Photo by Brad Lang
Sophomore cornerback J'Juan Cherry, a "Prop 48 casualty," signed a letter of intent to play for Colorado in 1995 but never did. He instead transferred to ASU and sat out last season before playing as a Sun Devil.
| |
Photo by Brad Lang
Sophomore cornerback J'Juan Cherry, a "Prop 48 casualty," signed a letter of intent to play for Colorado in 1995 but never did. He instead transferred to ASU and sat out last season before playing as a Sun Devil. |
By Lisa Eskey
Justin Taplin caught 75 passes for 1,295 yards and 16 touchdowns his senior year in high school. He intercepted four passes. He returned two kickoffs and two punts for scores. He led his team to a state championship. He was chosen by USA Today as Arizona's Player of the Year.
The 6-0, 175-pound athlete even signed with ASU to play football.
But it was not his size, his athletic prowess or his statistics that kept him out of Division I competition this fall.
It was his academic record.
Taplin, a 1997 graduate of Tempe High School, had the grade point average and the standardized test score required to play in college, but he was one core course shy of what the NCAA has mandated for freshman eligibility.
Taplin is one of six Sun Devil football recruits who was declared athletically ineligible prior to this season. ASU's total was double that of any other Pac-10 school and more than the combined non-qualifiers of the top five pre-season ranked teams in the country.
Taplin and the other five Sun Devil recruits who failed to meet NCAA academic requirements join the thousands of other student-athletes from across the country who have been affected by the controversial legislation over the past 11 years.
The NCAA, college presidents and most coaches point to the positive impact enhanced academic requirements have had on big-time intercollegiate athletics. Critics continue to harp on what they consider to be the unfairness built into the standards.
"It was needed, it was achieved, it still is controversial," said Jerry Kingston, ASU's faculty athletics representative and chairman of the NCAA's Academic Requirements Committee. "But I'm in that group that believes it was the right thing to do."
The NCAA makes rules governing all aspects of intercollegiate athletics, including eligibility. Freshman eligibility long has been a controversial topic, even more so since the implementation of Proposition 48 in 1986. That legislation set core course, GPA and standardized test score standards for students to compete athletically at Division I schools.
Eligibility issues are certainly not new. According to NCAA background information on freshman eligibility, Rutgers defeated Princeton in the first intercollegiate football game in 1869 with the help of 10 freshmen -- three of whom were failing algebra. Twenty years later, Harvard President Charles W. Eliot conducted a study on the relationship between football participation and academic success by freshmen at his school. He found that, in a two-year period, first-term football players earned nearly four times as many D's and failing grades as they did A's and B's. Eliot said this was at odds with the goals and purpose of higher education.
Proposition 48's beginnings date to 1982, when a group of college presidents proposed minimal academic standards for freshman eligibility. The decision was deemed critical for the future of intercollegiate athletics. Jack Peltason, president of the American Council on Education, was quoted in an NCAA packet as saying to an association committee: "There...is a general concern that priorities are being lost sight of as sports become overemphasized in the minds of students and the general public, who see us as a farm system for the pro teams."
In 1983, the NCAA adopted Proposition 48, which took effect Aug. 1, 1986. It required that, to be eligible for a scholarship, incoming freshmen would have to earn an SAT score of 700 (out of a possible 1,600) or an ACT score of 15 (out of a possible 35) and hold a 2.0 high school GPA (on a 4.0 scale) in 11 academic core courses. Partial qualifiers were athletes who met either the SAT/ACT requirement or the GPA, but not both. Non-qualifiers didn't meet either, but graduated with a cumulative high school GPA of at least a 2.0.
Some university presidents said the legislation was necessary to maintain the integrity of the NCAA and its member institutions. Others worried about the discriminatory effects, contending that, in the words of Delaware State College President Luna I. Mishoe, the SAT "penalizes low-income students and does not indicate whether a student can perform college work."
