NCAA Rules ARE the School President's Call

Don’t the University Presidents Represent the Schools in the NCAA?

I am frankly quite confused about a story circulating that says schools are objecting to a reform measure sough by university presidents and endorsed by NCAA president Mark Emmert. It involves scholarships and monetary stipends for athletes.


Isn’t the NCAA a governing body that gets all its power FROM the schools? And are not the presidents of those schools the people that vote on whatever guidelines the NCAA must follow?


The only governing body that is separate from the NCAA is the College Bowl Alliance. The NCAA has nothing to do with running it or deciding who plays where.


But if the NCAA presidents are in favor of multi year athletic scholarships as well as a $2000 per year stipend for varsity athletes on top of their scholarship how can the stories say the schools are objecting?


Well, the proof is in the fine print. You see, while it is true university presidents did approve those changes not all of them did. It was a Board of Directors consisting of SOME university presidents that voted for the changes. The rank and file appeared to be fine with them until they started taking a closer look and realized how they would affect their budgets.


Most of the larger conference schools are OK with the changes. They can afford them. But the smaller conference and less financially strong schools are not. Some have gone or record why. According to a story by Alan Zagier of the Associated Press schools ranging from Boise State to Indiana State, Marquette, Rutgers, Utah and Wyoming are among those opposed to the multi year scholarship plan. The biggest reason is the size and cost of football. Locking in players to multi year scholarships can be a financial drain, they say, if a coaching change occurs. The new coach may not want the player, but be forced to use him. (I can’t keep from smiling over this one.) The colleges would have the same situation professional sports have now. Long term contracts for players no longer able to compete on the level desired. College sports probably deserve to have that problem. The top programs are hardly what was envisioned when Harvard and Yale started buckling on the chin straps in the 1890s.


The $2000 annual stipend is also a problem. It shouldn’t be for any college that pays head coaches in the millions, but most schools in the NCAA do not. They also don’t play before 50,000 or more fans and are part of lucrative TV packages. Having the cash to take care of the football team is one thing, but including it across the board for every sport sponsored by the school is something else.


It is simply instructive to note that when one complains about anything the NCAA does one is actually complaining about what the representatives of the member schools have voted upon. Those representatives are not people sitting behind desks at NCAA headquarters in Indianapolis. They are the presidents of the universities who make up the membership of the NCAA.


If there is a problem with the makeup of the NCAA membership it is that there is too great a disparity in income. The revenue gap is often astounding. College football, and in many cases basketball, have gotten far too large and far too different from what was envisioned when the Ivy League and the old Western Conference (Big 10) started fielding teams before the start of the 20th century. It is too late to turn back the clock now. Getting everyone on the same page is the problem.