The NEW Playing Field
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:19 pmNCAA unveils new academic rules, which may upset the balance of college sports
By Jenni Carlson
The Oklahoman
Take a good look at college athletics. Stare it in the eyes. Examine the details. Study the specifics.
Now, commit it to memory.
The effects of the NCAA's academic rules
College athletics will never look like this again.
Earlier this month, the NCAA approved new academic standards expected to radically alter college athletics. Teams will be measured based on players' eligibility and retention, and will be punished if they fail to keep enough players eligible and in school. Scholarships could be taken and postseason play could be forfeited. The worst offenders could even be stripped of their NCAA membership.
Even though the NCAA says the new standard is equal to a graduation rate of about 50 percent, a mark met by a vast majority of teams, the NCAA has never before held teams accountable for falling below a grad-rate threshold.
"It's going to change the face of athletics as we know it,'' said Gerald Gurney, associate athletic director for academic affairs at Oklahoma.
And the sports expected to be most affected are those most near and dear to the hearts of Oklahomans.
Football. Basketball. Baseball. The NCAA estimates about 30 percent of football teams will fail to meet the new standard. Among baseball teams, 25 percent will fall short, while about 20 percent of men's basketball teams will.
And falling short means losing scholarships.
"I'm not being an alarmist here,'' Gurney said. "There is an expectation that these sports will lose scholarships.''
Marilyn Middlebrook, Gurney's counterpart at Oklahoma State, said, "It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so punitive, if we had something that was showing a relief somewhere. I think they've come at it too hard too fast.''
The new formula for measuring a team's success off the court and in the classroom is the Academic Progress Rate, or APR. Those letters could become the most significant in college athletics' alphabet soup, even more than RPI or BCS.
APR might be less convoluted than the BCS, but it is every bit as complex. Every student-athlete on scholarship, full or partial, accounts for four points each academic year. Two points can be earned for the fall semester, two for the spring. One point is for remaining academically eligible, and the other is for staying at the school.
A team's APR is calculated by dividing the number of points earned by the points possible, then multiplying by 1,000.
Minimum score allowed: 925.
If a team doesn't hit the mark, it could lose as much as 10 percent of its scholarships. That means football could lose as many as nine, men's basketball as many as two.
"We're talking about rather strong penalties here and not mere rhetoric,'' NCAA president Myles Brand said earlier this month during the organization's annual meeting. "Student- athletes are students first and are expected to make genuine progress toward a degree and graduate.''
There are two penalty phases.
The first involves contemporaneous penalties. If a player on a team with an APR below 925 becomes academically ineligible and leaves school, that scholarship can not be re-awarded for a year.
The second penalty phase will involve historical penalties. They will punish teams chronically falling below the APR threshold and will increase in severity every year a team fails to improve its score.
"We have some real teeth in academic reform,'' Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione said.
Some wonder, though, if the teeth will tear apart college athletics.
When the NCAA slapped sanctions on the OSU football team in the late '80s for reckless operations, they were considered among the stiffest in history. A step below the death penalty, actually. The NCAA took away 15 scholarships but spread the penalty over three years.
The Cowboys lost five scholarships a year, and it was considered harsh.
Under these new academic standards, a football team could lose as many as nine scholarships a year.
"I just think they've put unrealistic expectations on the coaches,'' Middlebrook said. "If coaches were rewarded for graduating instead of winning, we wouldn't have an issue. "Look at the coaches that were fired. Why were they fired?''
Tyrone Willingham graduated 77 percent of his players at Notre Dame last season, then got a pink slip this season.
The question then becomes whether the NCAA can legislate caring.
Will these new measures force universities to care about academics?
"The new emphasis is better than the old days,'' Murray Sperber said. "How it plays itself out is impossible to know.''
Sperber, the former Indiana professor and outspoken critic of big-time college sports, doubts these academic reforms will have a significant impact. The NCAA created the 20-hour rule about a decade ago that limited student- athletes to 20 hours of practice each week.
"People at the time said, `Oh, my god, this is going to so radically change college sports,''' Sperber said. "Except they put in this huge loophole.''
Voluntary practice was unlimited. "So, you know how it all ended up,'' Sperber said during a telephone interview from his California home. "With these rules, too ... I'm skeptical about how much actual bite these rules will have.''
