For now, let’s take a look at some other big, recruiting-related, Division I items coming out of last week’s annual NCAA meeting:
·
The $2,000 stipend proposal seems to have strong
support among the college presidents and chancellors who make up the Division I
Board of Directors, although they sent the proposal to a committee (okay, a “working
group”) to work out implementation details and come back with recommendations
in April. After any changes are made to
the proposal at that point, the NCAA membership would then again have the
opportunity to give it give a thumbs up or thumbs down.
This stipend was approved, for immediate
implementation, by the NCAA Board of Directors last fall as a way to provide
help full-ride scholarship athletes pay for miscellaneous costs – things like a
movie, laundry, transportation, or meals out – beyond the tuition, fees, room,
and board for which scholarships pay. Although the stipend wasn’t mandatory, 160
schools objected to the measure by December, which meant that it was suspended
and had to go back to the Board last week for another look. Much of the
opposition was based on the cost of the stipend to schools, and the limited
resources with which many of them have to pay for it. And if they didn’t
implement it, they felt – it would seem legitimately – that they would be at a
competitive disadvantage when recruiting student-athletes. Concerns about gender equity issues – since football
programs put many more men, compared to women in other sports, on full
scholarships at a given school.
It’s interesting to note, though, that the
student-athletes who signed national letters of intent in November – and who
were promised the stipend at that time, when it was in place – will still
receive it. Students who signed after the measure was suspended in December
will not.
·
Allowing schools to offer multi-year
scholarships – instead of only year-to-year scholarships based on performance –
seems to be a done deal, pending a vote
by the entire Division I membership in February. Although concerns about this
measure were also voiced by schools in December, not enough of them objected to
cause suspension, and the Board stood by it at the NCAA meeting last week.
·
Parents can now be considered agents. This
measure would prevent parents from “shopping” their student-athlete children to
schools. In other words, parents could no longer ask a school for money
(something other than a scholarship) in return for their kids to sign with that
school.
·
Proposals to limit the number of scholarships –
by five in football – were defeated. It would seem that savings in this area
would have provided money to fund the $2,000 stipend at many schools, but that
analysis might be too simplistic and naïve, I realize. And, of course, a
reduction in scholarships would eliminate opportunities for some student-athletes
to play college football in roles other than walk-ons that pay their own
way. Bummer.
Comments? Insights?
