Jake's Take: College Kids Playing for Pay
3/13/2001 1:39:40 PM | General
<b>By Jake Crouthamel</b><br>Do you have a question for Jake? <a href="mailto:feedback@suathletics.com"?>Email it! </a>
In 1992 the NCAA passed legislation which placed specific limits on the amount of time student-athletes could be required to participate in athletically related activities. Typical of our competitive but regulated society, the exercise has become one of seeking ways to circumvent the rules. "Voluntary" participation in certain activities is expected. Practice makes perfect, and the more you train, the better chance you have for success. The exercise is not totally self-serving, however. Professional football and basketball are complaining that the technical skills of players being drafted from college have fallen off noticeably since the 1992 legislation was enacted. Athletes in the individual, as well as other team sports, who have the talent and aspiration of competing nationally and internationally, are being denied the opportunity to receive the amount of training necessary to reach that level. National governing boards in the United States Olympic structure are expressing concern.
NCAA legislation defines a grant-in-aid scholarship as not to exceed tuition, room, board, books, and required fees. There is no cost of attendance factor in the award as is the case of a student receiving need-based financial aid. Thus, neither the cost of the simple necessities of life, nor travel to and from campus enter into the calculation for a grant-in-aid. Years ago that cost of attendance was addressed with a monthly stipend affectionately called "laundry money", and provided only to male-student athletes. The notion is that something similar should be resurrected as a form of payment to the players. It should be noted that Federal funds, Pell Grant, are available to all students, including student-athletes, who qualify on the basis of need. In addition, the NCAA Student-Athlete Assistance Fund provides a grant of up to $500 per year to those who qualify on a need basis. This amount can increase, with no limits, to cover emergency medical situations.
While I believe that, on the surface, it is not improper to include in the grant-in-aid scholarship a cost of attendance factor, the exercise is fraught with peril, and becomes a "catch 22". A grant-in-aid scholarship, as currently defined by NCAA rules, is void of any institutional subjectivity. Whatever the publicized cost for tuition, room, board, and required fees, that amount is credited to the student-athlete’s account. Calculations in the cost of attendance, and the comparable cost of living in some 280 different college communities across the country is more problematic, and open to subjectivity and manipulation. Sorry, but true.
Then there is Title IX. Years ago, before Title IX legislation was enacted by Congress, "laundry money" for male student-athletes was not questioned. You couldn’t possibly get away with it now. Thus, whatever is considered appropriate as "pay" to football and men’s basketball players, the exact same treatment must be applied to all student-athletes. The Heisman Trophy winning quarterback on the national champion football team is qualified to receive no more than the bench warmer in any other sport.
The "catch 22" is that increasing the cost of a grant-in-aid, either through a cost of attendance calculation or with a stipend, will result in the awarding of fewer athletic scholarships. For the majority of Division I athletic programs across the country, their institutions underwrite a significant portion of the scholarship costs. There is a budgetary finiteness in the exercise. An institution of higher education may be able to rationalize the amount allocated to its intercollegiate program, but to increase that amount exponentially is unrealistic. Thus, while those who participate may receive more than their predecessors, there won’t be as many opportunities to participate.
What is bothersome to me in this whole process is that with few exceptions, intercollegiate athletics has been required to assume the dominant responsibility of preparing young men and women for professional athletic careers, and as successful competitors on the international scene. We finance all the costs of facilities, coaches, training, and scholarships with absolutely no assistance from any professional sport organization or the United States Olympic Committee. I made that point explicitly clear to George Steinbrenner several years ago at a joint meeting of a group representing intercollegiate athletics and the USOC. Any erosion in the technical skills of current student-athletes resulting from practice limitations would be magnified by a reduction in the pool of candidates. Maybe the answer is for the professional sports organizations and the USOC to underwrite any "pay" to student-athletes over and above tuition, room, board, books and required fees.
