee approved the following initiatives:
(1) Develop
educational tools for those individuals who will collect and submit APP data on
behalf of institutions, including: ongoing updates to existing educational
materials; additional publications on the Web site; development of an
e-curriculum that will provide a network of educational resources; instant
access to information and online tutorials; teleconferences and Web casts
conducted by NCAA staff; and videoconferences with institutions and conferences
regarding APP policies and procedures.
(2) Conduct
audits of institutional data submissions.
This initiative will include the development, creation and distribution
of auditing guidelines to assist those individuals conducting institutional APP
audits. In addition, the staff will
conduct random annual audits of institutional data reporting and penalty
assessments at approximately 20 to 25 institutions, which may lead to in-person
audit visits to campus.
(3) Require
the chancellor/president to approve the institution's procedures for collecting
and submitting APP data.
(4) Recommend
to the NCAA Division I Committee on Athletics Certification that a review of
institutional APP data collection and penalty assessment be included as a
mandatory element of the required compliance reviews.
The committee directed the staff to prepare a document
incorporating all steps currently being used to protect the integrity of the
data submitted through the APP process. This document will be reviewed annually
by the Subcommittee on Data Collection and Reporting.
g. Amend Due Date
for Graduation Success Rate (GSR) Data.
The committee adopted June 1 as the new deadline for submission of GSR data to
the NCAA. The effective date for
this deadline is 2006. The committee noted that June 1 is near the submission
date for federal graduation rate data. Aligning these reporting submission
dates may be beneficial to member institutions, as the work related to each is
similar. In addition, this submission date would allow for an earlier GSR
report release date ensuring that GSR data is available for review with APP
waivers.
h. Data Submission
Requirements for Institutions/Teams Seeking NCAA Division I Membership. The committee determined that reclassifying and
provisional Division I member institutions should begin reporting APP data at
the point in the membership process when the institution is required to be in
full compliance with all Division I legislation. The committee determined that the
penalty for failing to submit data is notification to the NCAA Division I
Membership Subcommittee, rather than the championship penalties that exist for
current Division I members.
Further, the committee determined that reclassifying and provisional
Division I members will be permitted to make APR adjustment and graduation
bonus requests similar to current Division I members. Finally, the committee determined that
reclassifying and provisional Division I member APP data should be included in
the aggregate APP data that is compiled and publicly released by the NCAA.
i. Timeline
for Application of Penalties and Rewards for Reclassifying and Provisional
Division I Members. The committee
determined that the timing of penalties and rewards for reclassifying and
provisional Division I member institutions should replicate the timeline
followed by current Division I members. For example, new Division I
institutions could be subject to contemporaneous penalties after two years of data
collection, a public warning for historical penalties after three years of data
collection and financial aid, practice and recruiting restrictions (i.e., first
occasion historical penalties) after four years of data.
j. Timeline
and Staff Responsibilities for Notifying Institutions of APP data
deadlines. The Subcommittee on Data Collection and Reporting
reviewed a document outlining the data collection process, annual timelines
associated with the APP (i.e., GSR, APR) and staff responsibilities for notifying
institutions of APP deadlines. This included a summary of staff processes,
notifications and membership deadlines from April through October annually. The
subcommittee directed the staff to provide an additional notification in the
late summer to remind institutions how to access and use the APR database, as
well as a reminder of the fall APR submission deadline. The subcommittee also requested the
staff compile a list of institutions that failed to submit APP data for its
review during the April meeting.
k. Preseason
Competition Penalties. The committee reviewed the
historical-penalty preseason restriction legislation. The committee discussed
the definition of “preseason”, the intent of the legislation and
the application of the restriction. The committee requested the NCAA staff
provide a list of preseason, certified and/or exempted contests by sport to
better understand the potential impact of the restriction. The committee will
continue discussion of preseason competition penalties at its April meeting.
l. APR Cohort
Definition. The committee discussed a situation in
which a spring-sport student-athlete is in attendance at an institution the
entire academic year, but is awarded aid only in the fall term in order to
avoid inclusion of that student-athlete in the spring APR cohort. The committee directed the staff to
review 2004-05 APR data to identify trends regarding student-athletes who
appear in their respective teams’ fall cohorts, are retained for the
spring, but are excluded from their respective teams’ spring cohorts. The
staff’s report will be reviewed during the April meeting, when the
committee will consider a possible change to the cohort definition to ensure
the cohort definition appropriately includes student-athlete receiving aid and
participating in athletics.
m. Correspondence from
Member Conference. Prior to the meeting, the committee
reviewed a letter from a conference commissioner requesting that the committee
continue to review the issue of transfer student-athletes and how those
student-athletes are referenced in the APR. In addition, the correspondence
requested that coaching changes continue to be considered in the development of
APP policies. The committee noted
that it continues to review issues related to transfer student-athletes and
that coaching change is currently a mitigating circumstance taken into
consideration during appeals of contemporaneous penalties.
Committee Chair:
Diane
Dickman,
Kevin
Lennon, Membership Services
Todd
Petr, Research
Bill
Regan,