avenue to opportunity five year model rationale

7/29/2019 Avenue to Opportunity Five Year Model Rationale

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/avenue-to-opportunity-five-year-model-rationale 1/3

[email protected]

@PAULDSWANSON

FACEBOOK.COM/AVENUETOOPPORTUNITY

LINKEDIN.COM/PAULDSWANSON

AVENUE TO

OPPORTUNITY



AVENUE TO OPPORTUNITY

PROPOSAL RATIONALE

This proposal would help answer many of the existing problems facing the NCAA today with regard to dealing

with the transfer student/athlete who is a non-qualifier. It would improve the overall academic development and success

rate of these student/athletes as measured by the universities ʼ APR and graduation rates. It would also provide a

consistent and structured avenue for non-qualifying student/athletes to receive the fundamental academic skill

development, support, and remediation necessary to help them qualify and prepare for the academic rigors of a four-

year institution prior to actually enrolling. This would allow them to achieve more success at the next level both on and

off the court/field and would be a win, win situation for everyone concerned for the following reasons:

First, this proposed model would help motivate the student/athletes to focus sooner and more intently on

developmental work and classes they need to improve their specific fundamental academic deficiencies and complete

the necessary academic requirements at the two-year college. The opportunity to participate the first year at the two-

year college level, then retake and pass the ACT/SAT, and move on after only one year to a four-year division one

university would be a major incentive for any non-qualifier, especially with college transferable credit and four years of

eligibility remaining. The multiple options in this proposed model would allow the non-qualifying student/athlete the time

and flexibility to improve his/her academic deficiencies based on his/her own specific situations and academic

backgrounds.

Second, this proposal would encourage two-year college coaches, administrators, and support staffs to focus

not only on graduating players at the two-year college level but also educating and preparing them to be successful and

graduate at the four-year level. This is very challenging because of the current NCAA rules and the total number ofhours, sixty (60), necessary for graduation in just four semesters, especially when all of the remediation hours and any

courses that must be retaken are added on. Coaches end up having to use correspondence course work from

questionable on-line sites to meet the requirements on time. This proposal would reward two-year college coaches for

educating and preparing the non-qualified student/athletes for the next level both academically and athletically. Two-

year colleges that develop a proven track record for consistently producing student/athletes who can successfully

compete at the division one level, both academically and athletically, will become a premium. Division one coaches will

seek out these schools to place their top recruits who don ʼt qualify rather than trying to place them somewhere they

know will just get them through. The two-year college coaches would support this proposed model even though they

might have a player for only one year because they would be attracting the more skilled players who are currently being

placed in questionable quick fix prep schools by division one coaches or encouraged to go there by AAU coaches and

agents. A high percentage of the top players currently in the two-year colleges are division one transfers who have only

one year of eligibility remaining at the two-year level. The non-qualifying student/athlete is already apprehensive about

academics and is looking for the easiest and quickest way to get to division one with as many years of eligibility aspossible. Four-year college coaches want to recruit student/athletes who arrive academically and athletically prepared

with the most eligibility possible. In many cases the student/athletes are receiving bad advice. Rarely are those players

prepared for the rigors of being at a four-year university either academically or socially. This proposal would also give

two-year college coaches a reasonable timetable to remediate the non-qualifying student/athlete while still retaining the

motivational option of one year and out and the disciplinary leverage of playing time and participation.

Third, this proposal would help motivate four-year college coaches to place non-qualified prospective recruits in

two-year college programs that focus on individual student and player development academically, socially, and

athletically rather than search for colleges and prep schools that simply graduate players or figure out ways to get players

through without truly preparing them for the next level. Four-year coaches would also have an increased incentive to

recruit players who come from two-year colleges that produce student/athletes who are better prepared and qualified to

maintain their eligibility, graduate from their institution, and help meet their new APR standards while successfully

competing on the field/court. Getting players who come in more mature and ready to compete immediately would be ofgreat value to the specific athletic programs and the universities. Many student/athletes waste the first year getting

adjusted to the new level of expectations both academically and athletically. Most four-year universities are not designed

to remediate students and consequently donʼt do an effective job at it overall. Because of this there are many additional

transfers from division one each year. Many of the student/athletes that are recruited at the division one level are not

really prepared academically to be successful at that level, and those additional academic stress factors also affect their

success on the field/court and their overall educational experience. This is one of the reasons there is such a high

transfer rate at the four-year level.

Fourth, the NCAA would have better overall control of the developmental process for non-qualified

student/athletes by implementing this proposed model. The NCAA and its member schools would be able to implement a

core curriculum and put a buffer between the AAU coaches and handlers as well as other interested parties and their

own coaching staffs who are under constant pressure to deal with non-professionals who have taken over the recruiting



process. Non-qualified student/athletes would be on real college campuses in real academic environments with other real

college students, qualified faculty and support staffs. They would also receive better coaching and individual athletic

instruction with competition against other two-year schools. Four-year university coaches would be making their visits

and doing their evaluations at legitimate college campuses. The issues of how their fees are paid for would be much

more transparent because the two-year colleges have real administrations and governing bodies that are audited and, in

most cases, are governed by the same state Board of Regions as the universities. This proposal over time would help

stabilize the current unstructured developmental process for non-qualifying student/athletes and produce more mature,

better prepared, and more effective student/athletes who would be more successful on and off the court and would better

represent their universities and the NCAA.

Finally, this is an opportunity for all responsible parties to come together to develop a new model that will reflect

the needs of all of todayʼs student/athletes. This model will provide a true avenue of opportunity for eachstudent/athlete, regardless of his/her socioeconomic or academic background. The plan must provide both fundamental

academic structure and flexibility. The proposal that the Division one Academic Cabinet is considering, “The Year of

Academic Readiness,” is a positive start and has some good concepts; however, it must include the first year athletic

participation as an incentive to be successful at the two-year college level. Two-year colleges, which give scholarships,

unfortunately cannot afford to pay for a student/athlete to sit out and not participate, especially in this economy where

costs are being measured so carefully. In addition, none of the better high school players would consider this option.

They would all look to prep schools where they could play immediately and even more prep type schools would pop up.

Todayʼs players donʼt even want to sit out the first year at the major universities, let alone at two-year colleges. Most

two-year college coaching staffs and support staffs are not large enough to sufficiently monitor the non-participant ʼs

progress throughout the season. These student/athletes require additional monitoring both academically and socially.

Playing time and participation, not just practice, are key factors in motivating and disciplining players. Most

student/athletes do better during the season than in the post season because of the structure. Participation provides

relevancy initially for student/athletes who have struggled academically during their high school years and have not yetmatured and developed organized time management and study skills necessary to be successful in the classroom.

avenue to opportunity five year model rationale

Documents