The NCAA has unveiled a complicated “academic
progress” formula in an attempt to tighten academic standards
and increase the graduation rate of student-athletes. But the new
system unfairly punishes teams for the actions of individuals and
ignores important factors which may skew the analysis.
The idea of keeping schools accountable for the academic
performance of athletes has merit. Ultimately, college should be
about learning and earning a degree. And, it’s important to
recognize, only a tiny percentage of student-athletes continue on
to successful careers as professional athletes.
Though the NCAA’s Academic Progress Rate is sold as an
academic performance safeguard, it doesn’t make the grade.
The initial reaction to this plan has been met with great
skepticism and frustration.
That’s because its formulaic approach could force teams to
forfeit scholarships due to the personal decisions of individual
athletes, even when those decisions have nothing to do with
academics.
Here at UCLA, two teams would face sanctions if the APR were in
effect this year: the football team, which lost players during the
transition between former coach Bob Toledo and current coach Karl
Dorrell, and the soccer team, whose top players have jumped to the
pro ranks.
The APR uses two criteria: how many athletes maintain academic
eligibility and how many are “retained” by the school.
Each athlete can earn up to two points per quarter (or
semester).
These points are then tallied up for an entire team and divided
by the maximum number of points possible. A final score is
generated on a 1000-point scale.
Teams failing to earn a score of 925 (which is said to represent
roughly a 50 percent graduation rate) could lose up to 10 percent
of their scholarships. By 2008 to 2009, the penalties could also
include postseason ineligibility.
The formula’s details are as flawed as its premises.
While individual GPAs below 2.0 count against teams, high GPAs
are ignored by the formula. A team full of students carrying a 4.0
GPA is no different than if every athlete held a 2.5.
Worse, a team full of 4.0 students could receive a lower score
in the event a student-athlete decides to transfer to another
school or join a professional team.
The NCAA’s new report card is an arbitrary and
unrepresentative analysis of academic performance in university
athletics programs.
Though the final implementation of the program is expected to
change, the initiative still seems a superficial response to the
complex problem of balancing the student-athlete equation.
Though it might not serve the bottom line in the
multimillion-dollar world of collegiate athletics, the NCAA has the
responsibility to improve academic performance among
student-athletes much more meaningfully than this empty
proposal.