NCAA Division I Academic Updates
Matt Burgemeister & Julie Cromer
Session Overview
• Academic Reform Recap.
• Facilitating Learning and Achieving Graduation
(FLAG).
• Academic Waivers.
• Nontraditional Courses.
• Academic Support Services Study.
• Updates by Sport.
• Future Topics
NCAA Academic Reform Cycle
• "Seamless" model for
• Extensive academic
eligibility.
research available.
• Initial eligibility-16
• Informs policy decisions.
core.
• PTD-full
implementation.
Research Standards
Implementation Rates
• Penalties:
• Immediate. • Graduation Success
• Long-Term. Rate (GSR).
• Incentives: • NCAA Division I
Academic Progress
• Public recognition. Rate (APR).
NCAA Division I Academic Cabinet
Priority Topics
• Academic success of transfers, particularly
two-year college transfers.
• Nontraditional courses.
• Impact of academic reform on academic
support personnel.
• SA time demands.
• SA degree program selection.
Data-Driven Policy Development
• NCAA Division I governance structure
emphasizes the importance of using
research and data-driven decision making
in the development and review of legislative
and policy recommendations.
FACILITATING LEARNING AND
ACHIEVING GRADUATION (FLAG)
FLAG Background
• Developed by NCAA Division I Working Group to
Review Issues of Student-Athletes Academic Risk
in response to Presidential Task Force report.
• Primary purposes:
- Optimize campus environment to promote
graduation success.
- Increase efficiency of campus support services.
- Inform decision making.
FLAG Background
• Conceptualizes risk as risk of not graduating
from a four-year institution.
• Any SA can be at risk of not graduating.
• Risk can take a variety of forms.
• Risk can fluctuate throughout a SA's
enrollment.
FLAG Structure
• Three modules will…
- Identify an individual SA's potential hurdles to
graduation.
- Match appropriate support services to mitigate
the individual's risks.
- Provide reports to help evaluate the
effectiveness of services and inform institutional
decision making.
FLAG Modules
GRO
Support
FLAG Services
FLAG Modules
Graduation Risk
Overview (GRO)
Scoring model by
GRO which each SA can
be evaluated, based
on data-driven risk
factors.
FLAG Modules
Support Services
Activities designed
Support to counter the risk
Services factors presented
by each SA.
FLAG Modules
Evaluation of Support
Services and Programs
Determines the
Evaluation effectiveness of
campus units in
mitigating risk factors
presented collectively
by SAs.
Module One: GRO
• Released December 2009.
- Available at: https://web1.ncaa.org/GRO/exec/login.
• Allows continuing assessment of risk.
• Limited to a reasonable number of risk factors
validated through research or expert judgment.
• Facilitates the inclusion of local variables and
customization of risk benchmarks.
Welcome Screen
Setup Screen
Student List Screen
Student Evaluation Screen
Student Evaluation Screen-continued
Module Two: Support Services
• Development of the Support Services module is
underway.
• Database of academic and life skills support
services.
• Matched to individual SA based on risk factor(s)
identified.
• Advisory group developing and testing the
program.
Module Three: Evaluation Report
• Assess the overall level of risk presented by SAs
and the mitigating effects of support services
provided.
• Reporting feature that will allow institutions to
measure outcomes and improvement.
• Reports will be useful communication, planning
and decision-making tools.
• Generate information to be used in athletics
certification self-study.
Next Steps
• Project Time Line:
- Anticipated release of Support Services module
July/August 2010.
- Evaluation module (module three) available late
2010.
- Contact Matt Burgemeister or Jean Orr at the
NCAA national office for additional information or
to participate in the development of the modules .
ACADEMIC WAIVERS
Academic Waivers
• Modified appellate process for initial-eligibility
(IE) and progress-toward-degree (PTD)
waivers.
- Eliminate review by cabinet subcommittee.
- Waiver committees have final authority.
• Effective for all waivers impacting eligibility in
2010-11 academic year.
