To the chagrin of many teachers and students nationwide, the 2015-2016 academic year speeds ever closer, and although classrooms are still closed for the time being, athletic departments never stopped buzzing. One of the key issues being considered this summer is the implementation of cost of attendance stipends for athletes on scholarship, which will begin with the upcoming school year. While the Power Five schools overwhelmingly voted in favor of stipends to cover the personal expenses of scholarship athletes, the effects of this decision are far from clear-cut for mid-major universities. Schools in smaller conferences like the CAA, where budgets are smaller and major network contracts don’t help athletic departments print money, are still torn about how to handle the ramifications of the Power Five’s decision making.
Interestingly, even those who approved the CoA measure can feel they’re unjustly treated by the new policies. As has been widely discussed (and groused-about by coaches), CoA stipends can range wildly from institution to institution. This is because CoA figures are determined by federal formula in a university’s financial aid office, operating (theoretically) outside the reach of a school’s athletic department. However, even members of the P5 see some odd dealings regarding the upcoming CoA numbers at various institutions. For example, it is bizarre that the stipend for a University of Tennessee athlete is over four times that of his Boston College peer, considering that Boston is one of America’s most expensive cities in which to live and, well, Rocky Top isn’t.
This ambiguity in the amount a school can give its athletes as a cost of attendance stipend is troubling for many athletic department officials, and yet, standardizing the number is also not an option, as federal law prohibits capping the stipend amount at less than a school’s predetermined cost of attendance. Suddenly, the institutions that implemented the stipends might have created a recruiting advantage for their opponents; one would have to be naive to think that an extra $4,000 doesn’t matter to an eighteen year old deciding where to attend.
And yet, for many colleges and universities, the arms race of stipend offerings doesn’t even apply. Instead, institutions are still trying to decide whether to participate in CoA stipends at all, and if so, how to manage the costs. The topic was given a substantial amount of time and consideration at the recent meeting of the Colonial Athletic Association’s athletic departments. The CAA, which is comprised of smaller mid-majors like UNCW, William and Mary, Elon, and Towson, is faced not with the concern that members can offer differing amounts, but with the philosophical question of how this new policy, approved by other institutions, affects the status of a “student-athlete.” Some schools, Elon and William and Mary, have decided not to participate in stipend distribution for the upcoming seasons. Conference rivals Towson, UNCW, and Charleston will. But don’t expect a massive power imbalance to occur within the CAA; Towson and UNCW will only be offering to particular sports with expansion unclear, while Elon will repurpose the money saved and dedicate it to broader ways to attract students.
Competition between P5 schools and mid-majors in terms of stipend offerings is not going to be close. Ohio State budgeted $1.65 million for stipend payouts. Towson, whose entire athletic budget is $22 million, only set aside $88,000. Instead, it seems there is less concern among mid-majors being further separated from P5 schools as a result of CoA stipends, and more a question of how the policy, thrust upon them from outside their control, might affect the day-to-day operations within their own conferences and departments. With such a massive change in place that could fundamentally alter schools’ philosophical and financial relationships with athletics, many mid-majors are making efforts to follow suit, while others are content to wait and see.
Special thanks to Dan Wyar, Elon University’s Director of Communications for providing our feature image.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.