Increased Academic Standards on Agenda : NCAA Convention: Presidents’ proposals would raise requirements for incoming freshmen under Proposition 48.

Legislation that would tighten academic standards for prospective and enrolled college athletes, often an emotionally charged issue, heads the agenda for the 86th annual NCAA convention, beginning Tuesday in Anaheim.

Developed by the NCAA Presidents Commission as part of its ongoing reform effort, the proposed legislation would make significant changes in the NCAA’s academic requirements for freshman eligibility, commonly known as Proposition 48.

Representatives of more than 900 NCAA schools and conferences, including a large contingent of college presidents, are expected to consider 153 proposals during the convention, which is scheduled to run through Friday.

The convention could turn out to be another display of the muscle the Presidents Commission, the 44-member body that has set the NCAA’s agenda since 1985, showed in pushing through legislation scaling back recruiting, scholarships, coaching staffs and playing and practice seasons at the 1990 and ’91 conventions.

A recent poll of college chief executive officers, conducted by the commission, showed support for each of its proposals from at least 60% of the CEOs responding.

Nearly 250 CEOs have pre-registered to attend the convention. Last year’s convention in Nashville, Tenn., drew 236.

“The presidents were not a very strong group four years ago,” NCAA Executive Director Dick Schultz said. “I’ve worked hard to help them become strong, because while they’re going to do some things people don’t like, the only way to get reform is presidential leadership.”

Still, the convention can be expected to stir up the kind of impassioned debate that generally has accompanied consideration of Prop. 48, which bases freshman eligibility on standardized test scores as well as high school grade-point average in certain core courses.

Prospective student-athletes who fail to meet Prop. 48 standards are not allowed to play or practice as freshmen. Such athletes, known as partial qualifiers, also lose a year of eligibility.

The Presidents Commission has proposed legislation that would raise the high school GPA required under Prop. 48 from 2.0 to 2.5 and the number of core courses from 11 to 13.

The presidents also have proposed a sliding scale in which an athlete could be eligible as a freshman by offsetting a GPA between 2.0 and 2.5 with a test score higher than the established minimums of 700 on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) or 17 on the American College Testing (ACT) examination.

In addition, the presidents have proposed legislation designed to keep enrolled athletes on track toward graduation.

Under the proposed standards, an athlete would be required, beginning with his third year of college enrollment, to complete a progressive percentage of course requirements in a degree program as well as post a GPA based on his school’s minimum requirements for graduation.

Other significant proposals offered by the presidents would:

--Require coaches to receive approval from their CEOs before receiving athletically related outside income, a move that would give the CEOs greater control over six-figure shoe contracts and other deals put together for high-profile coaches.

--Create Division I-AAA football. Such a classification would provide a low-cost football option for Division I basketball schools that, because of restructuring legislation adopted at last year’s convention, no longer will be allowed to play football at the Division II and III levels and retain Division I membership.

Several California schools, including Cal State Northridge, were affected by the restructuring, although they probably would form a scaled-down Division I-AA conference rather than compete in Division I-AAA.

Noting that “academic integrity” issues have spurred many presidents to become actively involved in the NCAA, Presidents Commission Chairman Gerald Turner said the commission’s academic proposals were formulated to diminish the charge that colleges are exploiting athletes.

“I think moving up to 13 (core courses) and 2.5 (GPA) is another step to try to ensure that (high school) students have been told accurately what it’s going to take for them to be prepared to be successful academically,” said Turner, chancellor of the University of Mississippi.

“And our continuing progress items basically tell the world that we are going to ensure that our athletes, if they are on the playing field, are . . . moving toward degrees. Our basic goal for these students is to get degrees.”

Turner said he expects the commission’s academic proposals to be adopted.

“I think the closest vote will be on the 2.5 (GPA),” he said, “but I think it will pass. Let’s face it, (requiring) a 2.5 for major college preparation is not overly demanding. The kids will meet it, and, in doing so, they will be better prepared to do college work.”

Nonetheless, the commission’s plan to tighten freshman eligibility requirements remains a tough sell with the vocal segment of the NCAA that has opposed Prop. 48 since its adoption in 1983.

Opponents of the rule, which went into effect in 1986, have argued that it places too much emphasis on the standardized tests. Many coaches and educators believe the tests are culturally biased against minorities.

Criticism of Prop. 48 intensified when the 1989 NCAA convention adopted an amended version denying partial qualifiers scholarship aid in any form. They previously were allowed to be on athletic scholarship while sitting out a year. To protest the amended version, Georgetown basketball Coach John Thompson skipped two of his team’s games.

The rule was adjusted the next year to allow partial qualifiers to receive non-athletic scholarship aid based on need.

The major complaint being voiced by Prop. 48 opponents this year is that the sliding scale for test scores and GPA proposed by the Presidents Commission is not an accurate reflection of the research data that was made available to the commission by the NCAA’s Academic Requirements Committee.