Initial-Eligibility Waivers
June 1 – December 31, 2009
Type Number Percent
Core Course 225 45.2%
Education-Impacting Disability 74 14.8%
GPA 94 18.8%
International 99 19.8%
Other 7 1.4%
Total 499
Decision Number Percent
Approved 342 68.6%
Denied 84 16.8%
Partially Approved 44 8.8%
Other 29 5.8%
PTD Waivers
June 1, 2009 – January 7, 2010
Type Number Percent
Percentage of Degree 181 36.9%
18-hour requirement 138 28.1%
6-hour requirement 62 12.6%
Other 110 22.4%
Total 491
Decision Number Percent
Approved 211 58.3%
Conditionally Approved 36 9.9 %
Denied 54 14.9%
Other 61 16.9%
Total 362
NONTRADITIONAL COURSES
(INITIAL ELIGIBILITY)
Nontraditional Courses
• Courses taught via the Internet, distance
learning, independent study, individualized
instruction, correspondence and courses
taught by similar means.
• Any course or credit that is not earned in a
typical face-to-face classroom environment
with regular contact hours between the
instructor and the student.
Nontraditional Courses Used for
Initial Eligibility
• Increasing prevalence of nontraditional courses
in secondary education.
- 45 states have a state virtual school or online
initiative, full-time online schools, or both.
- 24 states have statewide full-time online schools.
- Two states require an online course for high school
graduation; 4 others are considering.
** Source: International Association for K-12 Online Learning
(March 2010 presentation to NCAA Student Records Review Committee).
Nontraditional Courses Used
for Initial Eligibility
• Three-fourths of school districts had 1 or more
students in an online or blended course.
• More universities are offering K-12 courses online.
• K-12 online learning enrollments growing 30% annually
nationwide with 50,000 in 2000, over 2 million
enrollments in 2008-2009.
- In 2019, 50% of high school courses will be delivered
online.
** Source: International Association for K-12 Online Learning
(March 2010 presentation to NCAA Student Records Review Committee).
Nontraditional Courses Used
for Initial Eligibility
• Former NCAA Division I Academics/Eligibility/
Compliance Cabinet recommended the
development of policies to establish baseline
standards of quality for nontraditional courses
and secondary school programs.
• NCAA Division I Academic Cabinet identified as a
priority topic and began review June 2009.
Nontraditional Courses Used
for Initial Eligibility
• Proposal No. 2009-64 was sponsored to address
concerns related to the use of nontraditional
courses in meeting IE requirements.
- Developed with consultation from the NCAA
Eligibility Center.
- Provides guidance to prospective SAs and the
secondary school community regarding acceptable
nontraditional coursework.
Nontraditional Courses Used
for Initial Eligibility
• New requirements.
- Student and instructor have ongoing access and
regular interaction.
- Student's work is available for evaluation and
validation.
- Course includes a defined time period for completion.
• Adopted January 2010; effective August 1, 2010.
Nontraditional Courses Used
for Initial Eligibility
• Additional Information.
- Division I IE Waivers and PSA Review.
Tuesday 8:30 a.m. and Thursday 1:30 p.m.
- Division I Pre-Enrollment Academic Certification
Issues.
Tuesday 10:15 a.m. and Thursday 3:15 p.m.
- Educational columns.
- AMA OnDemand educational video.
NONTRADITIONAL COURSES
(CURRENT STUDENT-ATHLETES)
Nontraditional Course Enrollment
By Current Student-Athletes
• Proposals in 2008-09 legislative cycle defeated.
• Remains a priority topic for NCAA Division I Board
of Directors and Academic Cabinet.
- Greater acceptance and prevalence throughout
higher education.
• September 2009: Cabinet met with NCAA Division
I Legislative Council chair to discuss perceived
objections to proposals; continues to work with
council.
Nontraditional Course Enrollment
By Current Student-Athletes
• February 2010: Identified several considerations
to guide future discussion.
- SAs should have similar access to courses as other
students.
- May help to more clearly define "nontraditional courses."
- Important to maintain SA engagement in campus life via
enrollment in classroom-based courses.
- Appropriate to maintain autonomy regarding the use of
coursework for degree credit and to assure integrity and
security in nontraditional courses.
