Pay-for-play and extended scholarship reform proposals offered by school presidents and endorsed by NCAA president Mark Emmert have come under the scrutiny of a plethora of schools, forcing the Division I Board of Directors to reexamine the possibilities.
At issue are proposals to extend scholarships to multi-year contracts and to provide a $2,000 stipend to student athletes in addition to the scholarship money they currently receive.
More than 75 schools have objected to the scholarship proposal and some 125 have signed on to override the stipend, forcing directors to either revert to the previous NCAA rules; bring forward an additional proposal which schools would have 60 days to examine; or bring the measures to an override vote.
At the University of Montana there is support for the stipend proposal, but not as much for the multi-year scholarship concept, according to Athletic Director Jim O’Day.
I agree some sort of stipend is suitable. And I have previously decried the lack of effort on the schools’ part to figure out a way to treat a student-athlete as more than a commodity when their performance brings money into their coffers. But I don’t see a way for this to be done equitably without a disparity developing between the major sports of football and men’s basketball and what are often described as Olympic sports.
And there are other potential pitfalls.
With football, for example, does the hog on the offensive and defensive line receive the same amount as players with “star power?”
Additionally, in all but a select group of institutions, I can’t see where the money is going to come from to support such an endeavor.
As far as multi-year scholarships, it’s again the case of the haves vs. the have-nots.
If school A, which has money to finance a multi-year deal, is determined to recruit a star player away from School B, which doesn’t necessarily have that money but might be a better fit for the youngster, it will produce an unfair recruiting advantage where money – or commitment to a long-term deal – will become the overriding factor in a student-athlete’s decision rather than what may be the best situation for both his educational and athletic career.
With a single-year commitment – which at the FCS football level can be split to accommodate more than one player – student-athletes must prove yearly their worth, doing the right thing in the classroom as well as athletics, rather than being given a sense of security which may or may not be earned.
A scholarship should initially be a reward for future performance, then renewed as that performance reaches fruition – not given as a four- or even in many cases a five-year guarantee.
Coaches depart and players become disillusioned with the team, teammates or the institution and look to transfer or even quit school.
With a multi-year scholarship guarantee, a school entering into such a contract could be required to fulfill its obligation without receiving anything in return.
Single-year scholarships are meant to even the recruiting trail and keep institutions from digging into their pocket books to gain additional favor with an athlete.
It has worked since the ‘70s, but it seems college sports continue to move in the direction of a higher tier of schools that operate under a different set of standards than the remainder of the institutions.
The NCAA basketball championships are the elephant in the room that nobody is talking about. With the television guarantee, it’s the cash cow that finances the majority of the other national sports championships.
How would such a separation between institutions affect the Cinderella schools that make the event so exciting?
There’s certainly a lot of soul searching and a horde of questions to be addressed before either of these proposals see the light of day.