Delegates at last year’s convention passed a resolution directing the committee to recommend legislation strengthening academic requirements for consideration this year.

According to opponents of the proposed legislation, the data provided to the presidents by the committee allowed for an open-ended sliding scale, thereby eliminating the test score minimums.

Under the presidents’ proposal, an athlete could secure freshman eligibility with a GPA as low as 2.0 by scoring at least 900 on the SAT. However, the scale’s parameters would not allow for an athlete to use a GPA higher than 2.5 to offset an SAT score of less than the 700 minimum.

“My plan is that we’re supposed to be providing educational opportunity to as many people as we can in this country,” said Georgetown Athletic Director Frank Rienzo, an outspoken critic of the index proposed by the presidents. “There is a group that has been disenfranchised for socioeconomic reasons. That same group is further disenfranchised by using a test vehicle that doesn’t measure their abilities. It measures their experiences.

“All I’m suggesting (to the presidents) is, ‘Use the data.’ Why do the presidents feel they need to continue the use of 700? They made a hypothesis (using 700) in ’83. It’s time for them to admit that 700 is about as accurate as the world being flat.”

According to Jerry Kingston, Arizona State’s athletic faculty representative and a member of the Academic Requirements Committee, the committee reported to the presidents that there was “no strong statistical basis” for using cutoff scores within the index.

Members of the Presidents Commission contend, however, that they were not obligated to use every piece of data given them.

“Presidents get advice and recommendations from every sector that has anything to do with our universities,” Turner said, “and it’s up to the presidents to sort through all that and decide which things they want to accept and which things they don’t. Some individuals are suggesting that if the Academic Requirements Committee comes up with a recommendation, the presidents are obligated to follow it, which is not the case. . . .

“The presidents simply feel that the 700 SAT and the 17 ACT are sort of transcontinental standards that . . . aren’t subject to the differences in the rigor of courses from one (high school) to another.”

Saying that a 700 SAT score must be viewed as “the baseline,” commission member David Warren of Ohio Wesleyan said: “We’re not going to drop below that in some indexing process. On this one, we’re really prepared to hold the line. I expect to hear (dissent) from Georgetown, as we’ve heard in the past. But I don’t sense a groundswell of support on behalf of the position they’ve taken.”

The Big East Conference, of which Georgetown is a member, has placed several proposals on the convention agenda as alternatives to the commission’s proposals.

One proposal contains a revised index that would place more emphasis on the core curriculum and allow for lower test scores. Another would eliminate the test score requirement altogether.

The Big East also is sponsoring a resolution calling for another year of review of the research data before academic proposals are considered by the NCAA membership.

It is likely, however, that both the Big East resolution as well as the conference’s proposal eliminating the use of test scores will be ruled out of order for parliamentary reasons, according to NCAA and Big East officials.

Convention at a Glance

Delegates to the 86th annual NCAA convention in Anaheim will consider proposals dealing with academics, coaches’ outside income, the structure of the NCAA and other topics.

Key proposals on the convention agenda would:

* Raise the required minimum grade-point average in high school core courses for a prospective student-athlete from 2.0 to 2.5--effective with the 1995-96 academic year.

* Raise the required minimum of core courses from 11 to 13, with the two additional courses to be in English, math or science--effective 1995-96.

* Establish a sliding scale that would allow a prospective student-athlete to compensate for a GPA between 2.0 and 2.5 by posting a standardized test score higher than the minimums (700 SAT and 17 ACT) allowed by the NCAA--effective 1995-96.

* Require a student-athlete entering his third year of college enrollment to have completed successfully 25% of the course requirements in a specific degree program--effective 1992-93. (A student-athlete entering his fourth year must have completed 50% of such work. A student-athlete entering his fifth year must have completed 75%.)

* Require a student-athlete entering his third year of college enrollment to have a cumulative GPA equaling at least 95% of the minimum GPA required for graduation at his school--effective 1992-93. (A student-athlete entering his fourth or fifth years must have a GPA that matches the minimum required for graduation.)

* Specify that not more than 25% of the credit hours applied toward an athlete’s eligibility in a given academic year be compiled during the preceding summer--effective 1992-93.

* Require that a coach annually receive prior written approval from his school’s chief executive officer for all athletically related income from sources outside the school--effective immediately.

* Establish Division I-AAA football, thus allowing for low-cost football programs (need-based financial aid only) for Division I basketball schools that no longer will be allowed to play Division II or III football because of stricter rules governing membership in Division I--effective 1993 football season.

* Allow a student-athlete to negotiate with a professional sports organization without the loss of his amateur status--effective immediately. (The student-athlete could not, however, retain an agent or, in the cases of football and basketball, make himself available for a pro draft.)

* Rescind or modify legislation regarding coaching staff limits, scholarships, recruiting and playing and practice seasons adopted at the 1990 and ’91 conventions.