ASU linebacker Pat Tillman, who boasts a 3.82 GPA and was named the Pac-10's Defensive Player of the Year, said he believes it's up to each university to decide whether to accept the superior athlete who is an academically at-risk student. "If the school's going to allow them in, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to go just because some committee decides their GPA isn't high enough," he said. "It should be up to the school, not the NCAA."
Kingston disagreed.
"The intention here is to not have students get used up and thrown away by institutions that want to win football games," he said. "They have to be students that have reasonable academic preparation. Our statistical work has indicated that the single best indicator is an equally weighted combination of GPA and test score."
ASU head football coach Bruce Snyder said, "I think these standards are fair. It's not fair to the student if he's put in a situation where he can't succeed."
Concerning his ineligible recruits, Snyder added, "It's disappointing, but we start recruiting a year and a half before they graduate (from high school). We just have to hope that they'll make it."
Taplin's coach at Tempe High, Tim McBurney, said he blamed himself for his star player's ineligibility. McBurney said he became confused over NCAA core eligibility requirements when Tempe changed from a two-semester system to quarters. Some one-quarter core courses don't meet NCAA standards. He added that he asked "a number of qualified people -- or who I thought were qualified -- and we all agreed that his courses qualified."
 |
Graduation rates of Top 25 football teams |
The July 17, 1995, issue of Sports Illustrated reported that, in 1985, 27.6 percent of athletic scholarships went to black freshmen athletes. That number dropped to 23.2 percent a year later, the first year Proposition 48 went into effect. But the NCAA reported that it had anticipated an initial downturn as struggling high school student-athletes, particularly those who attend inner-city schools, adjusted to the new academic standards. The NCAA predicted the trend would reverse itself within 10 years.
Many college sports officials fought fiercely against the passing of the rule, arguing that standardized tests inherently were culturally biased and would punish minority athletes.
The Black Coaches Association contended that Proposition 48 is racist, penalizing those who attend inferior high schools. Other arguments claimed the SAT is culturally biased against blacks and that the propositions would shut minority athletes out of college sports.
USA Today reported on Jan. 10, 1995, that, in 1993-94, 55 percent of the athletes who fell short of the standards were black. The Jan. 22, 1989, issue of the Washington Post reported that the College Board, in 1988, found that whites, on average, scored 200 points higher than blacks on the SAT. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported in its July 7, 1993, issue that 600 fewer black athletes enrolled in Division I schools in 1986 than in each of the three previous years.
ASU cornerback Courtney Hysaw is on scholarship as a partial qualifier. Even though his high school GPA was 2.6, his ACT score was two points under the standard, he said.
"It's messed up," he said. "If you have the GPA it shouldn't matter about what you test."
Hysaw, who is black, said he felt the test was biased in the English and reading sections. "They word things the way a white person would say it," he added.
"Yeah, I hear a lot about the bias," Sun Devil basketball guard Eddie House said of the SAT. "A lot of the stuff that they talk about were things that I couldn't relate to. Some of the words they were using I had never seen before."
House, who also is black, attended an inner-city school in the San Francisco area. "A 2.5 with an 820 is hard," he added, although he passed the SAT on his first try. "It's too tough."
Kingston said: "We have found no evidence in any statistical work of cultural bias in the SAT. It would show up (in our formulas) once you account for academic preparation."
Reggie Hester, who is black, is a swingman on ASU's basketball team. He attended junior college after he was just a few points shy of the minimum required on the SAT. He had planned to play at Michigan State but ended up attending Northland Pioneer College in Holbrook, Ariz. He, too, went to a predominantly black high school.
"Personally, it wasn't fair to hold me back," he said. "I took all the classes and I did very well. At that time I just wasn't a good tester. That's the only thing that held me back."
Kingston said that a 650 SAT score was as low as the committee was willing to go. "To bring students in and expect them to devote the amount of time that they do to their sport and still be able to compete in the classroom is fundamentally unfair," he said. "No matter where we draw the line, there's always going to be one student who's going to say that's not fair.
