Analysis: APR fails to back up tough rhetoric

IT WAS SUPPOSED to be a day of dread for college programs across the country. Instead, it ended up being a day of yawns.

Tuesday’s release of the NCAA’s Academic Progress Rate didn’t shake up college athletics, as administrators claimed a year ago it would. For all the talk that the APR will change the landscape, big-name schools are finding ways around being penalized.

So for a second consecutive year, the big news was not penalties, but the threat of them next year.

Reform-minded experts were less than impressed.

“I don’t see this as any significant change. It just seems like lip service,” said David Ridpath, the director of the Drake Group, which seeks academic reform in college athletics.

Of 123 teams penalized this year, only 17 were from the six major conferences. Washington State’s football program sustained the biggest hit: the loss of eight scholarships.

South Carolina’s men’s basketball team lost a scholarship, but it took that penalty this past season. Three Tennessee teams (men’s basketball, baseball and men’s swimming) and LSU’s baseball teams were the only other SEC teams penalized.

NCAA executive director Myles Brand said during a teleconference Tuesday that there were fewer penalties than expected at this time last year. He attributed that to “measurable improvement” among schools.

But Brand failed to mention a waiver system that many schools, including South Carolina, used to avoid being penalized.

Though 218 teams were penalized, losing either a scholarship or practice time, 492 were eligible to be penalized but were not:

• 256 teams were exempted because they represented a “low-resource” institution and could not afford more academic support because of smaller budgets.

• 59, including South Carolina State’s men’s basketball program, were left out because of the school’s or sport’s individual characteristics. One example would be if the team’s APR is above that of the school’s general student body.

• 253 teams, including Clemson’s men’s basketball, were exempted because none of their players went 0-for-2 — leaving school early and not being eligible to return.

• 66 schools received a waiver after submitting what the NCAA called an academic improvement plan.

The NCAA didn’t release the list of programs that received the waiver, but USC, Ohio State, Indiana and Purdue were among those schools whose teams were mentioned in media reports. Those big-time programs promised the same basic improvements: an academic tutor on road trips, increased tutoring, etc.

“The analogy I would give folks is like having a midnight curfew for your kids and now it’s 12:05. Are you going to say, ‘Well they were close,’” said Richard Southall, the director of the College Sports Research Institute at the University of Memphis. “And are you going to talk to your kids and say do you have a plan for this not being a problem next Friday.”

The Knight Commission, which is independent of the NCAA, is comprised of administrators from across the country. Executive director Amy Perko said the commission knew about the waivers, but hoped they would be given “sparingly” and only when there were extenuating circumstances.

Perko reserved judgment Tuesday, waiting to see an explanation of the waiver process when the Knight Commission meets with the NCAA in June.

“I don’t think anyone would want to see a situation where (big schools are) able to get a waiver because they were able to put in another $500,000 (to academic support),” Perko said.

The NCAA said Tuesday it would continue to consider waivers in coming years, though it hinted its criteria for granting one will be more stringent.

“There may be some unforeseen circumstances, but the bottom line is you either meet the standards or you don’t,” Brand said.

But Ridpath was skeptical.

“People in college athletics are very smart,” he said. “They’ll find a way to get around the APR.”

Reach Emerson at (803) 771-8676.