Courtside: The NCAA actually did something right — for the most part

I never thought I’d say this, but the NCAA actually made the right call.

Monday’s ruling to grant spring-sport student-athletes an extra year of eligibility represented one of the few times I can remember in which the organization actually seemed to care about the collective interests of its athletes. The issue of extended eligibility wasn’t as black -and -white as many gave it credit for, and the NCAA’s decision acknowledges that complexity, balancing the concerns of student-athletes with the obvious financial ramifications for schools. 

There was plenty of speculation surrounding the NCAA’s decision in the days and weeks leading up to Monday’s announcement. Would eligibility relief be extended exclusively to seniors? What would happen with roster sizes and scholarships? Would the NCAA give any relief at all? 

In granting the extra year, though, it chose to properly consider the needs of athletes that had been stripped of well over half their season because of the coronavirus pandemic. Seniors can now go out on their own terms — nobody is robbed of a year of competition and, because of roster size and scholarship number expansions, incoming freshmen will bear a minimal burden.

It’s not a total win for student-athletes, however. A key caveat in the NCAA’s ruling is that those who would have exhausted their eligibility this year and choose to return for their additional year won’t be guaranteed their full scholarships — in fact, far from it. Schools have the authority to decide on a case-by-case basis how much aid that student should receive next year, whether that’s the full amount they awarded last year or no aid at all. That figure will certainly be a significant factor in almost every athlete’s decision on whether to stay or move on.

From the perspective of student-athletes, it’s not perfect. Yes, they have the option to redeem the year that was taken away from them, but it’ll come at a price that’s out of their control.

From the perspective of the NCAA and individual schools, it’s a necessary detail.

Like just about every other business in the United States, universities are poised to face significant financial repercussions as a result of the pandemic. Last Thursday, the NCAA announced that it would distribute $225 million to its various Division I programs in June — out of an original $600 million budgeted. My sympathy for the organization that knocks on the door of $1 billion in revenue each year is slim, but there’s an obvious ripple effect felt by athletic departments when the NCAA isn’t profiting at its usual standards. 

Combine that with the losses universities will undoubtedly face, and there simply won’t be much money to go around within athletic departments, especially considering the fact that less lucrative spring sports are typically financially supported by the school and not vice versa. Guaranteeing full scholarships to every returning senior just isn’t feasible, and even if it were, incoming and returning underclassmen would see their own aid reduced to balance it out. In that scenario, the entire recruiting landscape would be upended as athletes turn to schools where the financial opportunities are better — and there’s nothing schools could do about it. 

Thankfully, the NCAA avoided that. 

But the organization’s decision wasn’t perfect. Winter- sport student-athletes who had their seasons cut short are now officially done with their collegiate career. 

Eligibility relief for winter athletes was never a likelihood, but I have trouble understanding why. Sure, they only missed a small percentage of their season, but it was the part that they play for. They spent the entire season working toward their respective conference or NCAA tournament, and those parts — the most important ones — never happened. 

I understand it’s an easier call for spring athletes to receive an extra year than winter sports. But why not at least extend the latter the opportunity? They’d have the same reduced scholarship stipulation that spring athletes have, but it’s better to give them the option than nothing at all. 

At the very least, the NCAA should have accommodated seniors who missed out on championship competition and are ending their career on about as abrupt a note as possible. The long-term repercussions for underclassmen would have been minimal, as rosters could return to their original size in 2021 and athletes wouldn’t have to deal with crowding and a potential loss of playing time. 

But despite the NCAA making the wrong call in not offering any extra eligibility to winter athletes, the organization overall made the right decisions Monday.

And whenever the NCAA does that — as surprising as it may be — it’s worth appreciating.

Nathan Ackerman is a sophomore writing about sports and sociopolitics. He is also an associate managing editor of the Daily Trojan. His column, “Courtside,” typically runs every Friday.