SDSU’s Day Seeks Improvement by Degrees : Academics: Low graduation rates and the institutional problems behind them led university president to implementation of stricter policy for Aztec athletes.

Shortly after Thomas Day assumed the presidency of San Diego State University 12 years ago, he set out to improve the academic performance of the school’s student-athletes. He considered it a modest and reasonably attainable goal, but an early encounter with the football team told him it would not be easy.

The Aztecs were on their way to Tokyo to play in the 1981 Mirage Bowl. Their opponent, Air Force, was on the same plane. Day had no trouble telling the teams apart.

“All the cadets were sitting there with their books,” Day recalled recently, “and there was somebody walking up and down the aisle practically cracking the whip at the galley slaves. And all the Aztecs were spaced out, listening to ear phones and just looking at comic books. I thought, ‘Oh geez, what have I gotten into? This is ridiculous.’ It has come a long way from there.”

But maybe not far enough.

Athletes at SDSU continue to graduate at rates below those achieved by the majority of major college athletic programs. Though the NCAA reported the median five-year graduation rate at institutions that play major college football and basketball was 45.5% for athletes entering as freshmen in the 1982-83 academic year, SDSU graduated 20.6% of the same class.

Of the 63 recruited student-athletes who entered SDSU as freshmen in 1982-83, 13 had graduated five years later, the university reported to the NCAA. The rate represented little change from previous years.

The five-year rate for student-athletes entering SDSU as freshmen in 1981-82 was 16.9% compared to the NCAA Division I-A median of 43.8%. For those classified as entering with the class of 1980-81, using a slightly different formula than applied to the two more recent classes, the rate was 18.5%, compared to the Division I-A median of 62.6%.

Neither men nor women for the freshman class that entered in 1982-83 reached the overall Division I-A median, and only one sport exceeded it--women’s track and cross country at 66.7%. Nine of 48 men graduated (18.8%) after five years versus four of 15 women (26.6%). Football, which had the most students in that class, also graduated the most, with seven of 18 (38.9%) earning their degree in five years. But that still fell below that year’s Division I football median of 41.4%.

These are not the numbers a university wants when it boasts in athletic promotional materials that it “prides itself that its student-athletes are on a ‘workable degree track.’ ”

University officials blame a number of factors for the low rates. They cite coaching and administrative turnover, the difficulties of meeting the demands of college education while competing in varsity athletics and the distractions of the university’s urban campus, among others. They point out that the five-year graduation rate of 21.6% for the entire SDSU freshman class entering in 1982-83 is not much different from that of athletes.

But while officials say such factors complicate the task of graduating athletes in a timely manner, they also acknowledge that many student-athletes have advantages other students at SDSU do not: full or partial scholarships, an academic support office, priority in registering for courses, summer jobs often arranged with the help of athletic department personnel and paid summer school and other financial assistance.

This kind of extra support leads some in the university community, including members of the athletic department, to argue that the graduation rate for student-athletes should exceed that of the general student population, not lag behind.

Why it has not has been the subject of much internal debate. But not until recently did the university complete a systematic examination of the problem. Last April, a three-member faculty committee appointed by Day to study the operation of the athletic department submitted a report highly critical of the department’s academic performance.

According to committee members and others familiar with its contents, the report outlined several abuses of the university academic system. The findings raised concerns with Day and others about department and university handling of academics for athletes.

“We thought the academic situation would be better than what we found,” said Gene Lamke, a committee member and professor of recreation. “Although we found no violations of NCAA regulations, we found we were adhering to them not in spirit but in name only.”

Lamke and others privy to the report said the committee particularly was troubled by what it found in examining the transcripts of several recent athletes. While noting that the majority of athletes could be described as “average or better-than-average students,” the committee members said their attention focused on a “hard-core” group of about 10%. The committee said that most of this group was found in the department’s three most visible sports--football and men’s and women’s basketball.

“We’re talking about 30 to 50 students,” said Ernst Griffin, committee chairman and a professor of geography. “If we continue to cater to these students, we are demeaning the whole university.”

Although school officials said federal privacy laws prevented them from identifying specific problem athletes, they did discuss the type of academic abuses that they said concerned them.

These included:

----Athletes who were on academic probation for all 10 semesters of their college career yet never were disqualified from participation in athletics.

--Athletes who after five years of college found themselves with as many as 120 credits but as few as half applicable to graduation requirements, many coming from summer school courses described as “useless” by the committee because they were merely tools for sustained eligibility.

Committee members called this “majoring in eligibility.” The practice was marked by frequent enrollment in physical education courses, often at community colleges, that did not help meet an athlete’s graduation requirement.

--Athletes who for years avoided passing or taking university competency examinations in English and mathematics necessary for graduation.

Day said he was surprised at some of these findings, particularly the way in which some athletes were able to get around the system and remain eligible. Only after being shown student transcripts did Day understand how this was taking place.

