The NCAA just approved a new constitution last Thursday, but those hoping for immediate change shouldn't hold their breath. Let's talk about what the newest policy changes could mean for college athletes.
First, the constitution may have been approved last week, but it doesn't go into effect until August. The benefit to this is that current college athletes don't have to worry about even more change coming this spring amid ever-changing COVID regulations. Until then, it's unclear exactly which changes will be made.
Related: Are Disparities of Recruiting During Covid-19 Affecting Athletes?
More Autonomy to the Divisions, Conferences, and Schools
The new constitution, which was drafted in December, grants the divisions, conferences, and member schools greater autonomy. This could involve policy changes in areas such as academic eligibility; governing structure and benefits; name, image, and likeness policies; and rule enforcement.
One of the more notable changes is at the division level: each division can choose which sports in which it will conduct national championships. This seems to mean that the policy change could lead to division-wide cuts of some sports in the future, should the divisions choose not to sponsor certain championships and relegate some sports to the club level, or move them to another division. For instance, if Division I decides they don't want to sponsor track and field championships, that sport could be moved to the Division II or Division III level. The NCAA is still responsible for hosting championships.
Related: Constitutional Convention Central: What College Athletes Need to Know
More Athlete Representation
The NCAA has been promising more athlete representation in decision-making, and they delivered in part: the new Board of Governor's structure, which will shrink from 21 to 9 members, must include one former college athlete who has graduated within the past four years. The NCAA also says that the Board will be chosen “with due attention to diversity and gender equity.”
Even so, the section specifically addressing college athletes was the shortest, clocking in at only half of a page. Although it said “Student-athletes shall have voting representation on the NCAA Board of Governors, Division I Board of Directors, and Division II and Division III Presidents Councils,” other than the Board of Directors, it was unclear about how much influence will be afforded to college athletes.
Finally, representation from Historically Black Colleges and Universities is still lacking. George Bright, athletic director at Elizabeth City State, criticized this oversight, as HBCUs are recognized in some authority positions, but only in non voting capacities: “When you marginalize the H.B.C.U. vote, you marginalize our opportunity,” Bright said during the convention. And Bright isn't the only one offering criticisms of the new constitution.
Related: The HBCU Experience: Coaches Panel by 2aDays
DII and DIII Reps Not Happy
Although the constitution was passed with 801 representatives voting in favor, 195 against, and 20 abstaining, not everyone was happy, especially the representatives in Division II and Division III. This is in part because the NCAA's new constitution only offers them 4.37% and 3.18%, respectively, of operating revenue sources, the same percentage that they have recieved since 1996, back when the NCAA first enacted its current revenue-sharing plan. The plan redistributes profits from the annual March Madness tournament to member schools. Considering that roughly 80% of DIII athletic programs are housed at private schools that receive no federal funding, it's easy to see why the NCAA's paltry handout wasn't well-received by everyone.
There's also the fact that the NCAA is essentially just passing much of its responsibility off to the divisions, conferences, and member schools, so, as Hiram Chodosh, president of Division III Claremont McKenna College, so aptly states: “There's no real transformative change in this document.”
Have an idea for a story or a question you need answered? Want to set up an interview with us? Email us at [email protected]
* Originally published on January 24, 2022, by Katie Lever, Ph. D
