Throughout the three-year history of the Academic Progress Rate (APR) scores, baseball programs have struggled mightily. In the most recent set of scores, baseball programs fared second worst of all sports, with almost 16 percent of teams facing scholarship reductions after failing to reach the 925 cutoff point, and nearly half of those teams posting an APR below 900.

Concerned with baseball’s academic performance, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors considered cutting the season by 10 to 14 games a year ago. Instead it established an ad hoc committee, the Baseball Academic Enhancement Working Group, which has developed a set of new baseball-specific rules—some quite controversial—designed to help raise the sport’s APR.

In its research, the working group found that although baseball’s APR trailed most other sports, the problem hasn’t been low grade point averages. Instead the low APRs stem from retention issues and players failing to keep up with progress-toward-degree requirements.

To address retention, specifically baseball’s high transfer rate, the new rules remove the one-time transfer exemption for baseball, putting it in line football, basketball, and men’s ice hockey. This change, which will force players who transfer to a Division I school to sit out a year before being eligible to play, is expected to reduce transfers, thus increasing the sport’s APR.

Previous attempts to remove the one-time transfer exemption had always fallen short, in part because many coaches and administrators were uncomfortable with limiting a player’s mobility if he was receiving very little scholarship aid. So another new rule requires schools to provide any player receiving financial aid with at least 33 percent of a full grant-in-aid. In addition, caps will be implemented on both total squad size (35) and the number of players receiving athletically related aid (27) .

“Now there’s more of a two-way commitment—the school makes a commitment by giving 33 percent or more, and the athlete makes a commitment by accepting,” says David Keilitz, Executive Director of the American Baseball Coaches Association and a member of the working group. “Once they’re all getting at least one-third of a full scholarship, fewer players will want to transfer. Plus, if a school offers a player 33 percent aid, he’s probably a pretty good prospect, so playing time should be less of an issue.”

The changes will likely affect the way high school players are recruited. There will be fewer scholarship spots available in Division I, but with the 33 percent minimum allotment, each signing represents a larger investment. As a result, coaches will probably be less likely to take a chance on a marginal prospect.

The package also addresses academic eligibility with a rule designed to stop the practice of players carrying a light academic load in the spring. Since baseball players often participate in summer leagues, many don’t have the opportunity to catch up to progress-toward-degree requirements through summer school. Although they can make up any deficiencies in the fall, they lose an APR point because they’re considered academically ineligible until they’ve done so. Under the new rules, players who are not academically eligible for the fall semester will not be allowed to play the following spring.

In addition, the rules package calls for increased sport-specific penalties (beyond the financial aid restrictions, postseason bans, and other sanctions that await subpar teams in all sports) for baseball teams that repeatedly fall short of APR targets. Teams with a four-year average APR below 900 will see their seasons limited to 50 games and 119 playing days per season, about 10 percent below the standard maximums.

The new rules—which would be phased in beginning in August 2008—received approval from the Division I Board of Directors in April. However, more than 30 schools have filed an override request against the rule capping rosters and establishing a minimum scholarship award, which means the Board of Directors will reconsider it in October. Should the board sustain its earlier approval, the rule would go to a vote of the Division I membership during the annual NCAA Convention in January.

Keilitz knows baseball faces a bumpy road as it tries to raise its academic profile and avoid schedule reductions. “We have several coaches who think the new rules are great and some who don’t like them at all,” he says. “But the academic issues have to be resolved. I feel this plan is better than anything the presidents might have come up with, especially since some were suggesting playing only 40 to 44 games.”

The Board of Directors was pleased enough with the work of the ad hoc committee to establish a similar panel to examine academic issues in men’s basketball. The Division I Men’s Basketball Academic Enhancement Group was created in May to analyze academic performance trends among Division I men’s basketball players, point out any structural flaws that may impair academic performance, and suggest rules changes that would increase APR scores and graduation rates.

The final report of the Baseball Academic Enhancement Working Group, which includes details and rationales for the full package of rules, can be found on the NCAA’s Web site at: www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_I/board_of_directors/2007/April/13_Basebal_Enhancement.htm.