Players are required to view an educational video on NCAA eligibility requirements before playing in NCAA sanctioned summer events, so over the course of several years of playing AAU basketball, most players have seen this video many, many times. Nonetheless, the message often does not sink in. Previously, a player was required to have a minimum GPA of 2.0 and an SAT score of 1010 (combined score on math and verbal sections). Many players then report back to their parents that a 2.0 GPA will do the job. The problem is that this completely ignores the SAT requirement, which frankly has little meaning to a 9th or 10th grader who has never taken a PSAT or other SAT prep test. In other words, a young man really has no notion whatsoever as to whether it would be difficult to achieve a score of 1010 on the SAT math-verbal.

In fact, if you have only a 2.0 GPA, then an SAT score of 1010 can be extremely difficult to achieve. In our experience, under the current eligibility rules, the SAT score proves to be the obstacle to becoming eligible to play D1 college basketball more often than the GPA requirement.

The NCAA has now raised the bar on academic eligibility. For student-athletes entering college in August 2015 or later, a player can still be given a scholarship if they meet the 2.0 GPA and SAT requirement, but they will not be eligible to play the first year in college. Instead, they will receive an academic redshirt year and will be entitled to practice but not play with the team. The athlete must also successfully complete a certain number of courses in the first semester (or first two quarters) in order to maintain the scholarship for the second semester. (How often will a college give up a scholarship to a player who is only eligible to practice the first year? It will happen but not often).

To be eligible to play and compete immediately, a player will need a 2.3 GPA along with a higher SAT score (not yet available but likely higher than 1010).

The bottom line on academic eligibility is this: In order to be successful as a student in college, you have to have a reasonable command of English (reading and writing ability as well as some analytical skills) and a firm foundation in math (you need proficiency in Algebra) and science. The NCAA – through its academic eligibility standards – is making clear that if you can’t be a moderately successful student in college, you won’t be a Division 1 student-athlete.

While few would disagree that serious problems exist with the current youth basketball system, elimination of the July evaluation period is the equivalent of carpet bombing a threat that would be better addressed by a strategic strike.

The egregious exploitation of elite athletes by self-serving and unscrupulous individuals is directed toward a relatively small number of athletes -- those athletes who demonstrate an elite potential to succeed, and even dominate, at the most competitive D1 high major programs, with clear future potential as professional basketball players. Whether or not July remains a recruiting period, these elite athletes will continue to be identified and pursued by persons who do not have their best interests at heart and the core issue will not be addressed; eliminating the July evaluation period may simply push these unwanted activities out of the limelight and back into the shadows.

Apart from these elite athletes (who number in the dozens or more broadly the "top 100"), thousands of talented athletes who are destined to play beneath the "elite level" benefit from the opportunity to play against high level competition at events where they can be evaluated by interested college coaches. As argued in a letter from the National Association of Basketball Coaches to Division I coaches, individual evaluations of top high school players during their high school season are not financially feasible for most D1 institutions, and the "vast majority of Division I institutions depend on July evaluation to observe hundreds of prospects in the most cost-efficient manner."

That said, much could be done to improve the existing "system" for showcasing both the elite athlete and the thousands of other talented players who would like to earn an opportunity to play college basketball. Perhaps the CCA proposal, which need not be accepted by the NCAA board, was intended as a shot across the bow to wake up interested constituents to the need for reform.

It should be no surprise that we will mention here the role of academics in the college basketball recruiting process. The big surprise might be that we have found very few parents who have any idea how important academic performance is to success in the recruiting process and this is true for parents of all socioeconomic backgrounds. Sports media reports on the academic ineligibility issues of elite players (e.g. Bledsoe, Rose) leave a wide-spread false impression that academics are completely secondary – or downright irrelevant -- in basketball recruiting. In our experience, NCAA efforts to educate players at summer events on NCAA academic eligibility requirements have not been effective; the audience of young men simply does not have the experience or maturity to understand, for example, what it actually takes to get an 850 versus a 1200 on an SAT, and they quite naturally have no appreciation for the academic mission of a university. By the time players acquire the maturity to utilize the information they've been given, it is often too late in the recruiting process for them to be successful.

Without a clear, illuminated path on how to become a "college-bound student-athlete", parents and their players are confused and misled by the most conspicuous activity around - the highly-visible and very insistent rally call by self-interested profiteers that summer basketball is the path to NBA riches if you just “follow the right crowd".

But we have found that when you give parents and players a realistic view on college basketball opportunities, highlighting the role of both academic performance and athletic potential of the player, in most cases the college recruiting experience for these players takes on a very positive form. Players begin to develop goals that balance both academics and athletics and the college degree becomes the prize for their efforts. If we can develop a clear message on academics and the basketball recruiting process through GoalTender Athlete, then surely the NCAA, working with college coaches and the media, can begin to address this issue as well.