Nontraditional Course Enrollment
By Current Student-Athletes
• Academic Cabinet will continue to discuss at
June 2010, meeting.
- Attempt to modernize language and provide
consistency to all forms of course delivery.
- Address concerns with previous proposals.
- Education on impact of proposals will be
essential.
ACADEMIC SUPPORT SERVICES
SURVEY
Academic Support Services
Survey
• Academic Cabinet interested in impact of
academic reform on academic support
personnel.
• Worked with representatives from N4A and
NACADA to conduct a comprehensive study
of academic support services.
- Updated from similar survey in 1998.
Academic Support Services
Survey
• Division I institutions were surveyed regarding:
- Support services provided specifically for SAs;
- Support services requirements for all SAs and particular
subgroups of SAs;
- Available resources, including academic support staff,
facilities and budgets; and
- Perceived effects of NCAA academic reform initiatives.
Academic Support Services
Survey
• More than 90% of Division I institutions
responded.
- At least 80% in each subdivision and a broad
representation of resource levels.
• Academic Cabinet began review of
preliminary findings September 2009 and
February 2010.
Survey Findings - General
• Almost all institutions have an academic
support program for SAs and 88% have
physical space dedicated to academic
support.
• There were significant differences in services
offered by subdivision and resource level,
though some are nearly ubiquitous: course
selection, study hall and course-specific
tutors.
Proportion of Student-Athletes Who Use the Service
Less
None/
100% 80-100% 60-80% 40-60% 20-40% than
Not offered
20%
Course selection/
degree progress
34% 40% 10% 9% 3% 2% 3%
Monitor class
attendance
25% 26% 14% 14% 10% 6% 5%
Daily class check 3% 4% 3% 10% 15% 30% 35%
Study hall 11% 11% 22% 32% 16% 6% 3%
Assess learning
disabilities
3% 3% 3% 4% 9% 40% 39%
Accommodations
for LD
4% 5% 3% 4% 7% 52% 24%
Basic skills
assessment
11% 5% 7% 6% 13% 25% 32%
Remediation 5% 7% 10% 16% 22% 29% 11%
Proportion of Student-Athletes who Use the Service
Less None/
100% 80-100% 60-80% 40-60% 20-40% than Not
20% offered
Course-specific
tutors
8% 10% 23% 28% 21% 8% 3%
Summer transition
program
4% 3% 3% 7% 11% 40% 32%
Priority registration 48% 27% 2% 2% 2% 1% 18%
Computer lab 28% 30% 19% 8% 6% 1% 9%
Note taker 0% >1% 2% 2% 2% 17% 77%
Faculty mentor 2% 3% 4% 5% 11% 30% 46%
Peer mentor 1% 3% 4% 9% 12% 31% 41%
Subdivisional Difference Resource Difference
Course selection/
FBS greater proportion Resource 1 & 4 greater
degree progress
Monitor class attendance
Daily class check FBS greater proportion Resource 1 & 4 greater
Study hall Resource 3 & 4 greater
Assess learning disabilities FBS greater Resource 1 greater
Accommodations for LD
Basic skills assessment FBS greater Resource 1 greater
Remediation FBS greater Resource 4 greater
Course-specific tutors FBS greater Resource 1 greater
Summer Transition Program FBS greater Resource 1 greater
Priority registration FBS greater
Computer lab
Faculty mentor Resource 1 greater
Peer mentor
Survey Findings - Resources
• FBS institutions report an average of 9 full-time
staff members and 57 tutors; approximately 3
times the average of other subdivisions.
• Median academic support budget of $655,000 at
FBS institutions compared to $150,000 in other
subdivisions.
• Overall, 64% of institutions reported increased
spending on academic support in spite of current
economic conditions.
Survey Findings - Policies
• The majority of institutions require that SAs use
various academic support services.
- Basic skills assessment, course-specific tutoring,
summer transition program.
• Some variation among institutions in requiring study
hall, attendance monitoring or tutoring for all or some
SAs.
