SoCalHoops High School News

NCAA Initial Freshman Eligibility:
Rules Are Currently In Limbo For Now--(March 15, 1999)

For the last several years, there has been a lot of talk about recruits at Division I universities having to "qualify" to become eligible.  The word "qualify" has, since 1994-95, when the NCAA enacted "Proposition 16"  been a sort of shorthand way of saying that a prospective student-athlete, in particular, an incoming freshman, had to have a combination minimum SAT/ACT score and grade point average in order to become eligible to participate in Division I  intercollegiate athletics. For those interested in the old rule, you can find an explanation of it at the NCAA's own website. Here's the link 

The way the "initial elgibility qualifier index" worked, the lower an athlete's GPA, the higher the test score needed.  This meant that if a "C" student athlete (i.e., a 2.0 on a 4.0 scale) was going to be eligible to play Division I basketball, that athlete needed a minimum SAT score of 1010 (out of a possible 1600).  If the student had a 2.5 GPA (C+), then he only needed an 820 on the test.  If the GPA was higher, that didn't mean the test score could be lower; 820 was the minimum SAT.  The index covered all the points in between 2.0 and 2.5 GPA's, but the bottom line was that the lower a student's GPA, the harder it would be for him or her to qualify because there was more weight given to the SAT/ACT scores.

Well, on March 8, a federal District Court judge changed all of that. And the result is that an athlete's initial eligibility is now determined by each school according to each school's own admission and eligibility criteria.  What this means is that if you hear the word "qualifier" being bandied about at NCAA certified events by scouts, coaches, parents or players (as in "he's a full qualifier") you'd better stop and ask the person using the word exactly what he means, because you may not be speaking the same language. 

We've researched the issue quite a bit, but one of the best articles explaining what the issues were in the lawsuit which gave rise to the ruling was one written by Shannon P. Duffy in The Legal Intelligencer on Tuesday, March 9, 1999. Here are some excerpts:

A federal judge ruled that the NCAA can no longer use a minimum SAT score to decide the eligibility of college freshman athletes at Division I schools, saying such a rule has a disproportionate impact on African American students.

In arguing against a summary judgment ruling, the NCAA argued that it passed Proposition 16 to raise student-athlete graduation rates and to close the gap between the graduation rates of whites and blacks. But U.S. District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter agreed that the first goal -- raising student-athlete graduation rates generally -- was a legitimate goal for the NCAA. But he found there was no evidence that Proposition 16 actually furthered progress toward that goal.

"This is an enormous victory for African-American student athletes and all who care about equality," said the students' lead counsel, Andre Dennis of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young.

"The court has confirmed what we've said all along -- that federal law prohibits the NCAA from discriminating; that the NCAA's minimum test score requirement discriminates against African-American student athletes; and that equally effective, non-discriminatory alternatives are available," Dennis said.

* * * *

In his summary judgment motion, Dennis argued that the NCAA's own research indisputably showed that Proposition 16 had a disparate impact on black student athletes.

Under Proposition 16, student-athletes at Division I schools would be allowed to participate in sports as freshmen only if they met a sliding scale of SAT and high-school grade point averages.

Those with C-average grades, or 2.0 GPAs, would be required to score 1010 on the SAT, while those with C-plus averages, or 2.5 GPA, would be required to score just 820.

Exhibit A in Dennis' brief was the July 1994 report from NCAA's own special committee to review initial eligibility standards which found that Proposition 16's minimum SAT score requirement would "have the greatest detrimental impact on black student athletes."

The committee recommended that the NCAA abandon the SAT cut-off score and move to a sliding scale which would allow students with lower test scores to qualify if their high school grades were high enough to compensate.

Also attached to Dennis' motion was a July 1998 memo from an NCAA subcommittee which found that "for both African Americans and low income student athletes, the single largest reason for not meeting Proposition 16 standards was the failure to meet the minimum standardized test scores."

That committee found that 26.6 percent of African Americans who appeared on the Division I college's  request in 1996 were deemed ineligible to compete under Proposition 16 while only 6.4 percent of whites were ineligible.

The memo noted that Proposition 16's two requirements are at odds since the 2.0 overall grade point average requirement allows for students who fall up to two standard deviations below average, while the 820 SAT score allows for only one standard deviation.

As a result, the committee said, about 50 percent of all students would be affected by the SAT score cut-off, while less than 3 percent would be affected by the GPA requirement.

NCAA DOCUMENTS MADE PLAINTIFFS' CASE

Dennis argued that the report and memo, along with other evidence found in the NCAA's own files, was all he needed to win the case.

"Based on the NCAA's own admissions and its research data, it is manifest that plaintiffs have met their initial burden of proving that the minimum test score requirement of Proposition 16 has a disparate impact on African-American students,"
he wrote.

Despite those and other similar admissions from its own documents, the NCAA's lawyers, David P. Bruton and Michael W. McTigue of Drinker Biddle & Reath, argued that the issue of disproportionate effect should be framed somewhat differently.

They argued that the plaintiffs were focusing on the alleged disparate impact of Proposition 16 on African-Americans because of the "well-known and continuing discrepancy" in the distribution of standardized test scores for black and white students, but were not alleging that either the SAT or the ACT test is racially biased.

