Schools object to scholarship plan

[Harry]

COLUMBIA, Mo. -- For the second time in less than two weeks, schools are objecting to a reform measure sought by university presidents and endorsed by NCAA president Mark Emmert.

More than 75 schools are asking to override a plan approved in October to allow multi-year athletic scholarships rather than the one-year renewable awards schools currently provide. That's the minimum number of dissenters needed for reconsideration by the Division I Board of Directors when it meets next month in Indianapolis at the annual NCAA convention. The NCAA announced the change the Friday before Christmas.

On Dec. 15, the NCAA suspended plans to give athletes a $2,000 stipend for living costs not covered by scholarships after at least 125 schools objected. The higher number of protests allows the organization to immediately put the change on hold.

Both measures were pushed by Emmert and adopted as emergency legislation after a presidential summit in August.

"The NCAA and presidents step up with this legislation and then the universities want to vote it down," said Christian Dennie, a former compliance officer at Missouri and Oklahoma who now practices sports law in Fort Worth, Texas, and writes an NCAA oversight blog.

"They say, `We don't have enough money,' and then the coach gets a $2 million raise," Dennie added, speaking in general terms rather than about a specific school. "It's really a resource allocation issue."

Read More: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7392725/schools-object-ncaa-multiyear-scholarship-plan

[shaft]

Cost containment is the name of the game. With something like 70 out of 120 D1 schools losing money on athletics the schools can't afford to just roll over and go with the Big Ten/BCS flow on this one.

[meangreendork]

It's a crap situation to be in - you gotta pay X amount to keep a competitive coach, and then turn around and look at this possible $2k/scholarship athlete. Not a good place to be, not to try to keep up with the Joneses.

[GrandGreen]

Schools have gotten themselves into this mess, how do you justify the athletic armed race with IMO very questionable coaches salaries with the poor boy attitude when it comes to the athletes. You can preach all you want to about not for profit athletics and how most schools cannot afford additional costs but then how can you justify hc with million dollar contracts? Coaches can bolt to the highest bidder at a moments notice, but players get one size ship fits all and are tied to one school without facing some costly penalties.

I really think in order to keep play competitive, players should be restricted to something close to the current level. However, if you are going to raise the competitiveness flag, you also need to include coaches compensation as a factor.