1 / 66

Division I Academic Performance Program: Part I 2012 Regional Rules Seminars Diane Dickman, NCAA Jennifer Strawley, NCA

Division I Academic Performance Program: Part I 2012 Regional Rules Seminars Diane Dickman, NCAA Jennifer Strawley, NCAA. Topics. The impact of academic reform/recent data; Access to postseason competition; APP penalty structure; Limited-resource institution transitions; Questions.

livi
Télécharger la présentation

Division I Academic Performance Program: Part I 2012 Regional Rules Seminars Diane Dickman, NCAA Jennifer Strawley, NCA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Division I Academic Performance Program: Part I2012 Regional Rules SeminarsDiane Dickman, NCAAJennifer Strawley, NCAA

  2. Topics The impact of academic reform/recent data; Access to postseason competition; APP penalty structure; Limited-resource institution transitions; Questions.

  3. Impact of Academic Reform to Date Increased graduation rates. Overall Graduation Success Rate (GSR) for 2004 cohort is 82%. This is three percentage points higher than any other cohort. SAs in nearly all subgroups continue to graduate at higher rates than nonathlete counterparts (exception is white males where SA 1% below subgroup). Changes in the intercollegiate athletics culture. Greater focus on SA graduation through academic support initiatives, more rigorous academic standards, summer school attendance, etc.

  4. Trends in Graduation Success Rates and Federal Graduation Rates at NCAA Division I Institutions

  5. Average GSRs for Division I Student-Athletes in 2000-03 Cohorts vs. 2001-04 Cohorts

  6. Graduation Success Rates for Division I Men’s SportsFour-Class Averages for 2000-03 Cohorts vs. 2001-04 Cohorts

  7. Graduation Success Rates for Division I Women’s SportsFour-Class Averages for 2000-03 Cohorts vs. 2001-04 Cohorts

  8. Summary of GSR Trends Between 1995 and 2004 Cohorts • Differences in GSR between the 1995 and 2003 cohorts are notable due to the fact that initial-eligibility rules changed in 1996 and again in 2003. There are some notable differences in GSRs between these cohorts: • The overall rate is eight percentage points higher for the 2004 cohort than for the 1995 cohort. • The major changes were seen in the African-American groups. African-American males saw their graduation rates increase by 11 percentage points while females increased by nine percentage points.

  9. Summary of GSR Trends Between 1995 and 2004 Cohorts continued • The rate for men’s basketball increased by 12 percentage points over this timeframe, with a 15 percentage point increase for African-Americans in men’s basketball. • For FBS football, there has been an overall increase of six percentage points. African-Americans have seen their graduation rates increase eight percentage points in that timeframe, while white FBS football student-athletes saw an increase of four percentage points.

  10. Summary of GSR Trends Between 2003 and 2004 Cohorts • There were some specific sub-group differences worth noting: • The GSR for baseball increased by almost eight percent in one year. The academic reforms in that sport appear to have had a significant, positive impact on GSR. • The GSR for men’s basketball increased two percentage points to 68 percent, the highest rate recorded in that sport. African-Americans in the sport increased by a percentage point to 61 percent.

  11. Summary of GSR Trends Between 2003 and 2004 Cohorts continued • In the sport of football in the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) the overall rate stayed constant at 69 percent. In the FCS, the overall rate increased by seven percentage points – to 72 percent. • Several other men’s sport groups showed large increases including cross country/track, ice hockey, soccer and tennis.

  12. Comparison of Graduation Success Rates from Entering Classes of 1995* and 2004 Ten-Year Trends For Select Groups of Student-Athletes *1995 was the last year of the former initial-eligibility rules (known as Prop. 48). It was also the first year in which GSR data were collected.

  13. Comparison of Graduation Success Rates from Entering Classes of 1995* and 2004 Ten-Year Trends For Select Sport Groups *1995 was the last year of the former initial-eligibility rules (known as Prop. 48). It was also the first year in which GSR data were collected.

