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. Socialized medicine works great for white people in Scandanavia. It works well in Costa Rica for a population that is partly white and partly mestizo. I don't really see Obamacare as something aimed against whites. I think that is a Republican canard designed to elicit support from white people for republican candidates who don't care about them any more than democrats care about the non-whites they pander to with their phony maneuvers. But what is different between Costa Rica nd the Scandanavian nations on one hand and the US on the other? SIZE. Maybe the US is just too damn big. Maybe it just needs to be divided into smaller self governing pieces like when the old Holy Roman Empire was dismantled. Maybe we are always trying the same set of solutions for different kinds of people as if we were all the same. Oh-- I know-- that is liberal dogma, that we are all the same. Which is the most idiotic American notion going right back to the propaganda of 1776. All men are different and their differences are myriad and that which is different is not equal. The state which pretends men are all the same is going to force men to be the same. That is what America does here, that is what we do in our stupid overseas wars, that is how we destroy true diversity and true difference, and we are all as different groups of folks, feeling the pains of how capitalism is grinding us down into equally insignificant proletarian microconsumers with no other identity whether we like it or not. And the Marxists had this much right about the War of Independence: it was fundamentally a war of capitalist against feudal systems. America has been about big money since day one and whatever gets in the way is crushed. Health care is just another market and Obamacare, to the extent that it Rationalizes and makes more uniform a market which should actually be really different in nature and delivery from place to place-- well that will serve the interests of the biggest capitalist stakeholders in health care which is not Walmart for Gosh Sakes it is the INSURANCE INDUSTRY. CUI BONO Obamacare? The insurance industry. So republicans drop the delusion pro capitalist scales from your eyes this has almost nothing to do with race or "socialism" it has to do mostly with what the INSURANCE INDUSTRY wants to have happen in order to make their lives and profits easier.

  2. Read the article - the reason they can't justify staying is they have too many medicare/medicaid patients and the re-imbursements for transporting these patient is so low.

  3. I would not vote for Bayh if he did run. I also wouldn't vote for Pence. My guess is that Bayh does not have the stomach to oppose persons on the far left or far right. Also, outside of capitalizing on his time as U. S. Senator (and his wife's time as a board member to several companies) I don't know if he is willing to fight for anything. If people who claim to be in the middle walk away from fights with the right and left wing, what are we left with? Extremes. It's probably best for Bayh if he does not have the stomach for the fight but the result is no middle ground.

  4. JK - I meant that the results don't ring true. I also questioned the 10-year-old study because so much in the "health care system" has changed since the study was made. Moreover, it was hard to get to any overall conclusion or observation with the article. But....don't be defensive given my comments; I still think you do the best job of any journalist in the area shedding light and insight on important health care issues.

  5. Probably a good idea he doesn't run. I for one do not want someone who lives in VIRGINIA to be the governor. He gave it some thought, but he likes Virginia too much. What a name I cannot say on this site! The way these people think and operate amuses me.

ADVERTISEMENT