"There's not an overwhelming consensus on these issues," Kingston said of the proposition that passed by only nine votes with Division I members. "It's a delicate balance that is subject to being overturned at any point."
But William Friday, co-chairman of the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, said in the Jan. 6, 1995, issue of USA Today that those who opposed Proposition 48 basically were saying that African-American student-athletes couldn't meet the challenge of higher academic standards.
Just as the NCAA predicted, however, black student-athletes seem to be the biggest beneficiaries of the propositions. Many black students did respond to tougher academic standards, and Proposition 48 did raise graduation rates for blacks. According to the NCAA, 21 percentage points separated the graduation rates for white and black male student-athletes during the three years prior to implementation of Proposition 48. That number decreased to 16 by 1986 and was down to 13 by 1989.
Of the black student-athletes who entered Division I schools in 1990, 47 percent graduated, compared to the 43 percent of the black general student body. Breaking up the rates by gender shows that black female student-athletes graduated 15 percentage points higher than their counterparts and black male student-athletes graduated 5 percentage points higher.
Despite the rebound in numbers, lawsuits have challenged the propositions.
The National Center for Fair and Open Testing is fighting the use of standardized tests for eligibility, stating that Proposition 48 violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because black athletes are disproportionately affected by them. It cites research from the NCAA about athletes who entered college during the three years prior to Proposition 48's implementation. The McIntosh Commission reviewed this data and concluded that black student-athletes would have been declared ineligible at a rate six times higher than that for white student-athletes. Cureton vs. NCAA , filed in January, will go to trial in July in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.
"Maybe the emphasis should be different," ASU men's basketball coach Don Newman said. "I don't think one test should constitute whether you're capable or not capable of being a college student."
He added that the question should be whether the university is getting the job done. "Are they (student-athletes) better when they leave than when they came?" he asked.
ASU cornerback Courtney Jackson offered another solution. "They need to be doing things in the high schools so that kids can get a grasp of this (the requirements) earlier so it won't be a big surprise when they're taking the test."
The "1997 NCAA Division I Graduation-Rates Report" demonstrated that the propositions have indeed toughened academic standards for athletes after 1986 and, in the process, have raised graduation rates of Division I athletes. The NCAA study included three entering classes before Proposition 48 took effect and four classes that entered after it was passed. The rate only includes those students who received athletics-related financial aid and who graduated within six years. Transfers and dropouts are counted as non-graduates.
The NCAA's data indicate that student-athletes' graduation rates are slightly higher than those of the student body, that the graduation rates of student-athletes significantly increased after Proposition 48 and that, in the long run, African-American student-athletes have not been disproportionately affected by the rule.
Even before Proposition 48 took effect, student-athletes graduated at higher rates than the general student body. But these numbers remained static, at 51 percent in 1983 and at 52 percent in 1984 and 1985. But since 1986, there has been a slow and steady increase in graduation rates for student-athletes, up to 58 percent in 1989.
"There is no other thing that accounts for that sort of continuous shift in grad rates other than the higher academic standards that were imposed," Kingston said. "There is no doubt that higher preparation leads to higher grad rates."
Increases also are seen in every racial group studied. The proportion of African-American students dropped in the beginning years of Proposition 48's implementation, but those numbers rebounded by 1989. The study stated that "some observers theorized that the actual number of African-American student-athletes graduating would fall after Proposition 48 because of the reduced number of African-American student-athletes; however, there has been a slight increase in the number of African-American student-athletes who have graduated."
The study also noted that, in every year, the proportion of African-Americans in the student-athlete population was more than twice that of the general student body.
White female and black male student-athletes were shown to graduate at a 5 to 10 percent rate higher than non-athletes in comparable groups. Female African-American student-athletes' rates have risen dramatically, graduating at a rate 16 percent higher than the same demographic group of the general student body.