• FBS institutions were significantly more likely to
require these than other subdivisions.
General Academic Support Requirements
• The majority of institutions require their SAs use various academic
support services that are available to them. FBS institutions were
significantly more likely to require these than FCS or non-football
institutions.
Percent indicating service required of all or certain SA subgroups:
Basic Skills Course Specific Summer Transition
Assessment Tutoring Program
FBS 91% 89% 75%
FCS 55% 67% 40%
No Football 57% 71% 56%
Quartile 1 84% 92% 87%
Quartile 2 52% 67% 50%
Quartile 3 68% 75% 48%
Quartile 4 74% 72% 45%
Academic Support Requirements: Study Hall
• Among all respondents, 6% require study hall of all their SAs and 89%
require it of certain subgroups. FCS institutions were less likely to report
requiring it than FBS and institutions not sponsoring football.
Overall percent indicating required of the following subgroups:
Men's Men's Women's Women's
Baseball Football
Basketball Other Basketball Other
2-4 Transfer 40% 50% 45% 41% 48% 41%
4-4 Transfer 34% 45% 37% 36% 41% 36%
At risk 61% 72% 67% 71% 72% 70%
Certain
Classes (e.g., 57% 66% 64% 63% 65% 62%
freshmen)
Below a GPA
65% 73% 68% 73% 73% 73%
Threshold
Academic Support Requirements: Monitor Attendance
• Among all respondents, 24% require that their SA class
attendance is monitored for all their SAs and 54% require it
of certain subgroups. There were no significant differences
by subdivision or resource.
Overall percent indicating required of the following subgroups:
Men's Men's Women's Women's
Baseball Football
Basketball Other Basketball Other
2-4 Transfer 12% 23% 24% 12% 17% 11%
4-4 Transfer 9% 19% 21% 10% 15% 10%
At risk 33% 45% 57% 37% 40% 37%
Certain
Classes (e.g., 18% 26% 32% 20% 22% 20%
freshmen)
Below a GPA
Threshold 25% 36% 48% 28% 31% 28%
Academic Support Requirements: Tutors
• Among all respondents, only 1% require tutors of all their SAs,
while 73% require it of certain subgroups. FBS institutions were
more likely to report tutoring is a requirement than FCS or non-
football institutions.
Overall percent indicating required of the following subgroups:
Men's Men's Women's Women's
Baseball Football
Basketball Other Basketball Other
2-4 Transfer 15% 24% 18% 14% 21% 14%
4-4 Transfer 12% 21% 15% 13% 18% 12%
At risk 50% 60% 44% 56% 58% 56%
Certain Classes
(e.g., freshmen) 24% 33% 25% 26% 30% 25%
Below a GPA
Threshold 43% 51% 37% 47% 49% 47%
Survey Findings: Impact of Reform
• Over 70% of respondents indicated that
coaches are more involved in academics as
a result of increased eligibility standards.
• Nearly 60% of institutions have added
academic support staff as a direct result of
new eligibility requirements.
Academic Support Services Study
• Many characteristics affect academic
performance (GPA and eligibility for first-year
SAs); will continue to review the impact of
academic support budgets and specific support
services.
• Next steps:
- Study connection between academic services and
academic outcomes at the individual and team levels.
- Compare trends from 1998 survey.
Academic Support Services
• February 2010: Academic Cabinet hosted
annual meeting with N4A president and
president elect and discussed:
- Impact of academic reform on academic support
professionals.
- IE and two-year college transfer requirements.
- Challenges of supporting academically underprepared
SAs .
UPDATES BY SPORT
Baseball
• Key issues:
- SAs generally were academically prepared, but
were not performing to academic potential.
- Loss of eligibility after spring term, with summer
participation and opportunity to regain eligibility
in fall.
- High rate of transfer.
Baseball - continued
• Proposed remedies:
– Require "E" prior to beginning of fall term to
be eligible. ADOPTED
– Eliminate one-time transfer exception.
