April 30, 2005

Legislation would require S.C. schools to pay players

Tim Kelly points to proposed legislation that would require state colleges and universities in South Carolina to pay a monthly stipend of $350 to football and basketball players during the season. Two of the sponsors of the bill are high school football coaches who serve in the State House. The bill is vagueness epitomized.

The bill was introduced Thursday and referred to committee. The legislature will only meet for about another month before recessing until January. There is little chance that anything much will happen with this bill before then.

The bill itself asks more questions than it answers. It doesn't differentiate between various divisions for any sport and makes no mention of the NCAA or NAIA as a consideration for the level of each school. No provisions are made for baseball, which is a money-making sport at both Clemson and South Carolina.

Clemson and South Carolina have the only I-A football programs in the state. The I-AA schools affected for football would include: Coastal Carolina of the Big South, The Citadel of the Southern Conference, and S.C. State of the MEAC. Charleston Southern (Big South), Furman (SoCon) and Wofford (SoCon) would not be affected by this legislation since they are private schools. All D-II and D-III schools with football programs (as well as the one or two schools who are NAIA) appear to be private as well.

The flaws in this bill (aside from the realities of NCAA rules) are numerous. Clemson and South Carolina would be saddled with a burden that other ACC and SEC schools wouldn't have unless other states passed laws (in addition to NCAA rule changes.) Private schools in the state in I-AA and lower divisions won't be stuck spending the money that their in-state rivals will be stuck with (i.e. Wofford or Furman won't have to spend the money while The Citadel will even though they are in the same conference.)

The bill doesn't have a funding mechanism in place. This might be a small burden at places like Clemson or Carolina, but a very large one at smaller state schools - especially the ones that have men's and women's basketball but no football.

I'm sure some women would object to this bill because of Title IX considerations as well. It appears that this bill being filed this late was just an attempt to get the process started early for next year's session. If it makes it much further into the legislative process it would have to be heavily amended. If the bill doesn't pass by the end of that session it has to start over again.

The proposal appears to be a combination of grandstanding while calling attention to the issue. If the bill were to somehow get through the legislature and be signed by the Governor (without analogous legislation in numerous other states accompanied by NCAA rules changes) it would do nothing but hurt state schools in South Carolina by putting their NCAA status at risk.