  14. Trends in APR Data

  15. Average Four-Year APRsIncludes 2007-08 through 2010-11 Academic Years Notes: (1) APR displayed for all squads submitting data for 2010-11 (N=6,413) (2) Numbers in parentheses are point changes from 4-year APRs reported in May 2011. (3) Changes in aggregates over time reflect changes in academic behaviors, changes in the institutional composition of Division I and changes in how retention was calculated beginning with 2007-08 data.

  16. Average APRs by Sport for Men’s Teams(Four-Year APR for 2007-08 thru 2010-11 AY)

  17. Average APRs by Sport for Women’s Teams(Four-Year APR for 2007-08 thru 2010-11 AY)

  18. Aggregate Trends in Single-Year APR, Eligibility and Retention

  19. Changes in the APR Distribution among all Squads Submitting Data in Each Year (2003-04 to 2010-11) • Notes: • Rates include adjustments and delayed graduation points. • Analyses based on N=5,828 squads that have sponsored the sport within Division I during all eight years of the APR program. • APR retention calculation changed beginning in 2007-08 to grant point adjustments for certain transfer students (timing of calculation change indicated in red).

  20. Changes in the Eligibility Rate Distribution among all Squads Submitting Data in Each Year (2003-04 to 2010-11) • Notes: • Analyses based on N=5,828 squads that have sponsored the sport within Division I during all eight years of the APR program. • Median eligibility rates were at or near 1000 in each of the years (approximately 50% of all squads lose no eligibility points in a given year).

  21. Changes in the Retention Rate Distribution among all Squads Submitting Data in Each Year (2003-04 to 2010-11) • Notes: • Analyses based on N=5,828 squads that have sponsored the sport within Division I during all eight • years of the APR program. • APR retention calculation changed beginning in 2007-08 to grant point adjustments for certain transfer • students (timing of calculation change indicated in red).

  22. Sport Trends in Single-Year APR, Eligibility and Retention

  23. APR Trends in Baseball, Men’s Basketball and Football Notes: Analyses based on 274 baseball squads, 323 men’s basketball squads, 230 football squads, and 321 women’s basketball squads that sponsored the sport within Division I during all eight years. APR retention calculation changed beginning in 2007-08 to grant point adjustments for certain transfer students (timing of calculation change indicated in red). Change did not affect eligibility rate calculation.

  24. Eligibility Trends in Baseball, Men’s Basketball and Football Notes: Analyses based on 274 baseball squads, 323 men’s basketball squads, 230 football squads, and 321 women’s basketball squads that sponsored the sport within Division I during all eight years. APR retention calculation changed beginning in 2007-08 to grant point adjustments for certain transfer students (timing of calculation change indicated in red). Change did not affect eligibility rate calculation.

  25. Retention Trends in Baseball, Men’s Basketball and Football Notes: Analyses based on 274 baseball squads, 323 men’s basketball squads, 230 football squads, and 321 women’s basketball squads that sponsored the sport within Division I during all eight years. APR retention calculation changed beginning in 2007-08 to grant point adjustments for certain transfer students (timing of calculation change indicated in red). Change did not affect eligibility rate calculation.

  26. Trends in APR 0-for-2s

  27. Changes in the Number of 0-for-2s among all Squads Submitting Data in Each Year (2003-04 to 2010-11) Notes: (1) Analyses based on N=5,828 squads that sponsored the sport within Division I during all 8 years . (2) “0-for-2” defined as student-athletes separating from a school while academically ineligible. (3) 0-for-2 counts based on cohort definitions – SAs playing multiple sports could appear as multiple 0-for-2s in this table. (4) Change from 2004-05 to 2010-11 represents a 27% reduction in the number of 0-for-2s.

  28. Trends in Number of 0-for-2s -- Student-Athletes Leaving School While Academically Ineligible • Notes: • Analyses based on squads that sponsored the sport within Division I during all eight years. • N = Number of student-athletes leaving school while ineligible (“0-for-2s”) during that academic year (includes SAs who left ineligible after exhausting their eligibility). • % = Percentage of individuals in that sport who were 0-for-2s in that academic year.