ADOPTED
– Financial aid restructuring. ADOPTED
APR Trends in Baseball,
Men's Basketball and Football
Notes: Analyses based on 276 baseball squads, 323 men's basketball squads and 232 football squads that
sponsored the sport within Division I during all 6 years. Overall rates include all men's and women's
sports, including the 3 sports displayed. Retention calculation changed in 2007-08 (year 5).
APR Trends in Baseball, Men's Basketball and Football
(2.6 Retention Adjustment Removed = Constant APR Metric)
Notes: Analyses based on 276 baseball squads, 323 men's basketball squads and 232 football squads that
sponsored the sport within Division I during all 6 years. Overall rates include all men's and women's
sports, including the 3 sports displayed. Retention calculation changed in 2007-08 (year 5).
Eligibility Trends in Baseball, Men's Basketball and Football
Notes: Analyses based on 276 baseball squads, 323 men's basketball squads and 232 football squads that
sponsored the sport within Division I during all 6 years. Overall rates include all men's and women's
sports, including the 3 sports displayed.
Retention Trends in Baseball, Men's Basketball and Football
Notes: Analyses based on 276 baseball squads, 323 men's basketball squads and 232 football squads that
sponsored the sport within Division I during all 6 years. Overall rates include all men's and women's
sports, including the 3 sports displayed. Retention calculation changed in 2007-08 (year 5).
Retention Trends in Baseball, Men's Basketball and Football
(2.6 Retention Adjustment Removed = Constant APR Metric)
Notes: Analyses based on 276 baseball squads, 323 men's basketball squads and 232 football squads that
sponsored the sport within Division I during all 6 years. Overall rates include all men's and women's
sports, including the 3 sports displayed. Retention calculation changed in 2007-08 (year 5).
Men's Basketball
• Key issues:
- More SAs generally enter with lower academic
profiles.
- While eligibility has been improving, retention
remains a challenge.
- Higher rates of transfer and head coach turnover.
SAs overwhelmingly cite strong connection with coach
as primary reason for selecting institution.
Men's Basketball - continued
• Proposed remedies:
- Permit noncounter status to former players who
separate from team after coaching change. ADOPTED
- Limit the number of P.E. credits applied to 2-4 transfer
requirements. ADOPTED
- "Ramp up" practice activities in fall. DEFEATED
- Reduce season by one game. DEFEATED
- Best practices.
- Summer retention model. PENDING
APR Trends in Baseball, Men's Basketball and Football
Notes: Analyses based on 276 baseball squads, 323 men's basketball squads and 232 football squads that
sponsored the sport within Division I during all 6 years. Overall rates include all men's and women's
sports, including the 3 sports displayed. Retention calculation changed in 2007-08 (year 5).
APR Trends in Baseball, Men's Basketball and Football
(2.6 Retention Adjustment Removed = Constant APR Metric)
Notes: Analyses based on 276 baseball squads, 323 men's basketball squads and 232 football squads that
sponsored the sport within Division I during all 6 years. Overall rates include all men's and women's
sports, including the 3 sports displayed. Retention calculation changed in 2007-08 (year 5).
Eligibility Trends in Baseball, Men's Basketball and Football
Notes: Analyses based on 276 baseball squads, 323 men's basketball squads and 232 football squads
that sponsored the sport within Division I during all 6 years. Overall rates include all men's and
women's sports, including the 3 sports displayed.
Retention Trends in Baseball, Men's Basketball and Football
Notes: Analyses based on 276 baseball squads, 323 men's basketball squads and 232 football squads that
sponsored the sport within Division I during all 6 years. Overall rates include all men's and women's
sports, including the 3 sports displayed. Retention calculation changed in 2007-08 (year 5).
Retention Trends in Baseball, Men's Basketball and Football
(2.6 Retention Adjustment Removed = Constant APR Metric)
Notes: Analyses based on 276 baseball squads, 323 men's basketball squads and 232 football squads that
sponsored the sport within Division I during all 6 years. Overall rates include all men's and women's
sports, including the 3 sports displayed. Retention calculation changed in 2007-08 (year 5).
Football
• Key issues:
- More SAs generally enter with lower academic
profiles.