Of the 279 Division I schools (for which statistics are available), 197 posted higher graduation rates for the 1986 freshmen than for the freshmen in the three previous years' classes. Seventy-one schools had double-digit increases.
Kingston said that if Proposition 48 standards had been applied to freshmen entering in 1984 and 85, 25.6 percent would have been declared ineligible. Of all the white student-athletes during those years, 12.4 percent would have been ineligible; 64.8 percent of the black student-athletes would not have qualified. Of those classified as eligible, the graduation rate was predicted to increase from 49 to 58 percent. "And that's almost exactly what happened," Kingston said.
 |
Photo by Jeremy Hein
Sophomore guard Jason Patton sat out last season to "concentrate on his academics," according to the 1997-98 media guide. Patton actually had no choice; he failed to qualify based on Proposition 48 standards. |
Of all the freshmen who enrolled at ASU during the 1986-87 school year, 45 percent had been graduated by the summer of 1992, compared to 44 percent of the previous three classes. Fifty-two percent of all student-athletes who enrolled at ASU in 1986-87 -- the first year of Proposition 48 -- graduated, compared to 40 percent for the previous three classes.
At ASU, the rates of black male and white female student-athletes graduating from ASU greatly increased, jumping from 21 percent and 16 percent, respectively.
For freshmen entering ASU during the 1990-91 year, 46 percent of all students graduated within six years, again less than the 53 percent of student-athletes who graduated within the same time frame.
Arizona State graduation rates clearly have increased in the Proposition 48 era, but they are at the bottom of the Pac-10 -- although only slightly behind several other schools. Stanford took the top conference honors, graduating 94 percent of all students who entered in 1990-91 and 91 percent of its student-athletes. ASU and Arizona were the only conference schools to graduate a larger proportion of their student-athletes than general students.
Women's track had the highest graduation rate of Sun Devil squads, with 80 percent of its athletes earning degrees in six years. Football was next, with a 39 percent graduation rate. Men's basketball scored the lowest, at 20 percent.
"Once you break these graduation rates by sport, you find large differences," Kingston said. "Particular sport problems are with the revenue ones: football, men's basketball and baseball."
For example, ASU men's basketball graduated 33 percent of its scholarship freshman class of 1986-87, but it didn't graduate any from its 1987-88, 1988-89 or 1989-90 classes. Its 1990-91 class graduated 20 percent. The national average for that year was 44 percent.
"Maybe it's not everybody's dream to graduate," basketball player House said in reaction to ASU's low graduation rates in his sport. "It's an individual decision. If you come out of a place where your family doesn't have a lot of money and everybody at home is struggling and you have a chance to better your life and everybody's life around you by going to the pro level, then definitely do it. If you choose to go back to school -- that's all you."
House said it's his goal to graduate. In high school, he said he wanted to go to college but didn't think he would be able to. "I didn't have the money," he said. "If I didn't play sports, I'd just have a job right now."
Hester said it's also his goal to graduate. "The opportunity to play (professionally) will always be there for me," he said. "Just like the opportunity to go back to school will always be there for those who turn pro early."
Kingston said: "If pro leagues find at some point we are so restricting the flow of talent to the leagues that they find it profitable to go out and set up farm clubs, that's just fine with me. Meanwhile, we're not compromising what America's colleges and universities are all about."
Newman said, "A real pro is a complete person, someone who has taken advantage of all his opportunities."
At ASU, 450 student-athletes have vast resources through the Intercollegiate Athletic Department's Academic Student Services. They include the Summer School Enrichment Program, which encourages student-athletes to take summer school courses when athletic demands are lighter, in order to graduate on schedule. There's also the Post-Eligibility Program that provides financial aid comparable to students' scholarships while they finish their degrees (these students work as interns in various parts of the athletic department); the NCAA grant program, which has provided scholarships to 36 former student-athletes to return to ASU and finish their degrees; and the HEAT program (Help Employ Athletes Today), which is designed to help students find internships, summer jobs and career opportunities.
