Division I Committee on Academic Performance Waivers and Hearings Bill Regan and John Shukie Academic and Membership Affairs

Overview Penalty waiver process. How are cases analyzed? Case study. Occasion-Three and -Four Hearings.

Overview of Penalty Structure Contemporaneous Penalties. Occasion One Historical Penalty. Occasion Two Historical Penalty. Occasion Three Historical Penalty. Occasion Four Historical Penalty. At each level of penalty, the opportunity for a waiver exists. Reminders: Historical Penalties are cumulative and progressive. A team needs three “clean years” to remove itself from the historical penalty process.

APP Penalty Waiver Portal On the NCAA Web site, go to https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/homepage. Username = institution's or conference's sports sponsorship username. Password = sports sponsorship password. Different than the NCAA Division I Academic Performance Program Data Collection Program username and password. Click the Login button.

Institution concludes APR adjustment phase and files waiver. 14 days for Contemporaneous and Occasion 1-2 21 days for Occasion 3-4 Institution submits penalty waiver request. Staff processes waiver request. Institution may appeal staff decision: 7 days for Contemporaneous and Occasion 1-2; and 21 days for Occasion 3-4

APP Penalty Waiver Process Contemporaneous/Historical Penalty Occasion One and Two. Initial decision by NCAA staff. Appeals to the NCAA Division I Committee on Academic Performance Subcommittee on Appeals. Historical Penalty Occasion Three and Four. Initial review by staff; staff may approve or conditionally approve (full or partial). In-person hearings generally in February and April before the committee. Opportunity to appeal to NCAA Division I Board of Directors Academic Performance Program Historical Penalties Appeals Subcommittee.

APP Penalty Waiver Decisions Full relief of penalty. Partial relief of penalty (e.g., relief from scholarship penalty but not practice penalty). Conditional relief of penalty (full or partial). Delay in application of penalty. Denial.

How waivers are Analyzed APP Penalty Waivers How waivers are Analyzed

2009-10 Penalty Waiver Summary Number of penalty waivers by sport: Sport CP HP 1 HP 2 HP 3 Total MBA 1 3 MBB 6 4 7 23 MFB 11 MSO MTI MTO WBB 2 WCC WGM WSO WTI WTO

2009-10 Penalty Waiver Summary Waiver decision by penalty type: Penalty Full Conditional Conditional Partial Deny Delay CP 10 3 2 1 HP I 6 HP II 7 HP III Totals 14 17 18

Waiver Directive Guiding Principles Team’s academic performance. Review of historical-penalty factors. Review mitigation. NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate (APR) Improvement Plans.

Academic Performance Evaluation of team’s academic performance includes a review of the following: APR: Trend. What happened in the most recent year? Number of “o/2” student-athletes? How far away from penalty APR cut score? Compare to other teams at the institution.

Academic Performance Eligibility and Retention. Trend. Is one significantly lower than the other? When and by whom are points lost? What is the academic performance in the most recent term? Federal Graduation and Graduation Success Rates. Comparison to institution and other teams at institution. Does it support current APR?

Academic Performance Individual student-athlete. Number of graduates. Trend – Term grade-point average (GPA) at institution and credit-hours attempted versus credit-hours completed. Performance in most recent fall term. Changes in performance since implementation of APR Improvement Plan. Impact of mitigation (e.g., coaching change). Incoming academic profile of student-athletes, including transfers.

Historical-Penalty Factors Improvement. Does the team satisfy improvement as defined by the committee? Trend. Institutional characteristics. Impact of resources. How is the team doing compared to the student body? By-sport comparison. How is the team doing compared to other teams in the same sport?

Mitigation Impact on team’s academic performance. Did the mitigation correspond to the lost points? Has there been a change? How did or will the institution address mitigation? Was the mitigation within control of the institution? What did the institution do or not do? Anomaly or pattern? Impact on “0/2” student-athletes. Outside the control of the student-athlete, team and/or institution?

APR Improvement Plan Does the plan identify critical issues – data analysis? Does the plan provide initiatives that effectively address critical issues? Does the plan provide steps that will allow for effective implementation of initiatives? Does the plan involve all necessary individuals to effectively implement steps? Is the plan timely? Were prior plans implemented?

Case Study Sparky University’s men’s basketball team is subject to the following Occasion-Two Historical Penalty. Reduction of practice by 4 hours; Reduction of 1 day of practice; and, Reduction of 2 scholarships. The institution is requesting the following relief. Reduction of 2 hours of practice; Reduction of 1 day of practice; and Reduction of 1 scholarship.

