A recent article of Inside Higher Ed stated that the NCAA will raise the academic
eligibility standards for incoming freshmen and transfer students in Division I.
The NCAA announced that it will require Division I teams to have at least half
of their teams on track for graduation in order to be eligible for postseason
play. This comes out of the NCAAs attempt to improve the respectfulness of
college athletics. This new measure will affect the students who are already
playing college sports and if they fall below the eligibility status, it will
affect their scholarships. According to the director of the Knight Commission
on Intercollegiate Athletics, this new standard will greatly improve the old
eligible standard (which has been in play for 10 years) and send a strong
message to future incoming student athletes, that college is serious about
academics. This measure would even the playing field between academically prepared
student athletes and the non-prepared. Because it is unfair for student
athletes who are not ready to do college-level work and receive the same
financial assistance, to that of those student athletes who are college
prepared.
I found
it interesting that incoming freshmen student athletes are admitted on a
sliding scale. Which means that he or she can score low on the SAT, but if they
have a high GPA they can still be admitted. Academic advisors of athletics
claim that this practice has brought about academic fraud and high school
graduation grade inflation hasn’t helped either. Research by Gerald S. Gurney,
a past president of academic advisors of athletics, found that students who
were part of a Bowl Champion Series scored very low on the ACT, had very little
learning skills, and had trouble reading. Gurney concludes that it is easier to
be eligible today than it was 8 years ago. Although this measure raises the bar
in terms of academic eligibility, proponents of the measure say the next item
for reform is imposing an SAT minimum score.
As I
educate myself on the controversial issues regarding student athletes and their
college education, I am finding all sorts of wrongdoings. I guess I have heard
about things such as student athletes getting paid to play, gifts, impermissible
phone calls by former coaches to prospective players, etc. I mean the list goes
on and on. As a future student affairs professional, these are issues that I
will definitely have to deal with and fight for major improvements to look out
for the student athlete who in most cases won’t make it in the pros. It’s
obvious that most coaches/recruiters don’t have any idea of what educating the
holistic student means; all they want to know is what the student athlete can
do for them and not vice versa.
Reading the article made me realize just how little I knew about athletic eligibility requirements. When I read the statement about Division I teams will have to have at least one-half of their students on track for graduation to be eligible for post-season plan, I was fairly shocked; 50% seems so very low.
ReplyDeleteDepending on the culture of the institution, it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility to think that there could be pressure on the faculty members and advisors to ensure, at least on paper, that students were on track for graduation.
I am disappointed in the NCAA that this new rule, created specifically in an attempt to increase the academic advancement of student athletes, sets such a low standard. Requiring only 50 percent of the team to be on track for graduation is ridiculous. If the NCAA is serious about making improvements, this number would be closer to the 80-85 percent range.
ReplyDeleteThere are additional problems with this as well, which would be even worse if the percentage were at that 80-85 percent range. The big one that jumps to mind is academic cheating. There are already severe issues surrounding NCAA athletics concerning academic integrity. Changing the rule to make teams more accountable for graduation rates may only make this issue worse.
As a former college athlete and a former college coach, I see a few things here that deserve comment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comments above, 50% seems low. However, I believe it is set this way because of the large variations in numbers amongst college teams. When I was coaching, we had GPA on the table in almost all of our meetings. Fortunately, there are many teams who "generally" perform very well in the classrooms--golf, swimming, gymnastics, track, cross country, ect. However, Tier I sports (football, basketball, etc.) tend to, for whatever reason, drop lower in GPA (not in all cases), and along with that, they have MUCH larger numbers of student athletes on these teams.
For example, a collegiate golf team may have 6 athletes, while a collegiate football team may have 66 athletes. When looking at numbers such as these, the 50% differential takes on very different meaning. The golf team needs to keep 3/6 eligible, and the football team needs to keep 33/66 eligible.
If this is at 80%, that would be fantastic. Yet, you would be looking at many noneligible football teams (no offense footballers, just stating facts!). Increasing the numbers to those extremes could also lead to other problems--more cheating, paying other students for assistance, athletes taking "easy" majors despite interest and potential after college, etc. Overall, I'm pleased to see academic eligibility continue to make NCAA DI conversations that lead to action.
Kylie R.