Imagine for a moment the life of a champion collegiate athlete:
Day after day, countless hours are devoted to a pristine balance of athletics and academics. Drive and enthusiasm on the court, track or field is matched only by the perseverance in classroom activities demanded by scholarship contracts. For nine months of the year, you work to uphold the pride of your team, your university and your sport. Now imagine that, despite months of dedication, there is no guarantee your athletic scholarship will be renewed for the following year.
New scholarship regulations adopted by the NCAA in August of 2012 were implemented to reduce the cause of such uncertainty for college athletes. Previously, student athletes were liable to scholarship review at the end of each academic year under a system of annual scholarship distribution. Now, the association has opened its doors to allow the distribution of multiyear scholarships to ensure the financial stability of athletes for up to five years.
So, what does this mean for the University of Oregon? Nothing yet. So far, the school hasn’t offered a single one.
James O’Fallon,@@directory@@ the UO faculty athletic representative to the NCAA, claims the UO is not withholding such awards from possible recipients — there simply doesn’t seem to be a strong incentive to switch scholarship styles.
“There’s very little difference between the level of scholarship results,” O’Fallon said. “My understanding is that (multiyear scholarships) haven’t caught on much of anywhere yet.”
According to an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education,@@checked link@@ the UO is not the only school hesitating. Of the two-thirds of Division-I schools currently offering these awards, very few athletes have received long-term aid packages. Other major sports schools, such as the University of Colorado and Oklahoma State University, have also opted out of offering multiyear scholarships this year.
One of the main reasons these scholarships are offered is to address the issue of unfair defunding of student athletes who meet their scholarship requirements but are at risk of the illegal denial of scholarship money and removal from a team due to coaching conflicts, injuries or a drop in performance level.
According to O’Fallon, the current financial aid appeals system in place at the UO effectively prevents the unfair denial of scholarships, rendering the biggest benefit of multiyear scholarships void.
“The background is that we don’t take away scholarships,” he said. “It’s been about 12 years since we’ve had a contested case over the removal of a scholarship.”
Under the current scholarship system, any student athlete who believes that his or her scholarship has been unfairly denied renewal has the opportunity to file an appeal before the Financial Aid Appeals Board, which is tasked with determining whether the student has been subjected to unfair discrimination.@@checked link@@ If the student does not find the committee’s ruling adequate, he or she can then file an appeal to the UO president for final consideration.
Despite the appeals system, UO biology professor Nathan Tublitz@@directory@@ believes the annual scholarship system puts too much power in the hands of the coaches and administration who review the applicant’s eligibility. What’s more, he believes the fickleness of annually renewing scholarships is an unnecessary stressor on student athletes. In his opinion, the constant doubt as to whether one’s scholarship will be renewed and the lengthy, tedious process of filing an appeal in the case of unfair renewal denial puts undue pressure on student athletes.
“These processes take a long time and put a lot of stress on the student, particularly if the student has been terminated inappropriately,” Tublitz said. “It’s much better to give them multiple years with a clause that says they can be terminated if they do something wrong.”
Ariana Williams,@@checked link@@ a senior studying English and a middle blocker for the UO volleyball team, considers annual scholarship awards motivational tools. Although she says she is intrinsically motivated to work hard and that she trusts her coaches not to deny her annual scholarship because of performance variability, she believes that for other athletes the threat of scholarship revocation is a necessary motivator to make an effort on the court and in the classroom.
“I just don’t think its very smart to give people four scholarships to come play at any school,” she said. “I feel like they’ll be comfortable, so they won’t really feel like they have to get after it.”
According to O’Fallon, the decision about whether or not to grant multiyear athletic scholarships ultimately rests with individual coaches; however, he doesn’t believe the UO is likely to adjust their current practices unless forced into change by recruitment practices.
“It will affect us a lot if schools start using the multiyear scholarship as a device for recruiting activity,” he said. “We’re likely to see schools that are a little bit farther down on the pecking order try to make up by offering longer scholarships to the most marketable recruits.”
Should these scholarships become a prominent recruiting tool, he believes the UO might have to revisit the issue of offering them to capable athletes; but for now, he maintains the athletic department is doing its best to ascertain the most beneficial scholarship policy for student athletes.
“I think the question that needs to be asked is, ‘From a student athlete’s welfare perspective, are (multiyear scholarships) really better or not?’” he said. “I think it’s a mixed message.”