A good first step would be an acknowledgement that what has happened in youth basketball -- with a small but highly visible group promoting the pursuit of money and fame -- is simply a reflection of what is happening at the collegiate level. The unfair characterization of all AAU basketball coaches as an unmanageable corrupting force in youth basketball is not useful. Like youth basketball, at the collegiate level, thousands of student-athletes benefit from their participation in athletics although they will "go pro in something other than sports". Within the collegiate system, however, is an ever stronger "commercialism" with big money involved and future NBA careers in the balance. In the end, as in youth basketball, only a very few athletes will ever benefit from this commercialization, and the balanced goal of a college degree combined with personal athletic fulfillment suffers. The solution in the collegiate system is far from obvious, but - as with youth basketball - it certainly involves a "strategic strike" and not a carpet bombing strategy.

Apart from establishing a culture in youth basketball that values and promotes the pursuit of a college degree as its main objectives, many other areas of improvement could be explored. For example, a meaningful accreditation program for summer basketball coaches would help ensure that coaches have sufficient knowledge of the game. (Current NCAA coach certification is not adequate). While this wouldn't prevent ill-intentioned persons from influencing elite players, it would at least create a "barrier to entry" that currently doesn't exist and improve the overall basketball experience of players. The NCAA should also investigate the benefit to the system of allowing teams of elite players who do not live in a common geographic area. These teams - which often don't practice together and sometimes receive little actual coaching -- are marketing machines (often funded by the sneaker companies) that support the "money and fame" culture by anointing a group of young men as "the chosen ones" before they have achieved anything remarkable in life.

A surprising side note that emerged from the statement issued by the National Association of Basketball Coaches is that 40% of D1 scholarship recipients transfer by the end of their sophomore year. A strategic strike on the ills of youth basketball would necessarily involve a deeper understanding of the reasons behind this alarmingly high transfer rate.

Although some argue it should go further, the Academic Performance Rating system instituted by the NCAA seems to be making headway in re-focusing collegiate athletics on the important balance between academic performance and athletic achievement. In youth basketball, this message of balance simply has not been heard and that is the very reason we created GoalTender Athlete. The Conference Commissioners Association is mistaken if they believe that this message cannot find success in youth basketball; our experience tells us otherwise and many well-meaning people involved in youth basketball would be happy to carry this banner. Eliminating the July evaluation period will not begin to address the real issue at hand, but let's hope the CCA proposal prompts some serious discussion on much-needed reforms. As so succinctly stated by ESPN writer Dave Telep, "there has to be a better way".

POSTNOTE: On October 28th, 2010, the NCAA Board chose not to take immediate action on the CCA proposal, but rather to conduct a full scale review over the next year into issue of summer basketball recruiting, with the implementation of changes possible by summer 2012.

While I haven't yet had an opportunity to read the book (I just ordered it), I have seen and experienced first hand the world of "AAU basketball" with all its pluses and minuses. I've met the parents who yearn, sometimes more than they should, for their son to become the next "phenom". I've had a son participate in Joe Keller's "Phenom" camps and I've seen first-hand the "ego ball" (including the Class of 2012 player who in-bounded the ball to himself rather than give it up to a teammate, while the ref apparently lost his whistle) and heard the believable, but unsubstantiated rumors about an over-zealous parent who paid money for his son's guaranteed appearance in the camp finale All-Star game. I know coaches who don't know the game, who lie to their players and who operate to raise their own stature.

In other words, yes, youth basketball has its ugly pieces and Dohrmann's book sounds like a fascinating window into some of the less savory aspects of the 'youth basketball machine'. It should be read by parents who have a player participating in summer basketball.

But parents shouldn't feel discouraged, just enlightened. While negative elements exist, they can certainly also be avoided. The key to helping your player while avoiding the negative elements is to better understand 'the youth basketball machine'. GoalTender Athlete is specifically designed to help you do this. Here are a few simple rules that will help you chart a path to success for your player:

First, don't try to raise a future NBA or WNBA player. Every 10 year-old 'plans' to be a future NBA player. If your player has exceptional height or athleticism at age 10, others who do not have his or her best interests in mind may begin to think of your youngster in those terms as well. Don't buy into it. Remember, a lot happens between age 10 and 17 - players stop growing unexpectedly, players get lazy, boys find girls and girls find boys, players lose their passion. Second, you know the statistics. The chance of your player becoming an NBA player are infinitesimally small. If your son or daughter showed a proclivity for science as a 10-year-old, you'd provide as many opportunities for developing their interest as possible, but you wouldn't start planning for the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Instead, focus your efforts on raising a college-bound student-athlete. You don't need to discourage your young player by pointing out the unlikelihood of becoming an NBA player. Rather paint a scenario that presents a more realistic path to success. Tell them: "First, work hard athletically and academically to secure a college basketball scholarship. That's the first step and that's the step we are going to focus on. If you are ready to be in the NBA, you can consider going into the NBA draft while you are in college. If you aren't ready for the pros early in your college career, you can develop as a player while at college. Once you graduate, if you still are not ready for the NBA, you may then have an opportunity to play overseas." All of this allows the young player to hold on to a dream while turning their attention towards a prize that is much more attainable -- playing college basketball at some level and earning a college degree.

