NCAA Eligibility Issue in Turmoil

A federal judge in Philadelphia has told the NCAA it must not delay in dismantling its long-standing policy of using test scores to determine eligibility for freshman athletes.

U.S. District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter ruled last week that the association treated black student-athletes unfairly by requiring a minimum score on the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) or the American College Test (ACT).

NCAA attorneys asked for time to devise an alternate policy but the judge denied their request Tuesday, throwing the organization’s 302 Division I colleges and universities into turmoil.

“There is a lot of confusion out there,” said Elsa Kircher Cole, NCAA general counsel. “For right now, we have no rule.”

Theoretically, coaches could recruit anyone, regardless of academic standing. And freshman basketball players who have been ineligible all season could play in NCAA tournament games this week.

“‘I’m sure there are coaches at certain schools licking their chops because it broadens their talent pool,” said Marty Wilson, a UC Santa Barbara assistant basketball coach. “It just opens up the gate to more problems.”

In the next few weeks, NCAA attorneys will appeal Buckwalter’s ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. They also will seek a stay in the higher court.

At issue is the complex mechanism by which the NCAA determines eligibility.

The so-called Proposal 16--a newer version of the equally controversial Proposal 48--was drafted in response to low graduation rates among college athletes. Critics said coaches were recruiting young men and women who were talented in sports but ill-equipped to handle course work.

The policy required that prospective student-athletes graduate from high school with minimum grade-point averages and test scores. The NCAA used a sliding scale: the higher the grades, the lower the required test score, and vice versa.

However, Prop. 16 set absolute minimums of 820 for the SAT or 68 for the ACT.

Anyone not meeting that criterion could receive a scholarship and practice with the team, but could not compete as a freshman and could not become eligible until fulfilling additional requirements in college.

No one has argued against the NCAA’s desire for academic standards. But the use of standardized tests--which some educators claim are racially and culturally discriminatory--led to a 1997 class-action lawsuit.

The suit was filed on behalf of two Philadelphia students, Tai Kwan Cureton and Leatrice Shaw, who graduated 27th and fifth in their high school classes but were deemed ineligible for college play because of their test scores.

In his 54-page opinion, Buckwalter referred to the NCAA’s own statistics for 1998, which showed the ineligibility rate was 20.6% among blacks as compared to 3.7% among whites. He wrote that using test scores “has an unjustified disparate impact against African-Americans.”

Even as the NCAA pursues an appeal, its executives are scrambling to develop a new standard. One proposal would create a sliding scale with no minimums. In other words, a 4.0 student might not be required to provide any test score.

“There can be standards but they must be reasonable standards,” said Andre Dennis, lead counsel in the suit against the NCAA. “They can’t just pull something out of the air. The court made clear there has to be some rationale.”

Still, any new policy is weeks, if not months, away. In the meantime, schools are left without guidelines.

Teams that use ineligible freshmen risk future penalties if the NCAA eventually wins its appeal. And, even with no NCAA rules in effect, coaches must still satisfy requirements at their schools.

“Someone fought for the cause . . . that’s wonderful,” said Ron Ponciano, football coach at Cal State Northridge.

“In reality, I doubt if admissions offices across America are saying, ‘OK, let’s throw out all those SAT scores.’ ”

But coaches and administrators fear that some schools, if left to their own devices, will in fact lower standards for prized athletes. They wonder if the NCAA can maintain a level playing field.

“I think everyone knows [Prop. 16] is not perfect,” USC Athletic Director Mike Garrett said.

“But there is nothing they’ve found so far that is better.”