BIRMINGHAM, Alabama -- NCAA members somehow managed to turn letting athletes negotiate better scholarship deals into Bush v. Gore.

Lose the popular vote, win the election. Please don't tell us there are now hanging chads.

The NCAA's multiyear scholarship rule, even if it's more symbolic than substantive, is one whose time had come again. The option -- and it's just that, not a requirement -- is here to stay after the override vote failed Friday.

Critics needed 207 of the 330 votes by schools and conferences, a five-eighths majority, to overturn the rule approved by the Division I board of directors in October. They got 205. Another 25 didn't vote. According to the Bylaw Blog, of the 82 schools that requested the override, 14 changed their votes and three didn't vote.


Jon Solomon is a columnist for The Birmingham News. Join him for live web chats on college sports on Wednesdays at 2 p.m.
Think about this. The NCAA had to drag the majority of schools kicking and screaming to allow the choice of providing more security to athletes, who all but surrender their first-born son when signing the National Letter of Intent.

Auburn said it voted against the override and supports multiyear scholarships. Alabama and UAB didn't respond with their votes. Samford voted for the override.

"It's a PR thing, that's all this is," Samford Athletics Director Martin Newton said. "It's a way for the NCAA to make themselves look like they have the student-athlete's best interest at heart."

And that's wrong why?

Athletes sign one-year, renewable scholarships. That can be a problem when some schools oversign, or when a new coach "cuts" a player whose only blemish is he doesn't fit what the new guy wants on the field.

Newton said he has no problem giving multiyear scholarships and that Samford will. "I think most of the votes against this rule are due to the NCAA forcing things down schools' throats without going through the proper channels to get legislation passed," he said.

The continuing fractured relationship between the board and its membership could be the most significant news from this vote. It bears watching.

Newton said most coaches -- "not all, but most" -- do not run off players who are good kids. Coaches want those good kids in locker rooms, he said, even if they're not contributing.

I believe that. But in all walks of life rules get created to protect those who need it against the minority who do things the wrong way, and this was no different.

There's a misperception that multiyear scholarships will leave coaches forever stuck with lazy troublemakers. Not true.

Write in common-sense provisions, just as coaches have morality clauses. Bad behavior, breaking rules and failing drug tests can and should still be reasons to non-renew multiyear scholarships.

Another complaint: Athletes should have scholarships reviewed annually like academic scholarships. Using what barometer?

Academic scholarships are usually reviewed annually based on classroom performance, such as grade-point averages. What benchmark do you use to evaluate a player buried on the depth chart? How many "voluntary" workouts he missed? A coach's word when he oversigns and needs a scholarship?

Also, universities don't change academic missions overnight. More journalism students don't suddenly get cut to recruit more business majors. There's no installation of the spread offense in academics that leaves a student high and dry.

Then there's the concern from Boise State, which said in its override request that recruits will face more complicated decisions when considering the best deal. So says the school that struck the best deals to change conferences twice in two years.

The NCAA had to pass multiyear scholarships, if for no other reason than to alleviate pressure from the government. USA Today reported that the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust division has remained interested in whether the one-year scholarship restriction prevents schools from competing for the best players.

Interestingly, the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee opposed multiyear scholarships. So did Samford's SAAC athletes.

"They felt it took the incentive away from the coach to hold over the student-athlete who maybe wasn't as dedicated to their sport," Newton said.

Fair concern. But if NCAA members want us to believe their enterprise encompasses much more than cashing checks, let coaches do a better job evaluating who they sign and use playing time to motivate them in college.

Keep their education out of it.

Because they don't. Like the "stronger" sanctions thing, it's just a "we feel better about ourselves" thing.

I heard on the radio that bama, lsu, and UT were the only ones that voted against it.

Personally I would have voted against too. These kids are not "owed" a scholarship. They have to earn their way in, and they have to perform to stay. They aren't regular students who have to scrape by. They have a free education and all the perks of a rock star while in school and I am supposed to feel sorry for them because they got into school and got a case of the lazy ass and wouldn't put forth the effort? Now I'm stuck with him for 4 years? No thank you.

The "haves" will be against it and the "have-nots" will roll the dice and be for it.

The 4-year deal is an option for the school. If you don't want to give a 4 year scholly, then don't...............

Those who voted against it were voting that it should not be an option.

Quote:
"The NCAA's multiyear scholarship rule, even if it's more symbolic than substantive, is one whose time had come again. The option -- and it's just that, not a requirement -- is here to stay after the override vote failed Friday."

I personally think it should be an option that is left up to the individual school.

Why would anyone vote against it if it's only an option??? Hmmmmmmmmmm????????

Burbank, you have the floor. LOL

These recruits are given tutors, books, housing, food, every dang thing a normal kid would kill to have, and it's free. All they have to do is work hard, keep their grades up and make a real effort to perform on the field. The slackers that hunt trouble, lay out, and don't work hard don't deserve a guaranteed 4 year scholarship.

I think we can all agree that those with the attributes you name above do not deserve even a 1 year scholarship?

We know why. Because they will be forced to do it in order to combat the other schools that will inevitably do it.

Let's be honest...most of the kids wouldn't be in college minus their athletic talent. In my opinion the scholarships should be based on ACADEMIC performance, just like the rest of the student population.

For that matter, I'm not sure that we should have athletic scholarships at all.

But, but, but, there is one coach in the state that cited legal ramifications could ensue should the NCAA approve the 4 year deal.

And if he really thinks that legalities are a concern, then don't approve them at his school. Problem solved...................

He doesn't want to and doesn't want anyone else to either.

Bama, LSU, Tenn. and Texas A&M voted against it in the SEC. The Entire Big 12 voted against it. The only school that voted for it in the state of Alabama was Auburn. UAB, Samford, Bama, South Bama, JSU, Alabama A&M all voted against it as will.

I don't see a problem with it, they used to be four years back in the day. But, I think that if the school has to commit for 4 years, the players should as well. And, what about players that are there 5 years because of a red shirt?

Leaving it up to the schools to decide if they are going to do it and what parameters they are going to set for it is a mistake. If it is going to he done, it should be across the board and the parameters should be consistent from one school to the next.

I don't know why anyone would not vote for it. It is not like it says they players are absolutely getting it for 4 years, they still have to go to class, pass and not get arrested. Those are the things that usually get someone kicked off the team anyway.

Exactly.