Reformed parties engage in debate

Faced with numbers that often are hidden by the rules against publishing graduation rates -- four schools in last March's NCAA men's basketball tournament had 0 percent graduation rates and 16 of the 65 teams had rates of 25 percent or less -- the NCAA is embarking on "a sea change" in how it monitors the "student" half of "student-athlete."

But as college coaches and administrators prepare for their annual spring meetings, they are unsure how much of an impact there will be from the new rules, which go as far as taking away scholarships and even postseason bids from schools that don't graduate their athletes at the required rate.

"You can legislate a lot of things," said Boston College athletic director Gene DeFilippo. "But you can't legislate morality. My feeling is that the schools that have played by the rules in the past will continue to do so. And the schools that haven't will continue to do what they are doing."

In its biggest academic reform since Proposition 48 in 1983, the NCAA is changing the emphasis on how it monitors student-athletes. For the last 20 years, the rules had focused on athletes meeting certain standards -- a combination of scores on standardized tests and high school GPA -- to be admitted to school. Not as much was done once they were in school.

Now, more than ever, there is concern over what happens in the classroom. The concept is hardly earth-shattering, but in sports such as big-time football and basketball, where less than half of the athletes graduate, and where some athletes stay for only a few semesters, the NCAA presidents feel the ideas of "student" and "athlete" need to be reconnected.

Keep up the pace

"The beginning of a sea change in college sports," is what NCAA president Myles Brand called it last month in announcing the approval of sweeping academic reform. "Landmark legislation was passed to ensure each and every student-athlete has a genuine opportunity to receive a high-quality education and graduate."

The gist of the reform is this: toughen the academic standards so athletes keep pace with the rest of the student body. The new standards raise the requirements for progress toward a degree. After two years, a student-athlete must have completed 40 percent of the school's requirements for graduation, as opposed to 25 percent under the old system. At the end of three years, student-athletes must have completed 60 percent, and by the end of four years, the figure is 80 percent. It makes sense because most athletes are on a five-year academic calendar.

Schools will be reviewed starting this fall, and Academic Progress Reports will be compiled (minimum standards still are being determined). At the start of the 2005 school year, the NCAA will inform schools that do not meet the minimum standards that they are subject to penalties. If a school loses a scholarship athlete for academic reasons, it will not be able to replace that scholarship for one year. If schools do not meet minimum standards over a three-year period, then postseason bans can be issued.

While the concept seems sound, criticism of the measures is slowly building from people who question the intention of the NCAA to make the playing field level among schools that have different missions. Miami is different from Memphis, and Harvard is different from Houston, they say. Yet the feeling is that the NCAA wants to make all schools equal in terms of graduating its athletes.

"I'm not sure if that can ever be done," said Kevin Lennon, an NCAA vice president who was one of the leaders of the reform package. "For the most part, we have a consensus among presidents, athletic directors, and coaches saying this is the right thing to do."

Suspicious minds

There are other concerns. The lowering of minimum requirements for test scores and increased emphasis on grade-point averages in high school give rise to concerns about fraud, even at the high school level.

Under the new guidelines, a student who turns in a minimum SAT score of 800 still could be eligible if he has a GPA of 3.55. It seems unlikely that such a discrepancy would pass unnoticed, but who is to say that an athlete from a small rural high school who has a bright athletic future but a questionable academic record would not go to his favorite history teacher and explain that his chance of making it to college depends on whether he gets a B or a D in class.

North Carolina State football coach Chuck Amato sees the potential for malfeasance. He knows some schools could indeed guide their athletes toward courses they can pass without learning very much.

"We call them student-athletes," said Amato. "But sometimes a diploma and an education aren't one and the same."

University of Mississippi athletic director Peter Boone was more blunt.

"What does it mean if more kids get degrees but they are in basket-weaving?" Boone said to USA Today.

Georgia Tech basketball coach Paul Hewitt, who guided his team to the NCAA men's title game against the University of Connecticut this past season, says the new guidelines will force him to make a choice between taking a player he knows has qualifications to succeed and someone he thinks might have them.

"It is not easy," said Hewitt. "Do I give a kid a chance or do I not recruit him? I'll have a decision to make."

According to Hewitt, if the NCAA were truly serious about its academic commitment, there would be changes in scheduling. For instance, it could curtail basketball games in the first semester -- have none during the week -- and extend the season well into the second semester in April, when television has cash cows such as the Masters and major league baseball.

"It would be the right thing to do for kids," said Hewitt, knowing full well that the loss of television revenue for the NCAA would prohibit such a dramatic change.

Apples and oranges?

Some coaches are concerned about what they feel is a not-so-subtle message being delivered by the NCAA. Hewitt remembers a meeting in which an NCAA representative told coaches they had to recruit athletes who looked more like college graduates in their academic profile. Hewitt is not sure he likes a system that takes fewer chances.

But big-time college athletics will have to adjust.

"In my mind, this dramatically changes the landscape of how people do things," said Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese. "But with all the academic reforms, the people who have cut corners are still going to be cutting corners. I think the message is clear, especially for kids from junior colleges, that if they do get into your school, you are going to have to sit on them and you might even have to give them a scholarship for a year and have them not play as they catch up."

Some coaches favor a new rule that calls for lesser penalties when athletes leave school early for financial opportunities in, say, the NBA or NFL and when they transfer to other schools.

Under the old rules, such losses would count against a school's graduation record. Under the new rules, if athletes leave in good academic standing -- for whatever reason -- the penalties are much less severe.

But there is still the issue of applying the same rules to, say, Harvard that you do to other schools where the mission is vastly different.

"Who flunks out of Harvard?" asked UConn basketball coach Jim Calhoun, who also coached at Northeastern and has dealt with kids whose economic and social backgrounds can present far greater challenges than those of students at Harvard. "Schools have different missions, and you can't use the same standards."

The NCAA is not sure yet, either. It still must come up with what it feels are minimum across-the-board academic progress standards.

Some coaches said a better way would be to make the graduation rate for an athletic team match that of the overall student body.

"The easiest way would be to have a sliding scale," said Memphis basketball coach John Calipari, who has argued for years that schools are unfairly punished for graduation rates that are affected by losing players to the NBA. "Make whatever the grad rate is for the student body as what you need to match. And you have to take into account that public schools are different than private schools. It should be easy. Whatever the school graduates, you have to graduate."

The end result may be revolutionary, as Brand suggests, or minor. But the coaches will adjust, as will the athletes, and the games will go on, undoubtedly creating new problems that will have to be solved.