“I had to have them take me through it to make me understand why, because it doesn’t seem possible,” Day said. “Well, OK, so the rules aren’t broken. But really that’s not right.”

Dissatisfied with the graduation rates and armed with the committee report, Day acted to personally place his mark on the academic requirements for SDSU athletes. In January, he sent a memorandum to Athletic Director Fred Miller setting guidelines for tightening the department’s academic, eligibility and admission requirements.

This is the beginning of a phased process under Day to bring about improved academic performance. And while it might be several years before the directive provides improved graduation rates, committee members and faculty leaders generally have given it hearty approval.

“This is a very brave move on his part,” said Nick Genovese, chairman of the university senate and a professor of classics. “From our perspective, it was high time he did it. But I know that when Thomas Day makes a decision, he will stick by it.”

Athletic department officials have given it a more cautious nod.

“Yes, I disagree with Tom on some specifics,” Miller said. “But we are in 90% agreement with the intent of what he is trying to do.”

Regardless of the reaction, Day said he is determined to implement his program, even at the cost of a short-term loss on the field.

“I told the coaches that I want them to understand that one of the aspects of the faculty concerns that I agreed with is that students are kept in school who if they were not athletes would have been flunked out,” Day said. “No amount of crawling back on their hands and knees is going to get them readmitted now. They are just out, out. I told the coaches I intend to do this.

“If that causes problems with fact that you thought you were going to have this scholarship for five years and now you are flunked out, well tough, buddy. It’s tough on the student; it’s tough on the coach and I really don’t give a damn.”

If the words sound tough, Day said he wants it that way.

“I want everyone to know, this is the president speaking,” he said.

The provisions will be phased in over the next two years and will change not only the way the university recruits athletes but how it treats them once they enroll. Closed are many of the loopholes that the committee said have been used to keep athletes eligible long after other students likely would have been suspended or disqualified.

Some of the highlights:

--The number of students classified as “special admits”--students who fail to meet regular admission requirements--will be significantly reduced. The athletic department will be allowed to enroll 30 such students next fall and 20 in the fall of 1991. By the fall of 1992, the number could fall to fewer than 10 per year based on a ceiling calling for no more than 8% of new recruits to be special admits.

The department reported it usually enrolls about 35 special admits per year and currently has a total of about 110 such students out of an athlete population of approximately 525.

--Those students who are specially admitted, with a few exceptions, will be red-shirted during their first season, starting this fall, even if they meet NCAA eligibility requirements.

“I won’t say I will never give an exception, but (the coaches) will bleed to get it,” Day said. “They will have to go to the athletic director and then walk hand and hand to the president. . . . It’s one thing to butter up to an admissions officer or vice president. I mean, how many times do you want to ask the president for a favor?”

--Athletes will be required to pass university English and math test requirements in a timely manner. Under the rule to take effect no later than fall 1992, students who fail to pass the tests within four semesters will be ineligible to play until they do.

--Athletes who fail to maintain a 2.0 overall grade-point average on a 4.0 scale for two consecutive semesters or who have been disqualified from the university for academic reasons will not be permitted to compete for a year or until the probation or disqualification is removed. SDSU requires a 2.0 minimum for graduation. This will apply to athletes admitted starting in fall 1992.

--The excessive use of summer and winter special sessions will be discouraged. The athletic department will pay for only one such session in an athlete’s academic career. In the past, the athletic department has paid for multiple sessions.

--Day also stressed that athletes should be advised to select courses that point them on a track toward a degree, not courses designed to preserve eligibility.

The directive goes beyond the NCAA and Western Athletic Conference minimums that have guided SDSU up to now.

NCAA rules place no grade-point minimums, the main requirement being that a student pass 24 credits a year to maintain eligibility.

WAC rules require a 1.6 average after the first academic year, a 1.7 after the second, a 1.8 after the third and 1.9 after the fourth. Those averages are proposed to be increased one-tenth of a point across the board in 1990-91.

But while several of Day’s requirements for athletes represent a toughening of standards, many are merely requiring athletes to more stringently adhere to the general academic rules of the university. It was in these areas that critics contend that exceptions have too frequently been made for athletes.

The committee found that athletes who were subject to disqualification for failing to meet university grade-point average requirements were not uniformly disciplined. Some were allowed to remain. Others were able to cite special circumstances and successfully petition an assistant dean for readmittance.

Committee members said they were disturbed to find no consistent university oversight or checks on such actions.

“They didn’t exist, and why they didn’t exist, I don’t know,” said Griffin, the committee chairman. “Athletes have been advised to major for eligibility rather than select courses to complete a major. The system has been manipulated so the student can stay eligible. And that isn’t right.”

This is one area where university officials, including Day, were uniformly critical of the academic performance of the school’s athletes and the current academic advising system. Day said he wants to end the practice of granting extra leeway to athletes.

“I expect a certain amount of attrition, because they flunk out,” Day said. “It just isn’t tenable that nobody flunks out until the day after their fourth year (of eligibility); that’s just a bunch of nonsense.”