Administrators at OU and OSU, though, are gearing up for major ramifications.
In Norman, Gurney began crunching numbers almost two years ago. He presented his analysis to the coaches, guessing what the minimum threshold might be and alerting coaches to potential problems. He also provided them strategies to improve their team's score.
"The strategy unfortunately will be that you should not recruit as many top-quality recruits who will leave after their junior year because you will lose points,'' Gurney said.
Now, risky recruits are not only kids who might not make it academically but also ones who might be talented enough to turn pro early. A player who excels on the field can be just as costly to a team's APR as one who struggles in the classroom.
Coaches, then, must balance their recruiting classes. Too many risks, and the team might lose scholarships. Too few, and the team might not be able to win.
"You can take a chance if they are truly a difference maker,'' Middlebrook said, "but it can't be the whole team.''
Middlebrook is convinced, though, problems could still arise for coaches who recruit the right players and teams who hit the books hard.
She went back several years and calculated the APRs for all of the teams at OSU. Baseball had one of its best semesters academically during that time, compiling a team grade-point average of 3.2.
Its APR would've been around 700.
On the flip side, men's basketball was widely criticized last year for having the lowest graduation rate of the teams at the Final Four. Of players entering school as freshmen between 1994- 97, the Cowboys had graduated 11 percent. Had schools been calculating APR last spring, though, the Cowboys might have been celebrated.
Their APR last year would've been 980 with only one player, mid-year transfer Onye Ibekwe, not scoring the maximum four points.
The biggest sticking point for many athletic administrators is athletes who transfer or leave school for personal reasons. Maybe they aren't happy with playing time. Maybe they want to be closer to home. Maybe they have an opportunity to make millions by playing professionally.
"If a student has valid reasons for leaving, even for their own well-being, I understand that,'' Gurney said. "It's not a crime.''
But it is in the NCAA's new academic rule book.
Whether these new standards are a good thing depends on who you ask, sometimes even at the same school.
Castiglione: "It may not be the be-all, end-all, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.''
Gurney: "The system is doomed because it's flawed. My major concern is that they make the changes sooner rather than later because it can do irreparable damage to athletics as we know it.''
By Jenni Carlson
The Oklahoman
Take a good look at college athletics. Stare it in the eyes. Examine the details. Study the specifics.
Now, commit it to memory.
The effects of the NCAA's academic rules
College athletics will never look like this again.
Earlier this month, the NCAA approved new academic standards expected to radically alter college athletics. Teams will be measured based on players' eligibility and retention, and will be punished if they fail to keep enough players eligible and in school. Scholarships could be taken and postseason play could be forfeited. The worst offenders could even be stripped of their NCAA membership.
Even though the NCAA says the new standard is equal to a graduation rate of about 50 percent, a mark met by a vast majority of teams, the NCAA has never before held teams accountable for falling below a grad-rate threshold.
"It's going to change the face of athletics as we know it,'' said Gerald Gurney, associate athletic director for academic affairs at Oklahoma.
And the sports expected to be most affected are those most near and dear to the hearts of Oklahomans.
Football. Basketball. Baseball. The NCAA estimates about 30 percent of football teams will fail to meet the new standard. Among baseball teams, 25 percent will fall short, while about 20 percent of men's basketball teams will.
And falling short means losing scholarships.
"I'm not being an alarmist here,'' Gurney said. "There is an expectation that these sports will lose scholarships.''
Marilyn Middlebrook, Gurney's counterpart at Oklahoma State, said, "It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so punitive, if we had something that was showing a relief somewhere. I think they've come at it too hard too fast.''
The new formula for measuring a team's success off the court and in the classroom is the Academic Progress Rate, or APR. Those letters could become the most significant in college athletics' alphabet soup, even more than RPI or BCS.
APR might be less convoluted than the BCS, but it is every bit as complex. Every student-athlete on scholarship, full or partial, accounts for four points each academic year. Two points can be earned for the fall semester, two for the spring. One point is for remaining academically eligible, and the other is for staying at the school.
A team's APR is calculated by dividing the number of points earned by the points possible, then multiplying by 1,000.
Minimum score allowed: 925.
If a team doesn't hit the mark, it could lose as much as 10 percent of its scholarships. That means football could lose as many as nine, men's basketball as many as two.
