The wealthiest college-sports conferences, responding to pressure to provide additional benefits to players, approved new rules on Saturday strengthening the value of scholarships.
The most significant change allows Division I colleges to cover their athletes’ full cost of attendance, which could put thousands of dollars more per year into players’ pockets. Colleges also backed a measure protecting students from losing their scholarships if they fail to meet coaches’ athletic expectations. New rules also give players the ability to borrow against potential future earnings by purchasing loss-of-value insurance.
The moves, which came during the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s annual convention here, at a conference center just outside Washington, mark the first time that the 65 highest-profile colleges have come together to exercise more control over college sports. They did so as part of a new NCAA governance structure approved last year.
The increased scholarship aid, designed to answer critics seeking more-equitable treatment of players, is expected to cost some programs more than $1-million a year. That and other changes, which include new concussion-safety standards, apply to programs in the five most-powerful conferences—the Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big 12, Pacific-12, and Southeastern. Athletics departments in the rest of Division I may adopt the rules with the blessing of their conferences.
“I think it’s an incredibly important day in the NCAA’s journey,” said Greg Sankey, executive associate commissioner of the Southeastern Conference. “The five conferences showed that they can collaborate, they can act responsibly in decision making, and they can make progress that benefits our student-athletes in tangible, meaningful ways.”
Major-college athletes, who have agitated for enhanced benefits and rights, were well represented here on Saturday. More than a dozen times, players stood up to express concerns or stand behind proposed changes.
Athletes have 15 of the 80 votes in the new governance system, which allows the prominent conferences to do more to help players. (The rest of the votes go to representatives of colleges in the five major leagues.) But just as important as the students’ vote was their voice, said Jim Delany, commissioner of the Big Ten Conference.
“I was so excited to really hear the athlete,” he said in an interview after the session. “They disagreed with each other, they disagreed with us, and to me they had impact beyond their 15.”
Mr. Delany said he had already appealed to governance leaders to allow students more say in the development of proposals in the future.
“We may think we’re doing something to their benefit,” he said. “It may well be that they don’t want it or that they have another way to look at it.”
‘You Don’t Have to Change Everything’
The cost-of-attendance proposal was approved by a tally of 79 to 1. Boston College was the lone dissenter, citing concerns that the rule “further segregates student-athletes from the general student population by increasing aid without need-based consideration.” Boston College officials also noted in a written statement that the federal financial-aid formula is “sufficiently ambiguous that adjustments for recruiting advantage will take place.”
Four years ago, a proposal allowing athletics programs to provide players with $2,000 stipends for miscellaneous expenses was approved by the NCAA’s Division I Board of Directors.
The move was later rolled back, highlighting the significant financial and philosophical differences within the association’s top level.
Those differences still exist, which will make it difficult for Division I programs outside of the most-powerful conferences to stay in step. But some conference leaders at that level said in interviews last week that the changes might not be as disruptive as some people have feared, particularly if smaller-budget programs do not race to adopt them.
“I don’t anticipate the change to be as drastic as it’s been portrayed,” said Ted Gumbart, commissioner of the Atlantic Sun Conference. “The fact that we will be moving into a realm where that gap might be exacerbated a bit, it’s not changing the way we do business.
“You can grow into these changes,” he added. “You don’t have to change everything.”
Several other measures introduced at the convention encouraged more robust debate, including the proposal to prevent colleges from eliminating scholarships for athletic reasons.
The vast majority of Division I institutions do not guarantee scholarships beyond one year, a standard that has come under increasing scrutiny in the courts. As part of a change approved on Saturday, the wealthiest 65 colleges must commit to carrying out policies that provide multiyear scholarships.
But some attendees, including several students, argued that athletics departments should be allowed to cut poor-performing players.
Diamond DeShields, a women’s basketball player at the University of Tennessee, said that players who don’t meet the expectations of coaches should lose their scholarships, in part because their aid is based on athletic—not academic—performance.
“I don’t have an academic scholarship,” she said. “You get to the institution based on your athletic performance. That’s why we’re here.”
Nandi Mehta, a soccer player at Northwestern University, had a different view. If colleges are allowed to eliminate scholarships for athletic reasons, she said, how is a scholarship any different from a salary?
“How can we say that we put the student aspect of a student-athlete first,” she said, “when we’re going to inhibit a student-athlete’s ability to get an education based on athletic performance?”
That measure passed by just three votes.
Conflict Over Concussions
Another proposal, to create new safety mandates related to head injuries, also elicited strong views. The measure, introduced by the Southeastern Conference, requires colleges to have a concussion-management plan that, among other things, includes an annual process for ensuring that athletes are educated about the signs and symptoms of concussion.
The policy requires a medical professional to clear athletes to return to competition. It also calls for safety protocols that include procedures for reducing exposure to head injuries and policies that deal with returning to the classroom.
Athletics officials in the Big 12 Conference voiced opposition to the measure, arguing that it didn’t go far enough to ensure that medical professionals were in charge of medical decisions.
An earlier version of the proposal had included a requirement that medical professionals be given “unchallengeable authority” in evaluating players and determining when they should return to competition.
Steve Patterson, men’s athletic director at the University of Texas at Austin, questioned why that language had to be removed.
“Why can’t we get it clear,” he said, “that the medical personnel are in charge?”
Brian Hainline, the NCAA’s chief medical officer, spoke up to endorse the change.
“This is an imperfect yet exceptionally important start,” Dr. Hainline told attendees. “I would much rather have an imperfect start than a perfect pause.”
‘Dead Spots’
In interviews after the session, representatives of all five conferences expressed satisfaction with the results. But many agreed that this was just a start.
“We took a very big step, but we can’t be naïve in our outlook,” said Joe Castiglione, athletic director at the University of Oklahoma. “We have to keep our foot on the gas.”
In the coming months, athletics leaders are expected to discuss ideas for changing initial-eligibility standards, which could help weed out more players who aren’t serious students.
“There are far too many participants in our programs who are not legitimate students and don’t have an interest in education—they’re here as a way to transition to a professional career or something else after college, and that’s not why we should be here,” said Bob Bowlsby, commissioner of the Big 12 Conference. “We should be here to educate young people and help them move from 18-year-old adolescents into 22-year-old adulthood.”
Colleges are also expected to discuss proposals that would help athletes spend more time outside of their sports.
Many big-time athletes come to college accustomed to training year-round and report spending more than 40 hours a week on their sport. Mr. Delany, of the Big Ten, believes that institutions need to look for ways to establish “dead spots” on the calendar where college coaches and facilities are not available to athletes.
“You have to say, ‘For this 30-day period, there is no interaction. If you want to go down to Gold’s Gym or go to the intramural field, that’s fine,’” he said. “‘But you’re not going to engage in practice.’”
“You need to create regulations that are black and white,” he added, “because gray is hard to enforce.”
Brad Wolverton is a senior writer who covers college sports. Follow him on Twitter @bradwolverton.