http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/sp...benefits-.html
N.C.A.A. May Let Its Top Conferences Play by Their Own Rules
The universities with the country?s most prominent athletics programs are expected to gain preliminary approval Thursday to break away from some of the strictures of the N.C.A.A., a significant change that would give them more freedom to govern themselves and could allow athletes to share in the wealth of college sports.
Under the proposal, the N.C.A.A. would clear the way for sports powerhouses like Alabama and Ohio State to pay their athletes a few thousand dollars more than what the current scholarship rules allow, loosen restrictions against agents and advisers, and revamp recruiting rules to ease contact with top prospects.
The so-called Big 5 conferences, with their glittering facilities and huge stadiums, have long existed in their own tier on the college sports landscape. But the vote Thursday would make their first-class status official, granting them greater autonomy from the N.C.A.A. rules that are currently applied evenly across 32 conferences and nearly 350 institutions in the N.C.A.A.?s top division.
The new rules would further widen the gulf between the 65 universities in the wealthiest conferences ? the Southeastern Conference, the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Pac-12, the Big Ten and the Big 12 ? and other universities across the country that have less money for their sports programs and would still be governed by N.C.A.A. rules.
The new model would codify the college sports world as one ?much more, perhaps, of haves and have-nots,? said Peg Bradley-Doppes, the vice chancellor for athletics at the University of Denver, which is not in a Big 5 conference. ?It may make the competitive experience more challenging.?
The measure stops short of allowing colleges to pay athletes lucrative salaries. But the new rules would effectively acknowledge that big-time college sports have long ceased to be purely amateur exercises, and that many of the restrictions that prevented universities from providing resources to athletes were outdated.
The move comes amid vigorous public debate about the proper role of sports in higher education, and whether college athletes should be compensated for the billions of dollars they help generate.
The N.C.A.A. has been under siege over what critics call its exploitation of athletes, who, the argument goes, enrich their institutions and the N.C.A.A. while risking injury and getting shortchanged academically.
The N.C.A.A. has been targeted with high-profile lawsuits, including the Ed O?Bannon case, in which athletes have argued that the N.C.A.A.?s use of their images has violated antitrust law. A union movement has also gained traction among Northwestern?s football players.
If approved, the autonomy model, which will be voted on by Division I?s board of directors at N.C.A.A. headquarters Thursday in Indianapolis, would be a dramatic shift in the relationship between athletes and those universities.
?You?re really taking the lid off of significant N.C.A.A. regulations that were intent on protecting the amateur status of the student-athlete and trying to minimize further expenditures for the athletic programs,? said Bob Kustra, the president of Boise State, which does not belong to the Big 5.
Other critics of autonomy forecast increased imbalance between the wealthy football powerhouses and everyone else, both on the field and in recruiting. They also warn that sports like swimming or volleyball, which do not generate revenue, could be eliminated in an effort to control costs while abiding by Title IX, and that the changes could erode the academic value of the student-athlete experience.
The Big 5 conferences and their universities, however, said they want to accommodate their athletes in a way that reflects the new reality of college sports, which are bigger than ever, while maintaining their tie to higher education. Wealthier universities should not be impeded from expanding their benefits, they argue, just because some institutions would struggle to afford them.
?Within Division I there?s such vastly different economics, and that would?ve been a huge burden to many schools,? said Nathan Hatch, the president of Wake Forest ? a Big 5 university ? who led the steering committee that conceived the proposal.
He added, ?And to some degree it?s trying to respond to the wave of concern for student-athletes ? treating them with dignity and respect, using some of those resources on their behalf.?
The N.C.A.A. currently restricts scholarships to the cost of ?tuition and fees, room, board and required course-related books.? The new measure would allow athletes to receive the ?full cost of attendance,? a sum that is generally a few thousand dollars higher. The Big 5 officials have also suggested they would use autonomy to uniformly give athletes better medical coverage and greater leeway to borrow against future earnings to purchase disability insurance.
Under the new model, the rule-making body would include a representative from each institution plus three athletes from each conference. The number of scholarships awarded per sport would remain the same for all Division I universities, and all Division I institutions could continue to participate in championships and revenue-sharing. Any other Division I conference or university (pending its conference?s approval) could opt into the Big 5?s rules. Notre Dame, which is independent in football but is in the A.C.C. and Hockey East in other sports, would be treated as a Big 5 institution.
Both supporters and detractors of the new model see the vote as pivotal, even as outside developments threaten to force more drastic reform.
?This is a game-changer,? Ms. Bradley-Doppes, of the University of Denver, said.
If the board rejects the model, it could prompt a more severe break. Big 5 commissioners have suggested that in that event, they would consider much more drastic measures: departing from the N.C.A.A. and taking their teams ? and the billions in revenue they produce ? to a so-called Division IV.
N.C.A.A. President Mark Emmert, the former president of Washington and chancellor of Louisiana State ? both Big 5 universities ? has appeared to support autonomy. In 2011, he pushed for a proposal to allow Division I colleges to offer athletes additional $2,000 stipends. (The board passed the proposal, but the membership overrode it.)
The vote Thursday may not be the last word. If 75 universities outside the Big 5 express disapproval, the N.C.A.A. board would reconsider its decision; if 125 object, the new rules would be suspended pending a resolution.
Many autonomy supporters said their thinking was not influenced by the public climate nor by a desire to bring in more money.
?When we put together this vision, it was before most of the litigation, before the unionization and before Congress got involved,? SEC Commissioner Mike Slive said last month. ?All the things we?re trying to get are tied to the well-being of the student-athlete. This is not about competition. This is not about enhancing revenue.?
But some suggest that the conferences were nudged by the belief that change is coming one way or another, and it was in their best interests to reform on their own terms.
?I believe the leaders in college athletics are in the best position to be the catalysts of this change, rather than a court system or some type of federal hearing,? said Ian McCaw, the athletic director of Baylor, a member of the Big 5. ?The practitioners who deal with this every day understand all the issues and all the complexities.?
The Big 5 conferences have already taken several steps in the direction of reform. Big Ten and Pac-12 presidents have supported more benefits for athletes, and two universities ? Indiana and Southern California ? said they would guarantee four-year scholarships. The N.C.A.A. relaxed rules restricting how much food universities can provide competing athletes, issued new concussions guidelines, and recently recommended no longer pressuring athletes to sign a statement granting conferences use of their names and likenesses.
Several outside advocates for reform are cautiously supportive of the new governance model. They are swayed by the benefits it would give many of the highest-profile ? and hardest-worked ? athletes, even as they are concerned that incremental reform is not sufficient.
?I think what we have at some level is P.R.,? said Ellen Staurowsky, a sports management professor at Drexel who has co-written a paper with the prominent student-athlete rights advocate Ramogi Huma. ?It tends to protect the brand without acknowledging the value of the athletes.?
But, she added, ?I don?t want to be so dismissive to say this means nothing.?