"We're talking about rather strong penalties here and not mere rhetoric,'' NCAA president Myles Brand said earlier this month during the organization's annual meeting. "Student- athletes are students first and are expected to make genuine progress toward a degree and graduate.''
There are two penalty phases.
The first involves contemporaneous penalties. If a player on a team with an APR below 925 becomes academically ineligible and leaves school, that scholarship can not be re-awarded for a year.
The second penalty phase will involve historical penalties. They will punish teams chronically falling below the APR threshold and will increase in severity every year a team fails to improve its score.
"We have some real teeth in academic reform,'' Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione said.
Some wonder, though, if the teeth will tear apart college athletics.
When the NCAA slapped sanctions on the OSU football team in the late '80s for reckless operations, they were considered among the stiffest in history. A step below the death penalty, actually. The NCAA took away 15 scholarships but spread the penalty over three years.
The Cowboys lost five scholarships a year, and it was considered harsh.
Under these new academic standards, a football team could lose as many as nine scholarships a year.
"I just think they've put unrealistic expectations on the coaches,'' Middlebrook said. "If coaches were rewarded for graduating instead of winning, we wouldn't have an issue. "Look at the coaches that were fired. Why were they fired?''
Tyrone Willingham graduated 77 percent of his players at Notre Dame last season, then got a pink slip this season.
The question then becomes whether the NCAA can legislate caring.
Will these new measures force universities to care about academics?
"The new emphasis is better than the old days,'' Murray Sperber said. "How it plays itself out is impossible to know.''
Sperber, the former Indiana professor and outspoken critic of big-time college sports, doubts these academic reforms will have a significant impact. The NCAA created the 20-hour rule about a decade ago that limited student- athletes to 20 hours of practice each week.
"People at the time said, `Oh, my god, this is going to so radically change college sports,''' Sperber said. "Except they put in this huge loophole.''
Voluntary practice was unlimited. "So, you know how it all ended up,'' Sperber said during a telephone interview from his California home. "With these rules, too ... I'm skeptical about how much actual bite these rules will have.''
Administrators at OU and OSU, though, are gearing up for major ramifications.
In Norman, Gurney began crunching numbers almost two years ago. He presented his analysis to the coaches, guessing what the minimum threshold might be and alerting coaches to potential problems. He also provided them strategies to improve their team's score.
"The strategy unfortunately will be that you should not recruit as many top-quality recruits who will leave after their junior year because you will lose points,'' Gurney said.
Now, risky recruits are not only kids who might not make it academically but also ones who might be talented enough to turn pro early. A player who excels on the field can be just as costly to a team's APR as one who struggles in the classroom.
Coaches, then, must balance their recruiting classes. Too many risks, and the team might lose scholarships. Too few, and the team might not be able to win.
"You can take a chance if they are truly a difference maker,'' Middlebrook said, "but it can't be the whole team.''
Middlebrook is convinced, though, problems could still arise for coaches who recruit the right players and teams who hit the books hard.
She went back several years and calculated the APRs for all of the teams at OSU. Baseball had one of its best semesters academically during that time, compiling a team grade-point average of 3.2.
Its APR would've been around 700.
On the flip side, men's basketball was widely criticized last year for having the lowest graduation rate of the teams at the Final Four. Of players entering school as freshmen between 1994- 97, the Cowboys had graduated 11 percent. Had schools been calculating APR last spring, though, the Cowboys might have been celebrated.
Their APR last year would've been 980 with only one player, mid-year transfer Onye Ibekwe, not scoring the maximum four points.
The biggest sticking point for many athletic administrators is athletes who transfer or leave school for personal reasons. Maybe they aren't happy with playing time. Maybe they want to be closer to home. Maybe they have an opportunity to make millions by playing professionally.
"If a student has valid reasons for leaving, even for their own well-being, I understand that,'' Gurney said. "It's not a crime.''
But it is in the NCAA's new academic rule book.
Whether these new standards are a good thing depends on who you ask, sometimes even at the same school.
Castiglione: "It may not be the be-all, end-all, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.''
Gurney: "The system is doomed because it's flawed. My major concern is that they make the changes sooner rather than later because it can do irreparable damage to athletics as we know it.''