Too often, critics charge, that is what has happened.

This practice might in part account for why so few athletes graduate compared with national figures. Athletes reach the end of their athletic eligibility only to find they are short on credits, their scholarships are exhausted, and their personal finances are inadequate for them to continue in school. Many drop out, never to return.

In its most recent report to the NCAA, the university reported that of the 63 athletes who entered the school as freshman in 1982-83 and the 67 who transferred into that class, 26--or 20%--had graduated by Aug. 31, 1987.

But of the 104 remaining class members, 27 returned for a sixth year and were classified as full-time students or as part-time students eligible to graduate by the end of the 1987-88 academic year. Athletic department officials were unable to provide figures on how many of these students have since earned their degrees.

The reasons cited by SDSU officials for the school’s relatively low performance are diverse. But most agree that part of the problem can be found in interests competing for the soul of the school’s athletic academic advising service.

The office, established in 1981, helps arrange class schedules, provide tutors and operate study halls, among other services, for athletes. Led by director Veston Thomas, the office technically operates outside the athletic department, under the control of the university’s office of student affairs. The structure is designed to place the office under control of the academic administration and away from athletic department.

The separation has not been that clear cut.

Thomas said the office faces dual pressures. On one side is the responsibility of upholding the school’s academic rules and integrity. On the other are the concerns of coaches, whose interest in making sure athletes graduate might be sincere but whose immediate concern is having them available for competition and practice.

The dilemma is one Thomas’ office faces almost every day and one committee members said too often turns in favor of the athletic department.

“Which drummer is it marching to?” said Lamke, one of the committee members. “Is it being responsible to athletic department needs or institutional academic needs?”

That question has caused some finger-pointing among university officials over who is responsible for the academic progress of athletes, though Miller, the athletic director, notes that academic advising is not a function of the athletic department.

Thomas countered by saying that the athletic department might have avoided such direct involvement from Day if it had been paying closer attention to the problem.

“This kind of action probably should have come from athletics,” Thomas said. “I understand Fred Miller is most concerned with the debt and the other problems that come up. We’ve improved in academics, but we still have a long way to go.”

Thomas said one of the greatest difficulties facing his office has been the turnover among coaches and athletic department personnel, particularly in football, where Al Luginbill is the third coach with whom he has worked. Thomas said Luginbill and Jim Brandenburg, the men’s basketball coach, have been working to improve the academic performance of their players but said the coaching changes have been disruptive.

With Day’s directive in hand, Miller said, the athletic department is working to standardize its approach to academics. Coaches are being reminded that they have can have considerable impact on graduation rates, but Miller cautions that coaches have other responsibilities.

“We have put pressure on our coaches to improve graduation rates,” Miller said. “But our coaches have full plates. There is a lot of pressure out there. We have asked them to go ahead and monitor their youngsters, in addition to what Veston’s office is doing, because a coach has more leverage with the (the athletes) than anyone in the academic support system.”

But Miller said rules changes and extra guidance will not bring perfection to the academic program.

“We think the institution should take chances on youngsters,” Miller said. “We don’t want a 100% graduation rate because that means you’re not taking any chances on kids who might have a hiccup in their academic career. We feel kids mature at different rates. We will never have a 100% graduation rate.”

AZTEC ATHLETIC GRADUATION RATES Five-year graduation rate for each sport at San Diego State for freshmen entering in 1982-83 academic year and transfers who were considered members of that class, from SDSU report to NCAA. Median graduation rate (equal number of schools above and below) for 103 Division I-A member schools surveyed for that year was 45.5%. (The NCAA does not release an average rate.)

Freshmen/ Transfers Left in Good Sport Grads in/Grads Total Standing Baseball 7/0 7/0 14/0 8 Men’s basketball 4/1 2/0 6/1 1 Men’s track/cross country 4/0 15/2 19/2 6 Football 18/7 10/2 28/9 3 Men’s golf 3/0 0/0 3/0 1 Men’s soccer 11/1 14/2 25/3 12 Men’s tennis 0/0 5/1 5/1 2 Men’s volleyball 1/0 3/1 4/1 1 Women’s basketball 2/0 2/0 4/0 0 Women’s cross country/track 3/2 2/1 5/3 0 Women’s golf 2/0 1/0 3/0 0 Softball 3/0 4/3 7/3 2 Women’s tennis 2/1 0/0 2/1 1 Women’s volleyball 3/1 2/1 5/2 0 Totals 63/13 67/13 130/26 37 Percentages 20.6% 19.4% 20% --

Remaining Sport in 6th Year Baseball 2 Men’s basketball 0 Men’s track/cross country 7 Football 4 Men’s golf 2 Men’s soccer 3 Men’s tennis 2 Men’s volleyball 0 Women’s basketball 1 Women’s cross country/track 1 Women’s golf 0 Softball 2 Women’s tennis 0 Women’s volleyball 3 Totals 27 Percentages --