The NCAA moved with uncharacteristic speed last fall to enact a measure that would allow schools to put spending money, up to $2,000 per year, in student-athletes’ pockets.
But the provision, like a controversial play in a football game, is under further review.
The stipend, approved by the Division I board of directors in October, drew enough opposition over the next two months to put it on hold and up for reconsideration at the NCAA’s annual convention, which runs Wednesday through Saturday in Indianapolis.
Some 160 schools, out of 345 in Division I, sought to override the measure, well above the 75 needed to force reconsideration.
Similarly, 82 schools moved to override another measure passed in October: one that would permit schools to offer athletes multi-year scholarships, rather than the current one-year scholarships that are renewable or revocable annually.
Both measures were seen as athlete-friendly answers to a year of scandal in college athletics. But the wave of opposition, almost entirely from non-BCS schools, underscores the complexity of change in the NCAA.
“I was surprised to see so much opposition and some of the things schools were saying,” said Christian Dennie, a Fort Worth, Texas-based lawyer who formerly worked in college athletics administration at Oklahoma and Missouri and now writes a college sports-law blog.
Dennie obtained and posted online an NCAA document summarizing the override petitions. Some schools said they could not afford to pay the stipends and would be at a recruiting disadvantage if others did so. Many schools cited concerns about the procedural haste with which the reforms were adopted and the potential ramifications on Title IX gender-equity compliance.
Among the schools seeking to stop or slow the stipend: Kennesaw State.
Athletic director Vaughn Williams said Tuesday that he has concerns about the cost and about the unlevel playing field that would result if schools in some conferences offer the stipends and those in others do not.
“We are a mid-major, and we work hard as a group to try to level the playing field as much as possible in regards to competition,” Williams said. “In the big five or six conferences, they might look at it a different way.
“The intent of the rule, I understand — how can we assist the student-athlete in as fair and equitable a way as possible?” Williams added. “I also see it from the other end — maybe we have to lessen the intensity [of the demands on student-athletes] so that they can get a job in the summertime.”
Other schools were more strident in their objections, according to the NCAA documents obtained by Dennie.
Indiana State argued that multi-year scholarships might leave a school “locked in to a five-year contract potentially with someone that is of no athletic usefulness to the program” if a coaching change resulted in a new style of play.
The stipend “expands the divide between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots,’” Boise State wrote.
The groundswell of opposition sent the reforms back to the Division I board of directors, which has three options: scrap the measures altogether (unlikely); submit them intact to the membership for a vote on whether to defeat the overrides (a five-eighths vote would be required); or modify the measures and start another 60-day review period.
NCAA president Mark Emmert told the Associated Press on Tuesday in Indianapolis that he expects the stipend plan to receive minor modifications and does not expect the multi-year scholarship proposal to be modified. The Division I board meets Saturday.
The measures, as passed in October, did not require schools to offer the stipends or the multi-year scholarships but permitted conferences to vote on the stipends and individual schools to decide on the scholarships. The measures, generally embraced by BCS-level programs, were to take effect Aug. 1.
The main arguments for the reforms were that the stipends would cover some of the incidental costs of college attendance beyond the tuition, room and board, books and fees covered by full athletic scholarships and that the multi-year scholarships would protect athletes from being cut loose merely to free up a spot.
“The stipend, I hope [athletes] get,” Georgia football coach Mark Richt said this week. “What we’re talking about [$2,000] is very reasonable, not exorbitant. But it does fill in some gaps for a guy who is in need and frees up a way to go on a date without asking his parents, who may or may not be able to help, for money.”
Richt also favors the multi-year scholarship proposal, but said: “I don’t think it would affect us much at all because when we sign a young man, we expect to see it through to graduation anyway.”
A number of schools raised Title IX concerns because the original proposal allowed the stipend for athletes on full scholarship but not those on partial scholarship. That could favor male athletes at football-playing schools because of the large number of full scholarships in that sport.
Williams raised another concern — potential clashes on the same campus between athletes who receive the stipend and those who do not.
“There are a lot of things that I think need to be really strongly considered about this,” Williams said.
