Delegates at the NCAA Convention just passed several pieces of groundbreaking and progressive legislation.
The first significant bill will allow potential college athletes to pursue other activities before entering college, whereas before, certain specific actions prevented athletes from entering college.
Essentially what this means is that kids graduating from high school can try to play professionally, and if that does not work out, they can return to college and regain some eligibility.
For each year they spend in the pros, they lose one year of collegiate eligibility.
So players like Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, or Jaret Wright would not be able to return to college, players like Al Harrington and Jonathan Bender conceivably could (although they would not have a full four years of eligibility.)
The second significant piece of legislation deals with athletic financial aid, allowing “educational expenses, paid directly to the preparatory or private schools, from entities other than an agent, professional sports team or organization or booster.”
This seems to imply that certain people will be allowed to give the athletes money in some for or fashion.
Two key phrases will determine the outcome of this bill: “education expenses” and “paid directly to school?”
What exactly constitutes an “educational expense?”
Does this include housing or meals?
Could it simply be a school account, accessible with an I.D. card (like our I.D. Bucs system?)
Secondly, “paying directly to the school” is ambiguous, for it depends on the purpose of the expense.
Is the athlete using the money for food or books?
In either case, if he buys from the school does this legitimize the action?
In the next several months, Division II will be asked to rule on several key precedents that will determine the true meaning of these rules.
I applaud the NCAA for its perception in the first rule.
Asking a high school student senior to make an irreversible decision – go pro or go to college – is not only unfair, it is stupid.
How on earth is he/she supposed to know whether or not he/she is capable of playing in the professional game, when every pro coach is saying he/she can play and every college coach is saying he/she can not?
I think this rule will create a significant rise in the number of non-traditional student athletes; young men, who after a year or two of minor league baseball or basketball in Europe to return to college and realize collegiate athletic prominence.
Collegiate sports as a whole will benefit from this returning talent and the level of play will hopefully rise.
However, it is important to acknowledge all of the possible implications of this law.
More athletes will attempt to play professionally – after all, they can always return to college.
If more attempt, more will succeed; logically, the most talented will succeed in the professional game and forgo college.
Ultimately, this will result in a loss of collegiate stars, for those young men who really can perform at a level above their peers will conceivably be playing professionally, having attempted it and succeeded.
Thus, the average viewer will see more parity in the college name; admittedly parity at a high level of play, due to the ex-pros, but the lack of “stars” will create a large number of fairly equal teams.
I’m not sure if this is what the college fan really wants to see.
Hence, it ultimately comes down to the perspective one chooses to look from; if you are a failed professional or a talented high school athlete, this law is great new; it gives you a second chance.
However, if you are a college fan, you may not be happy about this law (although if you are a pro fan, you probably are.)
The success or failure of the second law will depend primarily on the governing committee’s interpretation of the aforementioned clauses.
If the committee is inclined to be lenient and loose minded, the rule could be a groundbreaking insight that may provide the first step towards keeping athletes in school.
If the rule is strictly enforced and narrowly interpreted, then it is simply a restatement of the regulations as they currently exist.
However, I do feel that the existence of this law demonstrates the realization of a key issue in collegiate sports.
How should the player be compensated?
After all, it is his work, his practice, and his talent that make the games entertainment and he sees almost none of the profit.
Admittedly, he/she has a scholarship, (probably,) but increasingly, athletes are asking more, and they may be justified.
In fact, one can make a case that the athlete is already denied some recompense because it is his/her efforts that make the game.
One last important caveat; all of this is merely academic until Division I makes its decision on

Author