They also argued that Proposition 16 had met its goal since African-Americans are graduating at higher rates; that the gap between African-Americans and white graduation rates has declined since the adoption of stricter initial eligibility rules; and more African-American student-athletes are graduating since the adoption of the test score requirement.

But Buckwalter said, "The NCAA never disputes the veracity of the statements made in their own documents. These admissions and the bare statistics themselves plainly evince that African-Americans are being selected by Proposition 16 at a rate disproportionately lower than whites sufficient to infer causation."

NOT RELATED TO GOAL 

Buckwalter found that the NCAA failed to show that Proposition 16 was manifestly related to it goals.

Instead, he concluded that the NCAA chose a cutoff score and then "essentially engaged in a `wait and see' strategy to see if the predicted effects and outcomes would come to pass."

The NCAA never "validated the use of the SAT, or any particular cutoff score of the SAT, as a predictor of student-athlete graduation rates," he wrote.

After examining all the evidence, Buckwalter found that "the NCAA has failed to justify either (1) that its choice of a 820 cutoff score is reasonable and consistent with normal expectations of the acceptable proficiency of student-athletes towards attaining a college degree; (2) that its choice of a 820 cutoff score is the logical `break-point' in the distribution of SAT scores relevant to meeting its goal of raising student-athlete graduation rates (and increasing access to opportunities); or (3) that its choice of a 820 cutoff score is a valid measure of the minimal ability necessary to raise the graduation rates of student-athletes above those achieved prior to Proposition 16."

And significantly, Buckwalter found, "the NCAA has failed to articulate in any meaningful manner the decisionmaking process behind the selection of the 820 cutoff score."

As a result, Buckwalter concluded that "the NCAA has not produced any evidence demonstrating that the cutoff score used in Proposition 16 serves, in a significant way, the goal of raising student-athlete graduation rates."

By contrast, he said, the plaintiffs "have more than amply carried this burden by demonstrating that the racially adverse impact caused by the SAT cutoff score is not justified by any legitimate educational necessity."

 

So where does this leave matters now?   Well, here's the NCAA's official press release, which was issued a few days after the ruling. While it seeks to minimize the effect of the ruling, saying that the NCAA still believes it has the authority to rule on issues of initial eligibility, the official press release also acknowledges that the ruling leaves in doubt the other components of Prop 16 (i.e., core course and GPA requirements),and as such, the NCAA was also going to be filing papers last week to seek clarification from the Court that the ruling only applied to the use of SAT/ACT scores and not the other criteria.  So far though, the judge has not yet ruled on that issue.  Here's the NCAA official press release.  

Judge's Proposition 16 ruling leaves NCAA initial-eligibility
rule in limbo

A U.S. district judge has ruled that NCAA initial-eligibility legislation has an unjustified disparate impact on African-Americans.

However, the March 8 ruling by U.S. District Judge Ronald Buckwalter March 8 does not preclude the Association from establishing initial-eligibility standards, nor does it prevent the NCAA from using standardized-test scores in forming such rules.

"The court ... simply found fault with the standards we have currently in place," said Charles T. Wethington, president of the University of Kentucky and chair of the NCAA Executive Committee. "We will move expeditiously to try to take the court's actions into account as we look at initial-eligibility standards for the future. At the same time, we will seek a stay that will give us some time to work on the problem."

The Association filed papers March 10 in an effort to stay Buckwalter's judgment, which permanently enjoins the NCAA from continued operation and implementation of Proposition 16 (Bylaw 14.3). NCAA President Cedric W. Dempsey also announced that the Association will appeal the ruling.

The NCAA's request for a stay was made necessary because Buckwalter's ruling was effective immediately, leaving initial-eligibility standards in a confused state. General Counsel Elsa Kircher Cole said the NCAA would be in communication with the membership as more information is known.

In reaching his decision, Buckwalter also ruled that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to the NCAA because the Association is an indirect recipient of federal funds.

The lawsuit originally was filed by two African-American student-athletes (Tai Kwan Cureton and Leatrice Shaw) who claimed that they were unlawfully denied educational opportunities as freshmen through the NCAA initial-eligibility rules.

Cureton and Shaw ranked 27th and fifth, respectively, in their high-school graduating classes. However, Bylaw 14.3 determines initial eligibility through the use of a sliding scale that matches grade-point average with a standardized-test score (satisfactory completion of 13 core courses also is required). Neither Cureton nor Shaw scored the required test score.

Buckwalter's decision contained two parts: Whether the NCAA receives federal funds and therefore is subject to Title VI and whether Proposition 16 violates Title VI.

His decision that the NCAA is in fact subject to Title VI came only two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that the Association cannot be considered to be federally funded simply because it receives dues payments from member institutions that do receive federal funds.

In this case, the plaintiffs claimed the NCAA (1) directly receives federal financial assistance through the National Youth Sports Program, (2) that the NCAA indirectly receives federal financial assistance through NYSP due to the Association's complete control over the fund, (3) that member schools that receive federal funds have created and constitute the NCAA and that the NCAA governs its members with respect to athletics rules and (4) that recipients of federal financial assistance have ceded controlling authority over to a federally funded program to the NCAA, which then becomes subject to Title VI regardless of whether it is a recipient.