ASU athletes also have the services of an academic coordinator, study hall sessions for freshmen and transfers, a computer site, study hall rooms and tutors.
ASU has set a goal of graduating 70 percent of the freshmen who enrolled this fall, said Jill DeMichele, assistant athletic director of academic services.
DeMichele said her department is expecting a graduation rate only in the "mid-30s" for the class of 1991-92. The rate is so low because 12 players transferred when there was a change in head football coaches.
The 1992-93 class is predicted to graduate at 54 percent, the 1993-94 class 53 percent, the 1994-95 class 65 percent and the 1995-96 class 64 percent.
This year, Intercollegiate Athletics began recommending that student-athletes enroll in a minimum of 15 hours each semester. Director of Athletics Kevin White said ASU's graduation rates should be higher. ASU currently is about the average for all Division I schools. "We want to be a little more aggressive in stressing academic performance," he told the State Press.
"Some guys might not be able to handle that kind of courseload," Jackson said. "You have to go with what's effective for the individual."
Snyder agreed, saying, "It's not how fast you get through, but that you make it."
A 1987-88 study by the NCAA showed that student-athletes missed an average of two classes each week. In response to the study, the NCAA adopted a rule restricting a student-athlete's participation in a sport to a maximum of 20 hours per week. But there's no way to regulate the time an athlete spends on his sport on his own.
"A lot of people think we have it easier," Hester said. But he used his own circumstances to counter that perception.
On Tuesdays and Thursdays, Hester wakes up at 7 a.m. and attends classes at 7:40 and 9:15. He goes to work out individually at 11, has another class at 12:15, meets a tutor at 1:30, has practice from 3-6, attends study hall from 7 to 8:30 and then meets with a tutor until 9:30. He doesn't get back home until after 10 p.m.
"And that's just in the off-season," he said. "Traveling's going to make our schedules worse."
DeMichele said her department also is encouraging coaches to take more interest in their players' academic progress.
Tillman agreed, saying that it's in the best interest of the coaches to do so. "I don't think it should be in their job description, but a good coach does that," he said. "They could be a great coach on the field, but if they don't get their players to class, then they're not doing their job as well as they should be."
Snyder, though, said some students might see a coach's interest as just trying to keep the student eligible, as opposed to genuine care. "We are really involved," he added, "but we don't make as big a difference as a caring parent, fellow student, roommate, professor or counselor who has, as their only agenda, care for that person."
Many Division I coaches argue that if top athletes decide not to go to the top programs, then Division II schools and junior colleges are going to be the major beneficiaries of Proposition 48 "casualties."
Since Proposition 48 was implemented, junior colleges have been great options for students who fail to meet the NCAA's standards. Some critics contend that junior colleges that provide opportunities for non-qualifiers are circumventing requirements. The University of California, Berkeley, recruited 12 junior college transfers this season for its football team. Cal had recruited only three in the previous three seasons.
In the Pac-10, Arizona has the most transfer students, 25, on its football roster. Oregon State and California list 17 transfers each. ASU is in the middle of the pack with 12 transfers; Stanford has the least, two.
Others argue that community colleges give a student-athlete an opportunity to adjust to college life without the additional pressures of competition, to improve study habits and classroom performance, to get rid of homesickness and to develop as an athlete.
Proposition 48 has led to an increase in junior college transfers, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. In a July 7, 1993, issue, it reported that a study showed that transfer students were less likely to graduate than were the athletes who had entered as freshmen, suggesting that colleges replaced the freshmen who didn't meet the standards with even less-qualified transfer students.
Kingston said the NCAA has acknowledged the problem. But starting next year, junior college transfers will be required to have 35 percent of their degree completed before becoming athletically eligible.
"We've shut off the college two-year route for the underprepared," he said. "It's not academic preparation for survival here."
Beginning this fall, the Pac-10 decided that a non-qualifier "shall be permanently ineligible for competition, practice or athletically related financial aid at any conference institution."
