IBJNews

NCAA delays decision on stipend for scholarship athletes

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The National Collegiate Athletic Association has delayed making a decision on whether scholarship athletes at college sports’ top division will be eligible for as much as $2,000 a year to pay for food, transportation and other incidental expenses.

The governing body’s Division I Board, after reviewing objections, reaffirmed its support on Saturday for the plan but asked a working group to make a new proposal for implementation to university presidents in April. More than 125 of the 335 schools had forced a temporary suspension of the rule that originally was approved in October.

The board made its decision after hearing from members of the NCAA’s Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, who asked a way be found to help the athletes who need it the most.

“They said consistently we must have this momentum going and this action will allow us to keep that momentum,” David Hopkins, president of Wright State University, said in a statement. “We need to move forward.”

The board instructed the working group to include consideration of financial need and compliance to women’s sports law Title IX. The stipend rules would be in effect for the 2013-14 school year, the NCAA said.

In October, the NCAA approved the stipend, which gives each conference the opportunity to add as much as $2,000 annually to scholarships for anything from pizza to plane flights. The additional stipend cannot bring the scholarship total above the cost of attending the school.

Opponents said the stipend gives an unfair advantage to athletic departments with the resources to cover the cost. Others have argued that it jeopardizes the players’ amateur status by paying them to play.

The board also rejected a call to override a move to allow multiyear scholarships, rather than the current year-by-year system. An October decision clearing the way for the long-term commitments had brought objections from 75 schools. The NCAA said the change was needed to protect athletes from the possible loss of scholarships because of injury, poor performance or coaching changes.

The rule will now go to an online vote of the entire Division I membership to be conducted in February.

“I recognize the complexities of this issue, the impact of staying the course is relatively minor,” NCAA President Mark Emmert said. “If we err, it will be on the side of the students.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

  2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

  3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

  4. Exciting times in Carmel.

  5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1

ADVERTISEMENT