Second, do your homework about your choices for coaches and travel teams for your player. Many AAU or travel basketball coaches have an excellent knowledge of the game and have their heads in the right place. Make sure that you understand how the organization treats and develops the players who do NOT make it big. Did the players improve their skills? Did they enjoy themselves? Don't turn over your player to a coach on blind faith and don't assume that succeeding in the basketball world is dependent upon your player's association with a specific coach or team. Focus your players on learning the game, developing athleticism and working hard. Parents don't need to know the game to provide guidance and protection.

Finally, learn about the role of academics in the college recruiting process. While securing a basketball scholarship to play at a Division I high major university is extremely competitive, many other opportunities exist to play college basketball at various levels. The key to success in the college basketball recruiting process, even for a D1 high major prospect, is understanding the relationship between academic performance, athletic ability and college basketball opportunity, and finding the right match for your player, both athletically and academically. Tell your player that goal number one is to play in college and that academics matter.

Perhaps you are thinking, "I understand the odds but somebody is going into the NBA and why can't it be my player"? Fair enough. But focusing your player on becoming a college-bound student-athlete doesn't take away the possibility of becoming a professional basketball player. It doesn't limit the opportunities you hope to create for your player, it expands them to include something more - an education, a career - if the professional basketball plans do not come to pass. It gives your player a goal which can and will be met by thousands of young players each year -- to represent a university on the basketball court and to eventually hold a college degree. And it doesn't assign a career path to a young person who hasn't yet gone to the prom.

The situation, if true, is a textbook example of the NCAA eligibility issues that arise frequently among young student-athletes hoping to play college basketball. The consequence of NCAA Division I ineligibility on the life of an NBA first-round draft pick may be negligible in the end. But the life consequences for tens of thousands of student-athletes - with the talent to play college basketball but not pro basketball - are significant.

Despite NCAA efforts to educate players during the summer tournament season on the NCAA eligibility requirements, we continually meet players who don't really understand the implications of the NCAA sliding scale for Division I eligibility.

Under eligibility rules for NCAA Division I basketball, the NCAA considers both the student's GPA in core classes as well as the student's test score on the SAT or ACT. In other words, if a student has a 2.0 GPA in core courses, that student needs to achieve a score of 1010 on the SAT or a combined sum of 86 on the ACT. A student with a 2.475 GPA in core courses needs an SAT score of 830 or a combined sum of 69 on the ACT, and a student with a 3.0 GPA in core courses needs an SAT score of 620 or a combined sum of 52 on the ACT. (The GoalTender subscription area includes an easy calculator on the sliding scale, but this information is also available in the NCAA Eligibility Handbook.)

The purpose for the sliding scale is pretty straight forward -- to ensure that the student-athlete is academically prepared to be successful in a college classroom. Entering high school, few young players have any idea how they will perform on the SAT or ACT. The reality is that a student-athlete with a 2.0 GPA will likely have a very difficult time scoring anywhere near 1010 on the SAT or 86 combined sum on the ACT. As a consequence, many student-athletes proceed through 9th and 10th grade with a 2.0 GPA thinking that they are on-track for NCAA Division I eligibility. In fact, each year of study at a 2.0 GPA makes it less and less likely that the player will be able to achieve the SAT or ACT score required for NCAA Division I eligibility.

According to the article on Bledsoe, the athlete finished 11th grade with a 1.75 GPA in core classes and an ACT combined score of 69. NCAA eligibility requires a minimum GPA of 2.0, but if Bledsoe had raised his GPA to only 2.0, he would not have been eligible because the NCAA sliding scale would then also require an ACT combined score of 86. With an ACT combined score of 69, under the NCAA sliding scale, Bledsoe needed to raise his GPA from 1.75 as a junior to 2.475 by the end of his senior year. This means Bledsoe needed to earn some As in his senior year since GPA is an average of your grades from all four years.

