The NCAA Task Force on the Future of Division I Athletics raised the issue of special admits in its final report, and perhaps not so coincidentally, newspaper articles from North Carolina to San Diego have focused attention on the issue while questioning whether athletes should receive such considerations.

Also, ESPN.com recently asked athletes how they felt about special admission policies. The results were basically split, with about half the student-athletes responding that they were okay with the policies, and half saying they were not.

Although the NCAA has established minimum standards for freshman eligibility in Division I, and schools are supposed to ensure that any special admission policies for athletes are consistent with those for the general student body, admission decisions are solely the purview of the institutions. And it appears very unlikely that schools will allow the NCAA to encroach on their decision making.

However, the Task Force said in its report, “to alleviate suspicion that student-athlete admission is based more on the need to recruit winning teams than on academic integrity, campus administrations and faculty senates should consider developing criteria for special admission of scholarship athletes.” The Task Force emphasized the importance of school officials outside athletics maintaining their autonomy in admission decisions and suggested that schools also consider establishing firm caps on the number of special admits they would allow, either by sport or for the whole athletic department.

Others who normally favor academic reforms aren’t completely on board with all the Task Force’s ideas. The Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics has said that it agrees with the intent of the Task Force’s recommendations, but believes a cap would be difficult to implement and adds that athletic departments should not be provided with a certain number of special admits. And David Ridpath, Assistant Professor of Sport Administration at Ohio University and Executive Director of The Drake Group, says he also prefers that schools be free to establish their own policies.

“I think institutions need to take charge, protect their own academic integrity themselves, and admit only students who have a reasonable chance of succeeding and not admit them just because they’re a fine athlete,” he says. “That might be one of the reasons to admit them, but it certainly can’t be the only one.”

Although the Task Force suggestions carry no enforcement teeth, there’s some indication schools are already looking into their admission policies in light of academic reform measures. From initial eligibility standards to the Academic Progress Rate (APR), these rules seem to be accomplishing what earlier efforts couldn’t—a change in who gets in and who doesn’t.

“I think the APR changes everything,” says Jeff Schemmel, Athletic Director at San Diego State University. “For one, it’s made us even more diligent about looking at the character of the kids who come in, because we just can’t afford to have academic casualities. If we do, that will have a domino effect of losing scholarships and all the other penalties that are in place, both contemporaneous and historical. I think the APR does have an effect on making sure we’re taking the right kids and then redoubling our efforts to help them succeed.”

And some on the academic side of the fence say those two factors are more important than whether an athlete’s high school GPA or test scores are below average. “I think it’s perfectly reasonable for athletes to be admitted under special admission circumstances as long as a few guidelines are followed very carefully,” says Alan Hauser, Professor of Philosophy and Religion and Faculty Athletics Representative at Appalachian State University and President Elect of the Faculty Athletics Representatives Association. “Number one, the institution needs to be sure that if these student-athletes, or any specially admitted students, are not up to the university’s normal standards, that there is a reasonable opportunity for them to graduate. Then, they need to be sure they have the resources available to help them succeed. Plus, and I’ve said this to our coaches repeatedly, they need to be very sure the number of special admits is low—we can’t just go populating a whole team with special admits.”

But Hauser points out that meeting an institution’s admission criteria is still no guarantee of academic success down the road. “One thing that concerns me about higher education these days is the fact that we are seeing more students who aren’t as academically prepared as they were 20 years ago, even though they meet all the admission criteria,” he says. “That’s just based on anecdotal observations, but it seems to me to be a trend. You may have someone who is magnificent when writing in an English literature class but struggles, perhaps not so valiantly, in the math or science classes. Or someone in the top 20 percent of their high school class may not have had to work hard to succeed, but when they get to a university, the other 80 percent are gone and the competition is a lot steeper.

“So even if a student-athlete meets the normal admission criteria, you still need to ask, ‘Is this student-athlete going to be a good fit for our school and are they likely to succeed?’” Hauser continues. “If you bring in somebody who is going to be unhappy, even if they’re a brilliant student, you’re going to have problems.”

Dennis Read is Associate Editor at Athletic Management.