Teams with Academic Progress Rates below 900 face additional sanctions, increasing in severity for each consecutive year the team fails to meet the standard:
While eligibility requirements make the individual student-athlete accountable, the Academic Progress Rate creates a level of institutional responsibility. The Academic Progress Rate is a Division I metric developed to track the academic achievement of teams each academic term.
Each student-athlete receiving athletically related financial aid earns one retention point for staying in school and one eligibility point for being academically eligible. A team’s total points are divided by points possible and then multiplied by one thousand to equal the team’s Academic Progress Rate score.
A Division I Football Bowl Subdivision team awards the full complement of 85 grants-in-aid. If 80 student-athletes remain in school and academically eligible, three remain in school but are academically ineligible and two drop out academically ineligible, the team earns 163 of 170 possible points for that term. Divide 163 by 170 and multiply by 1,000 to determine that the team’s Academic Progress Rate for that term is 959.
The NCAA calculates the rate as a rolling, four-year figure that takes into account all the points student-athletes could earn for remaining in school and academically eligible during that period. Teams that do not earn an Academic Progress Rate above specific benchmarks face penalties ranging from scholarship reductions to more severe sanctions.
Teams that score below 925 and have a student-athlete who both failed academically and left school can lose scholarships (up to 10 percent of their scholarships each year) under the immediate penalty structure.
Teams with Academic Progress Rates below 900 face additional sanctions, increasing in severity for each consecutive year the team fails to meet the standard.
The Division I Committee on Academic Performance continues to examine data produced by the Academic Progress Rate and has adjusted the calculation over the years in response. Changes have included exceptions for student-athletes in good academic standing who leave school early to pursue a professional career, student-athletes who transfer to another school while meeting minimum academic requirements and student-athletes who return to graduate at a later date.
Teams sometimes can avoid or delay penalties resulting from low Academic Progress Rate scores. In the spirit of fairness, the Committee on Academic Performance instituted an “improvement-plus” model, providing special consideration for teams that show meaningful improvement and succeed in meeting their school’s academic mission. Still, the NCAA believes no matter the quantity of resources available, what counts is how those resources are used. The model helps keep the Academic Progress Rate fair for a membership that has a wide diversity in academic missions and resources while holding all schools accountable for the academic achievement of their student-athletes.
The goal of the Academic Progress Rate and its penalty system is improvement, not punishment. When a school has APR challenges, institutions are encouraged (and, in some cases, required) to present an academic “get-well” plan to the NCAA. The national office staff works with the school to make sure the plan is appropriate for that school’s particular situation and can reasonably be expected to achieve the necessary improvement in an acceptable time frame. Institutions facing the most severe penalties have the opportunity to appeal to the Committee on Academic Performance.
The NCAA releases team-by-team four-year Academic Progress Rates each year, as well as an overall APR for Division I teams. In 2009, the overall rate jumped three points to 964, and sports that had exhibited academic challenges in the past showed improvement, including baseball, football and men’s basketball. The NCAA also annually honors teams earning multiyear Academic Progress Rates in the top 10 percent of their sports. Nearly 800 teams received such Public Recognition Awards in 2009.Last Updated: Jun 15, 2010