The NCAA has come up with yet another new set of rules (their fourth in two decades) to try to ensure that student athletes have more chances to succeed academically in college (and graduate on time). The problem is, the rules seem to contradict one another, in such a way that poorly-qualified athletes have more a chance to be admitted, and more of a chance to earn degrees in dishonest or laughably-easy ways:
These [new] rules, supporters say, will have teeth: The Division I governing board of school presidents is expected to pass legislation in April to strip scholarships or the chance to play in the postseason from teams whose athletes consistently fail to progress toward a degree. About 44% of Division I men's basketball players earn degrees within six years of entering college...
...the critics say, by raising the stakes for a sports program's academic failings, the changes might increase the likelihood that athletes and their colleges will cut corners academically to keep players eligible. That concern is exacerbated by the NCAA's decision to simultaneously lower academic standards athletes must meet to play as freshmen, so that even athletes with the absolute minimum SAT score can be eligible if their high school grade-point average is high enough...
They're not exaggerating with the "absolute minimum" comment. Since the earlier 1980's, the NCAA has been trying to enforce scholastic requirements for freshmen athletes. The problem is that those requirements always included SAT/ACT scores, for the same reasons that colleges use those tests; i.e., to help compare candidates from diverse high schools. But the race card got played - these tests allegedly "unfairly" discriminate against black and Latino athletes - so, as of October 2002, freshmen with SAT scores as low as 400 cabn play so long as they have a "correspondingly high grade-point average" in a certain number of high school courses.
Yes, that's a combined score of 400 (on the current two-part SAT). In other words, a potential athlete can be allowed to play with the lowest-possible Verbal and Math score on the SAT. This leads to several uncomfortable questions. Why on earth should these kids be admitted to college at all? Why are there even instances - and you know there will be - of kids having acceptably-high GPAs along with SAT scores this low? What does that say about the type of high schools from which these colleges are recruiting? And given that fraud has already occurred, what makes them think that tougher graduation rules but looser SAT requirements won't combine to create even more instances of cheating?
Academic fraud already has surfaced at several well-known NCAA schools. During the latter portion of the 2002-03 basketball season alone, it was revealed that:
• St. Bonaventure in Olean, N.Y., had a player with a welding certificate from a junior college rather than the associate's degree needed to transfer to a Division I school.
• A University of Georgia assistant basketball coach who taught a class on basketball coaching gave passing grades to a top player who didn't attend the class.
• Fresno State players, under the previous coach, had course work done by a team statistician.
And those aren't the only problems:
• By punishing colleges whose athletes fail to progress toward a degree, the new rules might discourage athletes from challenging themselves academically, accelerating the clustering of players in a relative handful of friendly majors that vary from school to school.
• The toughened eligibility rules are expected to make it harder for junior college athletes to meet the requirements to play as juniors at Division I colleges. That likely would make Division I coaches less willing to recruit players from community colleges.
• Expansive and expensive new academic-support services and facilities for athletes — expected to increase aggressively as colleges scramble to help athletes navigate the new rules — will raise the cost of big-time sports and might further distance athletes from other students on campus.
At least one athletic director is asking the right question:
...as University of Mississippi athletics director Pete Boone put it: "There seemed to be a rush for public relations purposes to come up with an academic reform package. But what does it really mean if more kids get degrees but they are in basket weaving?"
Posted by kswygert at November 20, 2003 12:33 PM