Previously, non-qualifiers could pay their own way and not practice or compete. Then, if they had demonstrated sufficient progress by their sophomore year, they could join the team as scholarship players.
Because of Taplin's desire to play Division I sports, McBurney said his prize former player is attempting to complete the NCAA's requirements. Taplin can become eligible by completing the core course he needs. But he finds himself in a catch-22 situation. Tempe High School denied him readmittance because he had already graduated. Taplin and McBurney appealed to the NCAA, which granted the athlete permission to apply to another high school.
Taplin applied to South Mountain High School in Phoenix, but again was denied admittance because he has already gradutated. He now is attempting to find a course through another channel, possibly a community college.
"I'm finding there's a lot of things I didn't know (about the requirements)," McBurney said. "Justin's attitude has been really good. He's just trying to qualify."
Evolution of freshman eligibilityInformation obtained from the NCAA. 1895 - Big Ten Conference organized, implementing rules that athletes must be "bona fide" students, transfers must be in college six months before participation and athletes delinquent in studies were not eligible. 1903 - Harvard bans freshman from athletic competition. 1906 - NCAA founded; "home rule" gave member institutions freedom to enforce their own eligibility standards that would best fit the demands and culture of their own communities. 1906 - Big Ten Conference prohibited both graduate and freshman participation in sports. 1917 - Colleges and conferences lowered eligibility standards during World War I. 1922 - The Big Ten refused to participate against colleges that did not have a freshman rule prohibiting competition. 1923 - Harvard, Yale and Princeton banned all transfer students from participation. 1944 - NCAA eased standards during WW II by allowing freshmen and transfers to play. 1952 - The American Council on Education Report on athletics called for more stringent eligibility rules, including prohibiting freshman eligibility; admitting athletes based upon the same standards as non-athletes; and requiring athletes to be enrolled in academic programs leading to degrees and making normal progress toward a degree. 1960 - Atlantic Coast Conference passed a minimum 750 SAT score. 1965 - NCAA approved "1.6 rule," meaning that incoming student-athletes must be able to predict a minimum college GPA of 1.6 on a 4.0 scale. 1972 - NCAA reinstated freshman eligibility; schools were having difficulty funding scholarships for athletes who were unable to compete. 1973 - 1.6 rule rescinded and replaced with a standard that required recruits to earn a 2.0 high school grade point average. 1983 - Proposition 48 adopted by the NCAA to take effect in 1986. 1986 - Proposition 48 implemented, requiring an SAT score of 700 or an ACT score of 15 and a 2.0 high school GPA in 11 academic core courses for freshman eligibility. 1992 - NCAA adopted Proposition 16, to take effect in 1995, which raised the ACT minimum requirement to 17. Established an initial-eligibility index, showing various combinations of core GPA and test scores that allow eligibility. For each 10-point drop on an SAT score, for example, a corresponding increase of .025 in the GPA was required to qualify. Core courses raised to 13 from 11 and the high school GPA standard was raised to 2.5. 1995 - Proposition 16's implementation was delayed until the 1996-97 academic year, although the increase of the core course requirement to 13 began that year. These courses include English (four units), math (two), lab science (two), social science (two), an additional course in English, math or science, and two additional units from other areas. 1995 - Proposal 36 adopted, becoming effective during the 1996-97 academic year. Redefined a qualifier as having a 2.5 GPA and a 700 SAT (or a "recentered" 820 SAT if test taken after April 1, 1995) or a 17 ACT score. The bottom line of the scale would allow a student with a 2.0 GPA and a 900 SAT or 21 ACT to qualify. Redefined a partial qualifier based on a core curriculum GPA of 2.750 and a 600 SAT or a 15 ACT score. Permitted a partial qualifier to receive financial aid and practice. Non-qualifiers also were granted financial aid during their first academic year. Partial and non-qualifiers are, however, limited to three years eligibility once they become a qualifier. |