Buckwalter ruled that the NCAA does not receive direct federal funding through NYSP, but he ruled for the plaintiffs on the other three points.

"Although the (NYSP) Fund is the named recipient of the (Community Services) block grant, it is merely a conduit through which the NCAA makes all of the decisions about the Fund and the use of federal funds," Buckwalter wrote. "...Consequently, as the NCAA is deemed a recipient of federal funds under this theory, all of its operations, including its promulgation of initial-eligibility rules, are covered by Title VI."

Regarding Points 3 and 4, Buckwalter wrote that although member institutions do not have to abide by NCAA legislation, they would suffer "grave consequences" for their intercollegiate athletics programs if they failed to do so.

"Plaintiffs have established on this record that the member colleges and universities have granted to the NCAA the authority to promulgate rules affecting intercollegiate athletics that the members are obligated to abide by and enforce," Buckwalter wrote. "Under these facts, the NCAA comes sufficiently within the scope of Title VI irrespective of its receipt of federal funds.

"While each of the member schools is also undeniably subject to Title VI for a challenge to Proposition 16, the NCAA, in light of the fact that it is the decision-making and enforcement entity behind the legislation adopted by, and enforced against, its membership, is also subject to Title VI."

Having concluded that the NCAA is subject to Title VI, Buckwalter then ruled that Proposition 16 has an unjustified disparate impact on African-Americans.

Although attorneys for the Association sought to establish that Proposition 16 standards have produced educational benefits for African-Americans despite that disproportionate impact, Buckwalter focused on the rule itself. "...The bare statistics themselves plainly evince that African-Americans are being selected by Proposition 16 at a rate disproportionately lower than whites," he wrote.

Buckwalter also sided with the plaintiffs' assertion that the test score cutoffs of 820 (SAT) and 68 (ACT) were arbitrary.

The judge noted that other initial-eligibility models -- including one with no grade-point or test-score end points -- substantially reduce the effect on black ineligibility with only a slight decrease in the overall student-athlete graduation rate.

"The courts have issued us a road map, basically, of how to meet their requirements of this particular civil rights law," Cole said.

And the NCAA website also features a   "Statement on initial-eligibility rulingStatement from Charles T. Wethington, chair of NCAA Executive Committee":

The NCAA learned March 8 of the judge's decision in Cureton v. NCAA. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the NCAA's Division I initial-eligibility standards invalid.

The court also ruled the Association is to be regarded a recipient of federal funds because of its contribution of administration services to the National Youth Sports Program Fund and the court's belief that member colleges and universities have ceded their authority over federally funded programs to the NCAA.

While we are disappointed with the court's order -- which we believe improperly rejected the NCAA's current use of minimum standardized test scores as a component of the initial-eligibility standards -- we are encouraged by some acknowledgments from the court.

We are encouraged by the court's acknowledgment that the initial-eligibility standards -- established by NCAA member colleges and universities with the objective of raising student-athlete graduation rates -- serve a legitimate educational goal. In addition, the judge has not precluded use of the SAT or ACT as a part of an initial-eligibility rule. The challenge for the NCAA remains as it has always been: to develop standards that meet that goal.

The court has said that Title VI requires the NCAA to "justify how its choice of a rule serves a legitimate educational goal in a significant way." We believe the NCAA has done so, but the court has disagreed.

The NCAA, since the inception of Prop 16, has continued its research about initial-eligibility standards, which has led to the creation of alternative initial-eligibility models. Those models have been under review by committees within our membership since last summer.

Division I will move swiftly to address options that meet the criteria of the court. Division II is not specifically affected by the decision, but that division will review its initial-eligibility standards in light of the court's decision and determine what, if any, action should be taken.

Obviously, we are greatly concerned at this moment with the effect this ruling will have on the academic preparedness of prospective student-athletes. Remember, the NCAA developed initial-eligibility standards because higher education was accused of exploiting student-athletes by admitting ill-prepared prospects with little chance of academic success.

We will ask for a stay of this decision. We will do so because this decision creates an environment among our member schools in which we have no single eligibility rule in place and where schools in Divisions I are left to their own policies. If the court's ruling is sustained in its present form, we will have hundreds of minimum academic standards rather than one, because admission standards of individual colleges and universities will become eligibility standards.

The court has agreed to receive proposals March 10 to clarify that the ruling only prohibits the use of standardized tests score cutoffs in initial-eligibility rules. The NCAA will appeal the court's ruling.

All of that was last week.  So far no word yet on whether the court has determined that the ruling applies only to the test scores.  Stay tuned, because there will be more on this subject shortly.  In the meantime, if you are a "prospective student-athlete," i.e., a recruit who will potentially play college ball in the next year or so (actually that includes anyone who is currently in high school who can be recruited) the message is still the same:  Keep your grades up and get good test scores.  Because you'll still need them just to get into a college whether you play or not.

©Copyright 1999 All rights reserved
Questions? Comments? Need Information?
E-mail: jegesq@socalhoops.com