- Many football SAs fail to meet eligibility requirements
at the end of the first fall semester.
- Some elevated transfer activity, particularly among
FCS squads.
- "0/2” departures as eligibility is exhausted, particularly
among FBS squads.
- Time demands.
Football - continued
• Proposed remedies:
- Require SAs to earn 9 credits and meet all other
eligibility requirements in order to be eligible for the
entire season the following fall.
4-game suspension may be reduced to 2-game
suspension if SA earns 27 credits over the entire
academic year.
- Eliminate the exhausted eligibility exemption for
"0/2" departures from FBS squads.
- Continue to study time demands.
APR Trends in Baseball, Men's Basketball and Football
Notes: Analyses based on 276 baseball squads, 323 men's basketball squads and 232 football squads that
sponsored the sport within Division I during all 6 years. Overall rates include all men's and women's
sports, including the 3 sports displayed. Retention calculation changed in 2007-08 (year 5).
APR Trends in Baseball, Men's Basketball and Football
(2.6 Retention Adjustment Removed = Constant APR Metric)
Notes: Analyses based on 276 baseball squads, 323 men's basketball squads and 232 football squads that
sponsored the sport within Division I during all 6 years. Overall rates include all men's and women's
sports, including the 3 sports displayed. Retention calculation changed in 2007-08 (year 5).
Eligibility Trends in Baseball, Men's Basketball and Football
Notes: Analyses based on 276 baseball squads, 323 men's basketball squads and 232 football squads that
sponsored the sport within Division I during all 6 years. Overall rates include all men's and women's
sports, including the 3 sports displayed.
Retention Trends in Baseball, Men's Basketball and Football
Notes: Analyses based on 276 baseball squads, 323 men's basketball squads and 232 football squads that
sponsored the sport within Division I during all 6 years. Overall rates include all men's and women's
sports, including the 3 sports displayed. Retention calculation changed in 2007-08 (year 5).
Retention Trends in Baseball, Men's Basketball and Football
(2.6 Retention Adjustment Removed = Constant APR Metric)
Notes: Analyses based on 276 baseball squads, 323 men's basketball squads and 232 football squads that
sponsored the sport within Division I during all 6 years. Overall rates include all men's and women's
sports, including the 3 sports displayed. Retention calculation changed in 2007-08 (year 5).
Women's Basketball
• Key issues:
- Entering academic profiles appear to be on a
slightly downward trend.
- "0/2's" increased last year, then decreased
again this year.
- Higher 2-4 transfer rates as compared to other
women's sports.
- Retention appears to be on a downward trend.
Women's Basketball - continued
• Proposed remedies:
- Summer school attendance for incoming SAs.
Freshmen and transfers.
Enroll in 6, pass 3.
One hour of countable athletically related activities per week,
up to max of 10 total during summer term.
- Study-skills education must be provided for all incoming
SAs.
Time management, first-year experience, nutritional
education.
FLAG is suggested.
APR, Eligibility and Retention Trends
APR 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Baseball 933 935 941 945 965 966
Men's Basketball 929 929 929 933 948 950
Football 930 930 934 941 948 949
Women's Basketball 959 958 962 964 967 970
ELIGIBILITY 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Baseball 941 938 940 951 969 969
Men's Basketball 937 936 936 948 959 957
Football 921 920 923 931 936 940
Women's Basketball 971 968 975 974 971 976
RETENTION 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Baseball 919 924 930 929 948 953
Men's Basketball 917 911 910 907 928 935
Football 934 933 936 942 950 950
Women's Basketball 945 945 945 950 960 960
Note: Analyses based on squads that sponsored the sport within Division I during all 6 years.
APR, Eligibility and Retention Trends
(2.6 Retention Adjustment Removed = Constant Metric)
APR 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Baseball 933 935 941 945 959 960
Men's Basketball 929 929 929 933 940 942
Football 930 930 934 941 947 948
Women's Basketball 959 958 962 964 960 961
ELIGIBILITY 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Baseball 941 938 940 951 969 969
Men's Basketball 937 936 936 948 959 957
Football 921 920 923 931 936 940
Women's Basketball 971 968 975 974 971 976
RETENTION 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Baseball 919 924 930 929 936 941
Men's Basketball 917 911 910 907 912 920
Football 934 933 936 942 947 947
Women's Basketball 945 945 945 950 945 943
Note: Analyses based on squads that sponsored the sport within Division I during all 6 years.
