NCAA Approves Payments Up to $2000 to Athletes, Tie Postseason Appearances to APR
by Year2 on Oct 27, 2011 2:27 PM EDT
in SEC Football
Email
PrintThe NCAA has worked with uncharacteristic speed to approve rules proposals, some of which we looked at a little while ago.
The NCAA's story buries the lede a bit. The biggest change here is that athletes on full scholarships can get now "additional aid" of the full cost of attendance or $2000, whichever is less. Call it "aid" if you want, but it's an additional payment beyond tuition, meal plans, housing and other standard forms of benefits athletes get now. It will be tied to the consumer price index so that the NCAA doesn't have to micromanage changes due to inflation.
This is effectively a salary that scholarship athletes will be able to earn for playing sports. It's nowhere near market value for what revenue sport athletes could get if there was a free market, but it's more than what athletes have gotten in the past. The work the NCAA uses is "meaningful":
The working group that made the recommendation told the board the $2,000 figure is meaningful in addressing the miscellaneous expenses student-athletes now have. Institutions will not be required to offer the benefit, but conferences are encouraged to consider common application within their membership.
That passage indicates that this new "aid" payment is optional, but it won't actually be for anyone who wants to land the best athletes out there.
The other big rule change is that schools must have an Academic Progress Rate score of at least 930 to participate in postseason play. It will be phased in between now and 2015-16, the first year the full 930 will be required. Nine bowl participants would have been ineligible last year, which would have meant there wouldn't be enough teams to fill all the bowls. The national champ UConn would have been ineligible for March Madness as well.
These are two huge rulings from the NCAA. The pay-for-play genie is officially out of the bottle, and the flawed APR will be able to keep teams out of bowls and tournaments.
UPDATE
Something I missed the first time around is this little nugget:
The Board also approved multi-year grants up to the full term of eligibility, though one-year grants will remain the minimum
Translation: schools can offer multi-year scholarships now. Currently, all scholarships are merely one-year agreements. This will be a fascinating market to watch: will recruits pick less prestigious schools if offered a longer scholarship than what the powerhouse is offering? In other words, might someone pick Mississippi State over Alabama if the former offers a four-year scholarship and the latter only offers one? Now combine it with the new "aid" payment: would an athlete pick Goliath University for $2000 and a one-year scholarship or Underdog University who can't afford the $2000 but offers a four-year scholarship?
It's a particularly interesting new rule given the recent media coverage of oversigning and roster management.
There are various other new rules too, like giving former athletes who are out of eligibility financial aid to return to school to complete their degrees. Read the whole thing for everything, but I think I pulled out the highlights.
12 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So is this 'aid'
in the form of cash that they could potentially use to buy alcohol or drugs with? Or would they have to submit to get reimbursed? I would think it would be a headache to micromanage how 100+ kids are spending 2 grand.
I got an academic scholarship that came with $500 in semester in "aid."
It was a $500 check. I could have, but did not, use it to buy alcohol or drugs.
Don't Panic.
by 4.0 Point Stance on Oct 27, 2011 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions
It’ll be a fascinating bit of game theory to see how the multiyear scholarship option plays out. Does a 4 year guarantee become the new norm? Do we see stratification as 5* and 4* blue chips get the maximum while the 2* roster-filler remain on a year to year basis? Will top notch, high demand programs be able to get away with offering one year deals because recruits just want to be there so bad they’ll accept the risk?
The other possibility is that a multiyear scholly gets mandated at the conference level, as a kind of anticompetitive measure to prevent the conference schools from competing each other in that way.
Something to keep in mind is these kids don’t lack confidence. Each one believes he’s such an awesome athlete he’d never lose his scholarship; that’s only something that happens to other guys. I think recruits could seriously underestimate the value of that guarantee.
I also predict the kids will wildly overvalue the utility of that $2 grand a year. Obviously all the SEC schools will pay it. But whichever Sun Belt school ponies up that money will get an immediate recruiting advantage over its competitors which, I would imagine, can be worth way more than $2,000 a year. The other issue is what if, say, WKU, decides it can afford to offer $60,000 of aid per year. Do you give the full amount to the 30 kids who you think will contribute the most, leaving the remainder to stew? Or split it up equitably among the whole roster, which would leave the stars “underpaid” and the scout team “overpaid”? I can see this causing real dissension.
Don't Panic.
by 4.0 Point Stance on Oct 27, 2011 3:54 PM EDT reply actions
I'd expect 4-5 year guarantees to become normal...
ultimately it’s a thinly disguised attempt to end players “mysteriously” losing their scholarships.
The extra $2k in grant in aid will also end up being the norm for football, basketball, and specialty sports at filthy rich schools… which is where it will have the biggest effect of consolidating the top talent. Unfortunately, the NCAA can’t legally limit aid to particular sports if a college is willing to pay.
And yeah, that $2k a year isn’t that much… it’s not enough to keep an off campus apartment for more than a few months. Irresponsible athletes will blow through that cash in a couple of weeks, but it will at least let the low income players have the ability to purchase laptops or cheap transportation if they choose to.
/gets ready for Fiutak article at CFN decrying the NCAA for doing exactly what he’s been crying about for 10 years.
it’s not enough to keep an off campus apartment for more than a few months
You’ve obviously never been to the Whitney Hotel.
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
by cocknfire on Oct 27, 2011 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I’d expect 4-5 year guarantees to become normal… ultimately it’s a thinly disguised attempt to end players "mysteriously" losing their scholarships.
…including what the UConn men’s basketball team did recently.
The UConn men’s basketball program was (is) on NCAA restrictions, limiting their number of scholarships. They really wanted this player that was available, so they managed to put an existing scholarship player (who is poor) on financial aid and give the new guy his scholarship instead.
Classy UConn as always (which is why I want them as far away from my ACC as possible).
Assumption is the mother of all @#%-ups.
I am in favor of darn near anything that helps a student athlete succeed as a student.
I especially like aid for former athletes to complete their degrees.
Father. Husband. Lawyer. Nerd.
by Richard Pittman on Oct 27, 2011 6:02 PM EDT reply actions
That is easily the one of the best of the new rules. There’s no way to spin that one as bad.
Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2
That's actually the only part that gives me any pause at all
This lessens the incentive for the players to get their degree while they’re actually playing, because they figure they can get it after they finish their eligibility. So it’s possible we’ll see an increase in basketweaving-type credits as players put off actual degree classes until they’re done with football.
The counter to this concern, of course, is that’s what’s already happening.
Don't Panic.
by 4.0 Point Stance on Oct 28, 2011 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm fine with money for former players to finish their degrees.
I think that is big for guys who leave early and don’t pan out in the pros. I have no problem with that.
But the idea of putting up extra “aid” to any athlete is a slippery slope. People want a middle ground between a purely amateur sport and a purely professional sport. That might work fine in theory, but I don’t think it will bear out in reality especially once some athlete out there gets brave enough to push the envelope.
If we start paying players then there are going to be legal issues above and beyond what the NCAA or any individual conference may account for in their rules. The chaos that conference realignment has caused in college sports may pale in comparison to what paying players will do.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