  29. Trends in the Number of Transfer Student-Athletes

  30. Trends in Transfer Composition of Division I Student-Athlete Population

  31. 2010-11 Transfer Composition of Division I Student-Athlete Population (by Sport)

  32. APR as a Function of Transfer Status

  33. Academic Performance Program Team Success and Academic Accountability

  34. Access to Postseason Competition Qualifying for postseason competition now requires two elements: 1. Athletic success; and 2. Minimum academic team success as defined by APR.

  35. Access to Postseason Competition 930 NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate (APR) is the minimum academic standard to participate in postseason competition. Transition to this benchmark to occur over next three years. Postseason includes all postseason events conducted after last regular season contest or end of conference tournament (e.g., includes bowl games, NIT, WNIT, etc.). Ineligibility postseason includes individual competitors for teams not meeting academic standard.

  36. Transitioning to the 930 APR Requirement for Postseason Access Beginning with postseason competition in the 2012-13 academic year, a minimum academic expectation is in place in order to be eligible for postseason competition. The following phased in approach has been established: 2012-13 and 2013-14 – access to postseason requires 900 APR. 2014-15 and beyond – access to postseason requires 930 APR. More details in later slide.

  37. Access to Postseason • Access to championships - effective 2012-13. • Data used for 2012-13 postseason access: • 2010-11. • 2009-10. • 2008-09. • 2007-08.

  38. Transition

  39. Mission Filter for Postseason Access • Mission filter: Institution is in bottom 15% of resources as defined by the current NCAA Division I Committee on Academic Performance policy AND the team's most recent four year GSR is 50% or higher. • Filter provides relief only to access to postseason competition, not to Level-One, -Two or -Three penalties.  • This filter is only available the first time a team is below the penalty benchmark.  A team that is below the penalty benchmark for a second occasion and beyond would not be permitted to use this filter and would therefore be ineligible for postseason competition.

  40. Improvement Filter for Access to Postseason Competition Improvement filter for teams that have demonstrated meaningful improvement is defined as: Team must have an average APR of 950 over the two most recent single APR years to demonstrate meaningful improvement. This filter only applies the second time and beyond that a team is subject to postseason ineligibility.

  41. Conference Policy Requirement Requires that conferences adopt a written policy regarding teams that do not meet academic requirement to qualify for postseason with respect to the conference’s automatic qualification for postseason/championships and revenue distribution. Allows conference to develop its own policy. Simply requires a policy exist.

  42. New APP Penalty Structure • Effective for penalties taken in 2012-13 and beyond. • Data used for determining penalties taken in 2012-13: • 2010-11; • 2009-10; • 2008-09; and • 2007-08.

  43. New APP Penalty Structure: Three Levels

  44. Penalty Structure: Level-One • Level-One: • Reduction by four hours/one day of practice per week in season. Results in 16 hours per week rather than 20 and five days per week rather than six. • Must be replaced by academic activities.

  45. Penalty Structure: Level-Two Reduction of four hours/one day of practice per week in season. Must be replaced by academic activities. Reduction of four hours of practice per week out-of-season. Must be replaced by academic activities. Cancellation of nonchampionship season or spring football. For sports without nonchampionship season, 10% reduction in contests and length of season.

  46. Level-Two: Contest Reductions Examples of contest reductions:

  47. Level-Two: Length of Season Reductions Examples of season reductions:

  48. Penalty Structure: Level-Three Menu of Penalties Teams failing to meet benchmark are subject to Level-Three menu of penalties repeatedly. Penalties would vary year-to-year; likely more severe as years progress. It is assumed Level-One and –Two penalties apply, plus postseason. In addition, menu of penalties.

  49. Penalty Structure: Level-Three Menu of Penalties Menu options: Financial aid penalties (any amount, any type). Practice penalties (reduction of four hours/week and up). Contest reductions (10% up to full season). Restricted membership. Coach-specific penalties, including game restrictions, recruiting restrictions. Restricted access to practice for incoming student-athletes that fall below pre-determined academic standards. Multiyear postseason competition ban.

  50. Level-Three Self-Imposed Penalties Institution may self-impose penalties at Level-Three. Provides opportunity to "cater" penalties specific to issues team needs to address. May or may not be accepted by committee.

More Related