Athletes were about to have some extra money in their pockets. They would not be getting paid, but the stipend they were close to receiving would at least provide some degree of financial assistance. For close to four months, those stipends looked like they were a done deal. Then, 160 universities realized their financial effect and stopped the measure.

Back to square one.

The issue of how to compensate college athletes for the out-of-pocket expenses they pay to make up for a scholarship shortfall has been debated for years. Paying them salaries has long been out of the question, with the NCAA’s member institutions fearful of removing athletes’ amateur status. A stipend of up to $2,000 appeared to be the most viable option, though many player representatives say even that falls short of what athletes have to pay. The NCAA Division-I Board of Directors approved the stipend in October, but 161 schools voted to override the measure in January, throwing the issue back on the table for debate.

Ramogi Huma is the president and founder of the National College Players Association and said his organization believed the stipends were a definite outcome. Huma said the NCAA made it seem as if schools would not have the ability to vote because it was using an extra power or privilege to pass the stipend.

‘So it was a bit surprising that the schools did have the ability to object,’ Huma said. ‘We weren’t surprised that they did. Once we realized that they could do that, we knew that all of the dysfunction from the NCAA system would kick in, which is mainly competing interests.’

Small schools with lower budgets are against the stipends because they do not have the same financial resources as larger schools.

The NCPA argued the stipends are needed to cover the difference between what an athlete’s full scholarship covers and what the cost of attendance actually is. The ‘full’ scholarship for football and basketball players at Football Bowl Subdivision left a $3,222 difference between what the scholarship covered and the full cost of attendance during the 2010-11 academic year, according to a study released by the NCPA and Drexel University’s Department of Sport Management in 2010.

The study also found that 85 percent of players living on campus and 86 percent of players living off-campus fell below the federal poverty line.

Last year, the NCPA conducted a study with the Ithaca College Graduate Program in Sport Management that said in 2009, a Division-I athlete receiving a full scholarship had to pay an average of $2,951 out-of-pocket per year to close the gap.

When the NCAA passed the legislation in October to provide the additional financial assistance, it mandated the stipend would be the difference between the full scholarship and the cost of attendance at each university. That meant in some cases, the stipend would not even reach $2,000. The legislation also stipulated that conferences could choose whether or not their respective schools were going to offer the stipend, which in turn, could hinder competitive equity.

The NCPA’s study found the scholarship shortfalls are anywhere between $200 and $10,962 per year.

At Tennessee, the scholarship shortfall is close to $5,000, Huma said, so players would still need to pay about $3,000 out of their pockets to cover the extra costs. At Notre Dame, he said, the shortfall is only about $1,500. Fighting Irish players would receive less than the $2,000 limit.

While the scholarships cover tuition, room and board, meal plans, books and fees, they don’t provide enough money for extra expenses that athletes accrue during their four years.

Though Huma said the proposed $2,000 still doesn’t cover the costs, he said it’s a sign of progress.

‘It would not have systematically addressed the issue, because first of all, it was optional. Second of all, it was inadequate. It wasn’t enough,’ Huma said. ‘Although they had those shortcomings, it was a step in the right direction.’

Last week, the board met in Indianapolis to discuss a variety of NCAA issues, including the possibility of stipends. The 18-member board, made up of school presidents and chancellors, is now debating a measure that would allow conferences to decide whether or not their schools would offer stipends, and another proposal would issue stipends to athletes who could prove they were in need of them financially.

Dowayne Davis played on the Syracuse football team as a defensive back from 2004 to 2007. While he was fortunate to have family members support him financially if he needed it, he said, a large number of teammates didn’t have that luxury. A stipend, Davis said, would give players a way to make some extra money without having to accept it from outside parties, breaking NCAA rules.

‘It gives them something to be able to get through,’ Davis said, ‘whether it’s the season so they’re not turning to negative things, or negative ways of getting funds into their pockets because they have no other means of getting it. What you’re saying is we’re going to support you financially so you get through these four years and develop as a young man and not have to go toward negative things.’

Throughout the NCAA – football in particular – players are turning to illegal means to earn money. Former Ohio State star quarterback and current member of the Oakland Raiders Terrelle Pryor made about $40,000 signing and selling sports memorabilia during his time with the Buckeyes. Former Miami booster Nevin Shapiro admitted to giving ‘impermissible benefits’ to at least 72 Hurricane players from 2002 to 2010. Reggie Bush received hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from two sports agents when he was a running back at Southern California.

The problem of athletes turning to boosters or sports agents for money is a repeated offense in the NCAA.

Perhaps no one knows more about that than Josh Luchs, who admitted in a 2010 Sports Illustrated article to paying at least 30 college football players in the early 1990s as a recruiting tool to sign with him.

Luchs said the $2,000 stipend is not nearly enough, citing the NCPA study. The former agent said the current environment fosters the propensity of college athletes to turn to outside sources to earn money because they have no other means of doing so.

If they need or want money, Luchs said, they’re going to find it.

‘Whatever it takes for an athlete to be provided the cost of full attendance depending on what school they’re going to, or region or area and what the cost of living is,’ Luchs said, ‘that’s what needs to be met.

‘And until they do that, they’re going to continue to have players that, out of need and out of desperation, are going to succumb to outside third parties.’

Opponents of the stipend or college athletes receiving any money at all say the student-athletes are getting enough benefits through a free education. Critics say the value of their experiences as college athletes comes from the hundreds of thousands of dollars universities pay to fund athletic programs.

Rick Burton is a David B. Falk professor of sport management at Syracuse who opposes the stipend. He said players at private universities cost schools as much as $125,000 per year when it comes to providing everything from coaches to tutors – even including public relations professionals who work with the team.

Athletes receive benefits that extend past giving them any kind of payment, Burton said.

‘They’re getting an accelerated opportunity to get into a career that they probably desire, or they wouldn’t be playing the sport,’ Burton said. ‘They’re getting elite-level coaching from coaches that are getting paid millions of dollars. They’re getting medical treatment. They’re getting facilities.’

But what they are not getting right now is money to cover additional expenses that they have no means to account for, and that, Huma and the NCPA said, contributes to the cause of many of the scandals in the NCAA.

The NCAA Board of Directors is considering multiple possibilities for stipends in the future, but a decision ultimately won’t come for another four months. Whether or not the stipends are sufficient enough will then be determined.

Huma said the stipends will not likely solve all of problems of the repeated NCAA violations, but they will at least give college athletes a way to provide for themselves that they did not previously have.

‘I’m not saying the stipends are going to solve all the problems in terms of violations,’ Huma said, ‘but for some athletes, it’ll take the edge off.’

cjiseman@syr.edu

Published on April 29, 2012 at 12:00 pm

Contact Chris: cjiseman@syr.edu | @chris_iseman