The Bledsoe story highlights the dangers of ignoring the NCAA requirements on SAT/ACT performance for Division I eligibility until it is essentially too late to correct it. We see this happen all too often. Avoiding this situation requires some early preparation:

• Parents should tell this story to their middle school player. The message: "Don't come home telling me that a 2.0 is 'good enough' if you can do better. Strive for a 3.0 and you are on the right path to becoming a college basketball player."
• Student-athletes should consider by late 10th grade which exam (the SAT or the ACT) is right for them since the two exams are very different (and either exam is accepted for college admissions). The ACT tests more directly what is taught in the classroom, while the SAT focuses more on logical reasoning skills. Neither test is "easy", but many players we know find more success with the ACT than the SAT.
• The best way to know which exam is right for you is to take a mock exam. Mock exams are offered in the fall and spring, either at high schools or by commercial groups such as Kaplan, Princeton Review or Revolution Prep. (Look for information on test prep-practice tests on their website. Taking a practice test typically costs about $20). Taking a mock exam will tell you early how far you are from your goal and give you time to plan. Options exist for raising your test score if you have the time.
• Remember that NCAA Division I basketball is only one option available for playing college basketball. NCAA Division II eligibility requirements are slightly more relaxed as are eligibility requirements for NAIA universities. Junior colleges do not require SAT or ACT scores and many have excellent basketball programs, making them an excellent stepping stone for eventual transfer to a four-year university.

A final point worth noting: Meeting NCAA eligibility requirements does not mean you are admitted to a college. Each university has their own admissions requirements, so in the end a player's best bet for securing an opportunity to play college basketball is to find the right match, both athletically and academically.

Postscript. The NCAA announced in late September 2010 that it has closed its investigation of Bledsoe's transcripts and that his initial NCAA eligibility would stand. They reached this decision after the Birmingham City Schools ruled that there was insufficient evidence to invalidate Bledsoe's transcripts.

Rules for transferring to a four-year program are likely to change for Division I transfers. The NCAA is concerned, based on data it collected as part of its Academic Performance Program, that some JUCO student-athletes are not academically prepared when they transfer to a four-year university.

When entering a junior college, students are required to take placement exams to determine if they need remedial classes. Students who were not academically eligible to play at a 4-year university coming out of high school will likely be placed in remedial classes at a junior college. Because of the remedial classes, these students are not able to take higher-level classes they need to be prepared when later entering a four-year university. As a consequence, these transfer students were less likely to graduate than students who started at a four-year school.

The NCAA data also showed that such students often loaded up on physical education courses in order to pad their hours for transfer at the end of two years. Starting this fall, a two-year transfer in mens' Division I basketball will be allowed to transfer only two credit hours of physical education (unless the student is a PE major).

NCAA rule changes are under consideration that will ensure that two-year transfers are better prepared academically when they transfer. These rules – which may include core course requirements, for example - may have the practical effect of turning a two-year college into a “three-year college”. (Note that the economy is already turning many two-year programs into three-year programs as overcrowded classes prevent all students from finishing class requirements within two years).

One related idea that we like would allow a JUCO player to practice with the team for one year (but not play) without the year counting towards the NCAA “five year clock” (currently players have four years of eligibility and five years to use them). This would allow a player who needs remedial classes to get up to speed academically without it counting against the five year clock.

For more information, see The NCAA News

To be sure, Division I high major programs are in a difficult spot when it comes to recruiting players whose academic performance is aligned with admissions criteria of their universities. Many universities expect “academic integrity” at the same time that they expect their basketball teams to win. Current economic conditions at universities bring increasing pressure on the top football and basketball programs to improve their revenue potential.

But counter pressures exist to keep college athletics focused on both the academic and athletic success of the student-athlete.Recently, for example, the NCAA released a public database that shows the annual Academic Progress Rates for Division I head coaches throughout their career. (The Academic Progress Rate measures the academic success or failure of student-athletes and creates penalties for teams falling below acceptable levels). The NCAA created the “NCAA Division I Head Coach APR Portfolio” because the head coach, more than anyone, creates the culture of the basketball program and, with the database, the head coach remains accountable for both the athletic and academic development of the student-athletes.

At universities where the basketball program is not a significant revenue-generator, the value of a winning basketball program will not typically sway an admissions office that is uncertain about a student’s readiness for college academics. Admissions office criteria are designed to make sure that an applicant has a reasonable chance of being successful academically at that university. Finding a college that is a good academic match for your player is an important step in the recruiting process.

Contrary to what many believe, the probable academic success of the student-athlete is very much in mind during the recruiting process at all levels of college basketball. Many basketball programs provide considerable academic support to their athletes, but this support won’t matter if the player is fundamentally unprepared to be a student from the start. Have no doubt, in the recruiting process at every level, the head coach will weigh the likelihood of academic success or failure against the athletic benefit of bringing on a player.

The bottom line is that academics do matter and, what’s more, every athlete should set a goal of achieving at least a 3.0 GPA, if at all possible. Many players find false security in the minimum NCAA eligibility GPA for Division I of 2.0, a GPA that would not be acceptable at many universities even for a great player. (Also note that, for Division I, if you have a 2.0 GPA, you also need an SAT score of 1010 to be NCAA eligible. It could be very difficult to attain this score if your player has only been “getting by” in the classroom). Next time your player tells you that a 2.0 GPA is “good enough,” tell him “not so fast.”