Like the scoreboard after the first quarter of a football game, the numbers do not have finality, but they do convey an idea of what might happen. Although no penalties will be immediately handed out, a low score could lead to a loss of scholarships, and continually low scores may result in ineligibility for NCAA postseason play. Thus, for administrators with any scores below the cut point, there was and is a lot to do.

"Mostly we're trying to understand it, and I think that's what everyone else has been attempting to do," says Paul Buskirk, Associate Athletics Director for Student Services at the University of Kansas, where Chancellor Robert Hemenway is President of the NCAA Board of Directors and one of the leaders of academic reform. "It's been a bit of a challenge to try and understand the entire calculation process."

The numbers made public in March reflect the academic performance of Division I scholarship athletes in all NCAA championship sports during the 2003-04 academic year. Each student-athlete can earn two points per term—one by remaining in school and one by remaining academically eligible. At the end of the year, points are tallied and divided by the total points that a program could earn.

The NCAA set 925—or 92.5 percent of possible points—as the team and department target below which penalties could be imposed. That number, the NCAA says, represents an academic progress rate that would result in a 50 percent graduation rate among student-athletes.

In looking over their APR scores, one of the first things most athletic directors are doing is examining the "why" behind any low scores. Part of the job in dealing with the initial APR release has been to point out calculation errors, special circumstances, and context.

Rick Mello, Athletic Director at Florida International University, initially faced having four teams scoring beneath the 925 cut point. But further review found that a distance runner was initially counted toward three separate teams when he should have been counted for only one. With a recalculated score, men's indoor and outdoor track moved above the cut point.

Also, five women swimmers left school altogether, dragging down the score of that sport, which was in its first year. Such retention issues are especially common in sports where student-athletes receive only partial athletic scholarships, providing less incentive to stay in school.

A recent former member of the NCAA Management Council, Mello makes clear that he fully supports the academic reform initiative. But he says an APR score may not reflect what's really going on. He says the APR doesn't show that FIU athletes have been steadily raising their team GPAs and are more frequently making the dean's list, or that FIU requires a 2.0 GPA of all athletes to remain eligible, a standard higher than the NCAA's.

"This past year we had five kids sitting out of spring football because of the 2.0 rule, where by NCAA standards they could have been involved," he says. "So there are different nuances at different institutions."

Kansas, too, had special circumstances. New head coaches arriving in the past couple of years in football and women's basketball hurt scores in both sports, Buskirk says. "Whenever you have a coaching change there are typically some students who want to go elsewhere," he says. "We actually think our 2004-05 numbers for women's basketball are going to be close to 1,000."

Another issue is how the peculiarities of certain sports can affect the APR. Even if a baseball player is in good academic standing when he leaves after his junior year for the pros, or even if an ice hockey player leaves for Canadian Major-Junior play with good grades, the program loses a retention point. "A lot more discussion needs to happen on these two sports," says Buskirk.

In the meantime, administrators and coaches at Kansas are trying to appeal to athletes' sense of responsibility, even those who get the opportunity to pursue their athletic dreams professionally. They're told that if you go pro, at least earn one point for your alma mater.

"Instead of going 0-for-2, losing the retention point and the eligibility point, we ask that they leave as 1-for-2," says Buskirk. "We want them to understand that they have some business to tend to, and that is minding their academics while they are here, for the long-term benefit of their sport program."

Florida International is examining its academic support services for student-athletes with a focus on retention, particularly among freshmen, and has formed a committee to more deeply analyze recruiting prospects, Mello says. "I think this goes generally across the board: There's going to be more scrutiny on who you can recruit."

But the main thrust is to set high expectations. "At the end of the day, the low APR numbers are unacceptable, irrespective of whether it's because of our 2.0 rule or retention," Mello says.

"I'm never going to be satisfied unless every one of our sports makes it above the cut score. In fact, our goal is the 70th percentile or above in every sport program. That may sound unrealistic and Polyannaish, but that's what we are striving for.

And it will be very clearly articulated, even if there are some contributory factors that people need to know about."

If nothing else, concludes Buskirk, the new system is a great motivator, especially among coaches, who in turn motivate student-athletes. "I can guarantee that the initials 'APR' have raised more coaches' awareness to academics than any single event since graduation rates first came out 15 years ago."