NCAA Expected to Raise Scholarship Values for Athletes, Is Pay for Play Next?

The value of a full athletic scholarship is expected to increase next month to better cover the full cost of attendance of NCAA athletes.

Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick proposed an increase of scholarships for up to $2,000 for student athletes and it has “widespread support” from the Division I board of directors and a vote to pass the proposal is expected to come during their meeting in Indianapolis October 26th and 27th.

There has been a heated debate surrounding the idea of “pay-for-play” which means that student athletes would be paid for every game they play but this proposal is not like that.

The proposal allows for each conference to set the limit on how much an athlete can receive for things not covered under the current scholarship, like groceries, laundry and gas. The limit is $2,000, but a USA Today report shows that the median difference is $4,000 with some schools having a discrepancy as high as $9,600.

This proposal is a great first step towards getting players the financial assistance they need and will hopefully eradicate some the illicit benefit issues plaguing the sport.

But is this also the first step towards a pay-for-play system that would provide a lot more money to athletes than the $2,000 proposed?

Probably not, but the debate will only intensify and this plan also has flaws of its own that could prevent it from being passed.

NCAA President Mark Emmert has said a pay-for-play system will never happen on his watch and he seems very staunch on his position.

But that has not stopped members of the media, like ESPN’s Jay Bilas, from writing pieces like this supporting the idea and Doug Gottleib and Jay Paterno from writing pieces against it.

They each have valid points, and it is a debate that is unlikely to be settled in the near future, but this proposal will only revive these debates. Those in favor will say this is not enough, while those who oppose it will say that an extra $2,000 is more than enough compensation.

Paterno points out that an in-state student will earn $56.25 per hour of athletic work and an out of state student will earn $83.25 per hour, and that is a lot of money. But that money is not going toward the bank account, it is going towards an education, and there are many athletes who come from very poor homes and they simply cannot afford trips home.

Those families in need may be relying on their sons and daughters to help pay for basic necessities, but it would be unfair for students to send the money specifically designated for them to anyone else. There would likely be some type of regulation fixing that problem but, like anything, there would be ways to circumnavigate the rules.

Most athletic departments around the country lose money, and this would only add to the debt, but should that really stop players from earning their fair share of the money they bring in to the program?

These types of arguments are not going to go away just because the NCAA would allow schools to better cover the full cost of attendance.

There will also be arguments about how this could create an unfair recruiting advantage for conferences who are willing to give out more money.

A recruit with offers from Ball State and Ohio State may have gone to Ball State because of playing time but now may go to Ohio State because he needs more money that only bigger schools and conferences can provide, thus creating better depth and ultimately a better pool of athletes a school can recruit from.

Having an honest, intelligent discourse about pressing issues is great for anything, and maybe, just maybe, this obvious recruiting advantage could lead to the removal of the BCS and the implementation of a playoff.

If you want to talk about schools losing money, how about the over $400,000 Virginia Tech lost for its trip to the Orange Bowl? And they are far from the only school to lose money on these bowl trips.

If done in the correct way, which would track every purchase made, this is a great step in the right direction, but it is likely the last one the NCAA will take towards paying their student athletes more money.

Whether or not you agree with it is one thing, but you will have more than enough time to debate the topic in the coming months. Maybe once Mark Emmert is not president this could happen, but until then, don’t expect these kids to get any more money than the extra $2,000 in this proposal.