Case Study The team has the following APR/academic data for the past four years: Current multiyear APR – 877; Single year APR: 804, 940, 894 and 877; Eligibility: 690, 840, 875 and 889; Retention: 929, 1000, 870 and 852; and Number of “0/2” student-athletes: 3, 0, 2 and 2. Current fall: team passed an average of 9 hours with a 2.010 GPA; team lost 2 eligibility points (923 APR).

Case study Graduation Success and Federal Graduation Rates. 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Team GSR 44% 30% 26% 32% Inst Team GSR 60% 61% 65% Team Fed Rate 50% 38% 35% Student-body Fed Rate 29% 28%

Case Study Historical-penalty factors. Improvement: Did not meet improvement because recent single year below 900. Did pass 1 of 5 tests: 2005-06 APR compared 2008-09, 2007-08 and 2006-07 multiyear APR. Institutional characteristics: Institution is in the bottom 10% of overall financial resources as defined by the committee Team’s APR projects to a 15% Federal Graduation Rate. Student-body rate is 29%. By-Sport Team’s APR is 874. Bottom tenth percentile for MBB 881.

Case Study Mitigation offered by institution. Currently multiyear APR is improving – highest since APR was implemented; Due to resources, the institution can only make gradual changes, but improvement is being made; During 2008-09, student-athletes departed the institution because they were not happy at school or desired more playing time; Institution did everything it could to retain and keep student-athletes eligible; and Team is outperforming the student body when comparing Federal Graduation Rates.

Case Study APR Improvement Plan. Plan identified following issues: More eligibility points (19) lost than retention (9); Steady rate of “0/2” student-athletes in the last several years; Eligibility points lost because student-athletes fail to satisfy credit-hour requirements; Two-year college transfers lose the majority of points; and For nontransfers, most problems arise during second year of enrollment. Current team consists of: 7 two-year college transfers; 3 four-year college transfers; and 3 nontransfers.

Case Study APR Improvement Plan initiatives. Improve monitoring of student-athlete performance during term; No scholarship offered to an incoming student-athlete with a core GPA below 2.500 (high school) or 2.300 (transfer); Daily class checks by coaching staff; Weekly meeting with coaching staff for student-athletes with a cum GPA below 2.500; and, Enroll student-athletes in summer bridge and establish a 4-year graduation plan once enrolled.

Case Study What would you decide? Approve, partial approval or deny? If conditional, what conditions would you impose? Rationale?

Occasion-Three and-Four Hearings

2009 Occasion-Three Penalty Summary 5 institutions and 6 teams were required to appear in front of the committee for an Occasion-Three hearing. Another 7 teams accepted some relief from the staff, and avoided a hearing. Of the 6 teams that appeared in front of the committee, 3 teams received postseason restriction penalties, 2 teams received conditional relief from the postseason restriction penalties, and 1 team received full relief from the postseason penalty restriction. Of the 6 teams that appeared in front of the committee, 3 teams received conditional relief from progression to Occasion Four, and 3 teams received full relief from progression to Occasion Four. All teams received scholarship reductions as well as a 4 hour per week reduction in countable athletically related activities.

Occasion-Three Hearing Process The NCAA staff is unable to provide relief; therefore, the case is sent to the committee. The hearing is held at an in-person meeting of the full committee. The institutional president or chancellor, director of athletics and head coach of the penalized team are required to be in attendance. The NCAA staff and institution are each allowed 20 minute opening statements, followed by questions from the committee members and closing statements. After the hearing, the committee deliberates immediately and makes a decision.

Occasion-Three Hearing Process President/Chancellor is notified of the decision verbally by the chair of the committee, generally within 14 days of the hearing. Within 21 days of the hearing, the institution is provided with a written report of the committee’s decision, including its rationale for any penalties imposed and/or relief provided. The institution may appeal the committee’s decision to the APP Historical Appeals Board Subcommittee. The institution must show that the committee abused its discretion in making its decision or did not follow its procedures, which resulted in the institution being unfairly penalized.

A Few Common Themes in Occasion-Three Hearings There are a number of themes that the committee is looking for in an Occasion-Three hearing, including but not limited to: Accountability of the athletics administration as well as nonathletics administration at the institution (e.g., strong presidential involvement). Demonstrated allocation of resources to address the issues. The involvement of faculty, especially the faculty athletics representative, in the improvement process. Well-informed and forward-thinking head coaches, who can demonstrate clear changes being made to address the issues. A demonstrated change in philosophy towards academic accountability and progress. A strong APR Improvement Plan, demonstrating the items above as well as implementation of key items having occurred.

Best Practices Working with the NCAA staff and the committee: Presidential involvement and understanding of issues. Demonstrated commitment to academic improvement. Improvement plan. Resource allocation. Academic profile. What programs are in place going forward? Collaborative work with the staff through the process. Nonadversarial environment at the hearings.

Questions?