SE AWAITS NCAA's APPEAL ON MINIMUM SCORES FOR FRESHMEN

Like all the nation's 302 Division I schools, Southeast Missouri State University is anxiously waiting to see what the end result will be from Monday's court ruling that says the NCAA can no longer use minimum test scores to keep athletes from being eligible as freshmen.

The ruling by a district judge in Philadelphia could dramatically alter the guidelines governing freshmen eligibility in college sports.

The policy, known as Proposition 16, requires incoming athletes to score at least a 17 on the ACT and an 820 on the SAT exams.

District judge Ronald L. Buckwalter cited the NCAA's own research showing that Proposition 16 harmed black students' chances of being declared academically eligible. The court ruling followed a lawsuit filed in 1996 by four black student-athletes who were ruled ineligible.

In his ruling, Buckwalter said there were other methods available to reach the goal of higher graduation rates that would be fairer to blacks. The ruling did not rule out some use of the tests, which many educators have long said are racially and culturally discriminatory.

What Buckwalter's ruling does, at least temporarily, is allow each of the NCAA's 302 Division I schools to set its own eligibility requirements.

But the NCAA has said that it will fight the ruling, saying the judge's decision could create chaos at schools across the country. The NCAA will seek to block the ruling while it prepares an appeal.

"It means there is no standard to guide the schools," said Elsa Cole, NCAA general counsel. "Each school will have to decide itself whether a student can play the first year."

Alicia Scott, Southeast's assistant athletic director in charge of compliance and student services, said the school would take a wait-and-see attitude on the ruling and subsequent NCAA appeal.

"Really, about all I know is what I've read in the paper. I have not heard anything from the NCAA," she said. "I'm going to wait until we get something from the NCAA, because as long as we're a member of that association, we're going to have to follow their rules.

"I'm sure we're going to get some information soon, but it's so new. I think it's too early to know what the ramifications might be."

The ruling has caused considerable uncertainty among many schools, particularly with the NCAA Tournament starting today. Until a stay is granted, previously ineligible freshmen basketball players are apparently eligible.

But coaches would probably be reluctant to play them, since it would use up a year's worth of eligibility. In addition, games would possibly have to be forfeited if the NCAA winds up winning an appeal.

"From what I understand, schools are able to set their own eligibility standards right now," said Scott. "But you don't want to let a student-athlete participate, and then three, four months down the line have some ramifications from the NCAA."

Scott said she can see both sides to the argument of whether Proposition 16 has been a benefit or a detriment

"There appears to be some validity to the statement that the tests are racially biased, and I think the court even used NCAA statistics to reach that opinion," she said. "But on the flip side, we've seen the grade-point average for our student-athletes as a whole increase to 2.9, which is very good.

"In that respect, these tougher eligibility standards are good, but you certainly don't want to disqualify a potential student-athlete because of race."

Southeast men's basketball coach Gary Garner said it's really too early to tell what effect the ruling might ultimately have on college athletics. But he knows there must be some guidelines to govern eligibility.

"Schools have to go by some kind of set standard or things could really get out of control," he said.

(The Associated Press provided some information for this story)