Division I Academic Performance Program Update

1. Division IAcademic Performance ProgramUpdate February 23, 2005

2. Board Directive Regarding Team Academic Performance • “…reward teams that demonstrate commitment toward academic progress of student-athletes and penalize those that do not.” • Encourage academic performance of all student-athletes on all sports teams. • Reward institutions/teams that achieve significant academic success. • Penalize those that have a history of academic underachievement (i.e., “habitual” offenders). DI Board Report, Aug 2002

3. Academic Progress Rate NCAA Academic Progress Rate --Points awarded for eligibility, retention and graduation --Based on term-by-term measurement --Totaled over four years --Includes student-athletes receiving athletics aid OR --For nonscholarship programs/teams, a subset of recruited student-athlete --Used in analysis for contemporaneous and historical penalties

4. APR Scoring Issues • Scoring system issues. • Raw APR scores multiplied by 1000 (e.g., .92 becomes 920).

5. Contemporaneous Penalty“Cut” Point • Teams with an APR score below 925 are subject to contemporaneous penalties. • An APR of 925 represents an expected graduation rate of 50%. • Confidence level of 84% established to account for small sample sizes. • 7.4 percent of all Division I teams below 925.

6. Confidence Intervals for APRs • Small sample sizes of some teams can lead to reduced confidence in the APR statistic as an estimate of performance for those teams. Particularly true with only one or two years of data. • Confidence intervals, commonly used in statistics, roughly represent a range of scores within which we are confident that the true APR for that team resides (“true APR” being the long-term expectation given static systemic conditions– e.g., academic characteristics of recruited athletes, institutional support, etc.).

7. Confidence Intervals for APRs • A reasonable way to account for reduced confidence in small sample APRs would be to compare the upper confidence boundary to a given benchmark. If a squad possesses an upper boundary below a certain APR benchmark, we can say with strong confidence that the squad is not achieving at that standard. • Board approved an “upper 84% confidence boundary” (this is +1 standard deviation, or a 1-tailed limit) in conjunction with a 2-year aggregate estimate of squad size when comparing a squad’s APR to various benchmarks. • Data displayed in this presentation all use this boundary when benchmark comparisons are displayed.

8. Using Confidence Intervals in Conjunction with APR Benchmarks Team A APR = 885 Cutpoint APR = 925 Team not subject to penalty because upper confidence bound is above cutpoint. Confidence Interval N=5 Confidence Interval N=80 Team is subject to penalty because upper confidence bound is below cutpoint.

9. Financial Aid Restriction Penalty = aid previously awarded to a student-athlete who did not earn eligibility the next regular academic term and did not return to the institution. Once subject, maximum team financial aid limit is reduced by value of total countable aid awarded to student-athlete who did not earn eligibility and was not retained the following academic year. Exception for student-athletes who have exhausted athletics eligibility. Headcount sport penalty = 1.0 (per student-athlete). Equivalency sport penalty = total countable aid awarded to 0/2 student-athletes who do not meet exception. ContemporaneousPenalties

10. Exception • CAP interpretation. (January 9, 2005) • Example: Football student-athlete 0/2 after fall term, eligibility exhausted. Does not subject team to penalty

11. Contemporaneous Penalty Reminders Example: • Fall 2/2 • Spring 0/2 • 2/4 for academic year • Student-athlete does subject team to penalty based on 0/2 spring term. [Note: Assumes team APR below 925.]

12. Contemporaneous Penalty Reminders • Penalty must be taken “at the next available opportunity” • Not later than two-academic years after student-athlete’s departure • Penalty must be taken in academic year immediately following student-athlete’s departure, unless a “signed” prospective student-athlete will be impacted [official interpretation (reference: 01/21/04)].

13. “Capping” of Contemporaneous Penalty Scholarship Losses • In order to ensure contemporaneous penalties are ‘attention-getting’ penalties and not ‘death’ penalties, Board approved a limit on the number of contemporaneous penalties that apply to a team in any given year. • Teams below 925 APR could earn scholarship reductions up to the “cap” amount. • Cap = approximately 10% of NCAA max. team limits, rounded up for headcount sports

14. “Capping” Examples – Headcount Sports

15. Headcount Sport Example • Division IA Football • Team APR is below 925. • Six student-athletes have not earned eligibility and do not return. • Penalty with cap (9 GIA): 6 GIA

16. “Capping” Examples – Equivalency Sports

17. Equivalency Sport Example • Baseball • Team APR is below 925 APR. • Three student-athletes have not earned eligibility and do not return. Total countable aid awarded to these student-athletes equals 1.20. • Penalty under cap (1.17 GIA ):1.17 (GIA)

18. Contemporaneous Penalties • Apply based on two-year APR score (2003-04 and 2004-05 combined) and on student-athlete eligibility and retention status in 2004-05 (i.e., 0/2 student-athlete may subject team to contemporaneous penalties). • Contemporaneous penalty based on two-, three-, then four-year APR score. Once have four-year APR, will use four-year score.

19. Timeline for Implementation – Contemporaneous Penalty • 2003-04 - year one APR data. • January 2005 - APR “cut” established. • February 2005 APR reports sent to member institutions. • 2004-05 - year two APR data/student-athlete eligibility/retention will determine contemporaneous penalties. • Early fall 2005 - data submitted/initial notification. • 2005-06 - penalties taken based on 2004-05 year, unless interp applies. • December 2005 - institutions officially notified if subject to contemporaneous penalty based on two years of APR data.