APR Trends in Baseball, Men's Basketball,
Football, and Women's Basketball
APR
APR (2.6 Adjustment Removed)
980 980
970 970
960 960
Baseball Baseball
950 950
940 Men’s Basketball 940 Men’s Basketball
930 Football 930 Football
920 920
Women’s Women’s
Basketball Basketball
910 910
900 900
Notes: Analyses based squads that sponsored the sport within Division I during all 6 years. Retention
calculation changed in 2007-08 (year 5).
Retention Trends in Baseball, Men's Basketball,
Football, and Women's Basketball
Retention
Retention (2.6 Adjustment Removed)
970 970
960 960
950 950
940 Baseball 940 Baseball
930 930
Men’s Basketball Men’s Basketball
920 920
Football Football
910 910
900 Women’s 900 Women’s
Basketball Basketball
890 890
880 880
Notes: Analyses based squads that sponsored the sport within Division I during all 6 years. Retention
calculation changed in 2007-08 (year 5).
Trends in Number of "0/2’s"
Student-Athletes Leaving School While Academically Ineligible
SPORT 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
417 381 341 298 226 210
Baseball
(5.6%) (5.0%) (4.4%) (3.9%) (2.9%) (2.9%)
319 315 306 252 193 191
Men's Basketball
(7.8%) (7.6%) (7.3%) (6.0%) (4.6%) (4.6%)
1,312 1,290 1,152 1,046 921 911
Football
(7.0%) (6.8%) (6.0%) (5.5%) (4.8%) (4.7%)
74 79 74 69 49 55
Wrestling
(5.0%) (5.4%) (5.0%) (4.8%) (3.2%) (3.7%)
Women's 134 146 121 97 129 100
Basketball (3.0%) (3.2%) (2.7%) (2.1%) (2.9%) (2.2%)
Notes:
(1) Analyses based on N=5,873 squads that sponsored the sport within Division I during all 6 years.
(2) N = Number of SAs leaving school while ineligible ("0/2's") during that academic year (includes SAs
who left ineligible after exhausting their eligibility).
(3) % = Percentage of individuals in that sport who were "0/2's" in that academic year.
Rank Ordering of Single-Year "0/2" Rates
(2008-09)
MEN'S SPORT Percent "0/2" WOMEN'S SPORT Percent "0/2"
Football 4.6% Basketball 2.2%
Basketball 4.5% Track (Indoor) 2.1%
Wrestling 3.8% Track (Outdoor) 2.0%
Softball 1.6%
Baseball 3.0%
Soccer 1.4%
Track (Indoor) 2.8%
Cross Country 1.4%
Track (Outdoor) 2.7%
Crew 1.3%
Soccer 2.5%
Volleyball 1.2%
Cross Country 2.3%
Swimming 1.2%
Ice Hockey 2.3% Tennis 1.1%
Swimming 2.3% Golf 1.1%
Lacrosse 2.2% Gymnastics 0.7%
Tennis 2.1% Lacrosse 0.5%
Golf 1.8% Field Hockey 0.3%
Notes: Analysis based on N=6,411 squads that sponsored the sport within Division I during 2008-09.
FUTURE TOPICS
Goals for Enhanced Eligibility Model
• Help ensure SA academic success first year and
beyond.
• Preserve institutional responsibility for admissions
decisions.
• Encourage PSAs to balance their self-identities as
students and athletes.
• Consider "cross-over" impact(s) of IE, PTD and
transfer requirements.
Principles for Review of Initial-
Eligibility Standards
• Standards should strive to maximize first-year college academic
success, putting SAs on track to graduate in a reasonable
timeframe and minimizing false negatives and adverse impact on
minority and low-income PSAs.
