Blumenthal Calls On NCAA To Amend New Academic Standards, Increase Fairness For Student Athletes

(Washington DC) - Today, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) spoke on the floor of the Senate calling on the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to review and modify its new Academic Progress Rate (APR) standards by removing its retroactive application. As currently implemented, this structure will have unfair negative ramifications for academic institutions and their students. The NCAA’s application of the new rules unfairly penalizes the University of Connecticut (UConn) men's basketball program.

Senator Blumenthal with the Connecticut Congressional delegation sent a letter urging NCAA President Mark Emmert to reverse the decision.

A full transcript of the floor speech is below:

I support efforts by universities and the NCAA to develop rigorous academic standards for student athletes, and I believe that schools failing to meet those standards should be penalized, but I also believe that these standards must be applied fairly, not capriciously or arbitrarily. Regrettably, the NCAA’s application of its own rules appears to be arbitrary, unjust, and unfair against the UConn men's basketball program.

Last October, the NCAA adopted new standards that determined a school's eligibility based on two or four year average academic progress rates, so-called APRs. These standards set a high bar for performance but unfortunately they did not provide schools with a phase-in period for the new rules. Because these standards are based on several years of data, it is possible that a school could be retroactively punished for actions that occurred before the rules were implemented. And that's exactly what has happened to the UConn men's basketball team. These players have been told they will not be eligible to compete in the 2013 postseason, including the Big East tournament and March Madness, because of the academic progress rate scores from the 2006-2010 academic years. None of the players from those seasons remain on the UConn team now. This severe punishment falls on players who are clear of any substandard academic performance. 

In fact, UConn's recent student athletes have demonstrated exemplary academic performance. The team's academic progress rate for the 2010-2011 academic year was nearly perfect. The team's academic progress rate for the fall 2011 semester was, in fact, perfect. Instead of commending this improvement, the NCAA is ignoring it. The NCAA is basing its 2013 eligibility decision on data from the 2006-2010 academic years. If they had included the scores from the 2010-2011 academic year, UConn's average would be high enough to meet the NCAA’s new standards. UConn's administrators, coaches, and student athletes have placed a strong emphasis on academic performance. The school and students have worked hard to meet those standards and to improve academics, and they have demonstrated laudable success. Instead of this progress being acknowledged, it has been ignored by the NCAA, and these student athletes have been harshly punished for their predecessors' actions, not for their own.

I have written today, joined by my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, to the president of the NCAA, Mark Emmert, raising these objections. We have been joined by other colleagues of the delegation. I ask unanimous consent that that letter be placed in the record.

This letter expresses our outrage and frustration with this process. It is a process that may be well-intentioned. Its goals may be laudable, raising academic standards must be done, and I support that effort enthusiastically and passionately. But the application of any rules must be fair, and applying them arbitrarily and unjustly undermines the credibility of the cause that is sought here. And as we say to President Emmert of the NCAA, the present performance, current data, facts as they now are on the ground, on the court, in the classroom, are the ones that should be operative and determinative to deny this team an opportunity to demonstrate its excellence on the court as well as in the is simply unfair and arbitrary. And I hope its decision will be changed. 

# # #