• NCAA rules shall be minimally acceptable standards, with
continued reliance on member institutions to make admissions
decisions that are most appropriate for determining academic
success locally.
Principles for Review of
Initial-Eligibility Standards
• The Academic Cabinet's review should include
consideration of the most recent NCAA academic
data, changing secondary school standards (e.g.,
No Child Left Behind) and the national secondary
school environment (e.g., increasing enrollment in
nontraditional courses).
Principles for Review of
Initial-Eligibility Standards
• Any new standards should be simple and nationally
applicable to assist prospects and high schools in
understanding the rules and to provide for consistent
application throughout the United States and abroad.
• Changes should be able to be implemented with relatively
minimal increased chance for operational error and little to
no increased bureaucracy for member institutions and high
schools.
Principles for Review of
Initial-Eligibility Standards
• New requirements should not create or expand
opportunities for misrepresentation of PSAs'
academic abilities or credentials.
Initial-Eligibility Standards
Under Consideration
• Changing the sliding scale.
- Moderate re-weighting of the scale is not likely to lead to much more
accurate predictions of academic outcomes than the equally weighted
scale current in use.
• Imposing a minimum high school core-course GPA.
- When examined independently, high school core-course GPA is 2 to
3 times more predictive of first-year academic outcomes than test
scores.
- High school core course GPA has become more predictive as the
number of core courses has increased.
Initial-Eligibility Standards
Under Consideration
• Creating a multitiered eligibility standard.
- Would limit first-year competition opportunities to
PSAs who meet a higher IE standard (e.g., higher
high school core-course GPA).
- Would permit less academically prepared PSAs to
receive athletics aid while focusing more directly on
academics during the first year.
2-4 Transfer Standards Review
• For the first time, the Academic Cabinet will be able
to build models for "successful" academic transfers
from two-year to four-year institutions.
• Core curriculum does not appear to predict eventual
graduation from four-year institution.
• GPA earned at the two-year institution, rather than
transfer GPA, appears to be stronger predictor of
future academic success.
- Impact of P.E. credits.
Student-Athlete Time Demands
• Academic Cabinet guiding principle: Commit to SA
well-being issues, including minimizing missed
class time and balancing self-identification as
students with identity as athletes.
• Next year: Review findings of ongoing GOALS and
SCORE surveys.
• Board of Directors recommended future study of
time demands for football SAs.
Student-Athlete Time Demands
• Findings of last GOALS and SCORE studies.
- SAs report 30 to 40 hours per week on athletics
activities.
- FBS football players report the most hours and the
highest athletics plus academics time commitment.
- Baseball and basketball report the least time on class
and study.
- Five sports report more time on athletics than
academics: baseball, men's basketball, football, men's
golf and men's ice hockey.
Student-Athlete Degree Program
Selection
• Impact of eligibility requirements on degree
selection.
• Academic Cabinet guiding principle:
Promote SAs' options to select from a wide
range of degree programs and to integrate
fully into the university and student body.
Student-Athlete Degree Program
Selection
• Academic Cabinet particularly interested in:
- Changes of major.
- Minors.
- Degree selection by transfers.
- Influences on degree selection.
• GOALS and SCORE study findings.
• Feedback from N4A and NACADA members.
PTD Waivers
• PTD waivers citing a change of degree program
are overwhelmingly approved.
- 2008-09: 42 of 46 (91.3%).
- 2007-08: 34 of 36 (94.4%).
• Reasonable path to graduation within 5 years of
initial enrollment.
• Waivers typically denied when SA would have
been ineligible under previous major.
Review of Continuing Eligibility
Model
• Academic Cabinet responsible for evaluating the
effectiveness of academic eligibility rules.
• Cabinet will review SA academic outcomes to
ensure that PTD requirements are fulfilling
intended goals.
- Annual progression toward a degree.
- Graduation within 5 years.
Closing Summary
• Academic Reform Recap.
• FLAG.
• Academic Waivers.
• Nontraditional Courses.
• Academic Support Services Study.
• Updates by Sport.
• Future Topics.
NCAA Division I Academic
Updates