Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    A Culture of Cybersecurity
    Opportunities in the Hard Sciences
    Career Preparation
Sign In
News

Coaches Offer Unfiltered Views of NCAA Scholarship Limits

By Brad Wolverton November 20, 2016

Do college athletes deserve a bigger share of the billions of dollars flowing into the five wealthiest conferences? And should the NCAA’s scholarship limits, which restrict athletic departments from financially assisting many athletes, be adjusted to meet more students’ needs?

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Do college athletes deserve a bigger share of the billions of dollars flowing into the five wealthiest conferences? And should the NCAA’s scholarship limits, which restrict athletic departments from financially assisting many athletes, be adjusted to meet more students’ needs?

Those were among the questions that a researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill asked thousands of coaches last year as part of a study of their views on athletic scholarships.

Of the 500-plus coaches who responded, more than half saw flaws in the NCAA’s system for awarding athletic aid. Some said it turns coaches, who are often handed a small pot of money to distribute among dozens of athletes, into “used-car salesmen,” haggling with recruits and their parents over the scarce dollars that institutions commit to certain sports.

But many coaches opposed giving athletes more money, preferring to spread small awards among many students to reduce the risk of “overpaying” for athletes who don’t work out.

About one of every five coaches who responded to the survey approved of compensating players in lieu of scholarships, with fewer agreeing that athletes should be allowed a share of the revenue their teams generate.

More than half of the respondents, who included head coaches and assistant coaches in 10 popular men’s and women’s sports, said they were satisfied or very satisfied with the distribution of scholarship dollars among sports at their institutions. (Nine out of 10 respondents were from nonrevenue sports, including swimming, track and field, and wrestling, which have smaller scholarship budgets than those in football and basketball.)

The wealthiest athletic departments, spurred by lawsuits arguing that the NCAA’s scholarship limits violate federal antitrust laws, have committed to spend more money on athletic aid. But the survey responses tell a different story — one in which some coaches said they disregard the financial needs of many athletes, talking them into attending for the smallest amount of scholarship money they’ll accept.

Such moves raised ethical concerns among a handful of survey respondents, who offered their unfiltered views in exchange for a promise of anonymity.

“We are in the era of big TV money, big salaries, and big business,” said a men’s track coach in the Southeastern Conference. “Yet we are using approximately 10 percent of our total budgets for scholarships.”

Others suggested that athletic departments were shortchanging students to protect their own self-interests.

ADVERTISEMENT

“If student-athlete welfare is truly important,” said a cross-country coach in the Atlantic Coast Conference, “why are we limiting opportunities for students to maximize financial opportunities” for colleges?

An ‘Archaic’ System

The NCAA allows coaches in just six sports — football, men’s and women’s basketball, women’s gymnastics, women’s tennis, and women’s volleyball — to guarantee full scholarships to their athletes.

In more than a dozen other sports — including baseball, lacrosse, and soccer — many athletes receive partial scholarships, which often don’t come close to covering their full cost of attendance.

The NCAA also places restrictions on the amount of academic or other non-athletic aid that athletes may receive. The limits, some of which have been in place for decades, are designed to promote competitive balance and help control costs.

If the NFL only needs a 53-man roster plus seven practice players, why does college football need 85 full-scholarship players?

Jonathan A. Teich, an assistant director of development at High Point University, conducted the survey as part of his master’s-program research at Chapel Hill.

ADVERTISEMENT

Coaches who responded were critical of colleges that had found ways to provide more aid to athletes outside of sports scholarships. A wrestling coach in the Big Ten Conference lamented that many universities give in-state tuition waivers or large financial-aid packages to complement their athletic aid, providing athletes with an unfair advantage in recruiting.

“You hate to keep scholarships away from student-athletes,” the wrestling coach wrote, “but perhaps there is a set limit worth of scholarships and academic aid a team can get.”

Many coaches complained about the NCAA’s “archaic” scholarship system, which places some of its greatest limits on sports that have the largest number of participants. Track and field, the second-most-popular boys’ high-school sport outside of football — and the most popular girls’ sport — receives a small number of scholarships relative to its participants.

The average Division I track team has about 40 men’s and 40 women’s athletes. The NCAA allows teams to provide the equivalent of 18 scholarships for women and 12.6 for men, meaning that dozens of athletes get little or no athletic aid.

ADVERTISEMENT

Football teams at the highest NCAA level, on the other hand, are allowed to give 85 full scholarships. That’s the equivalent of nearly four full rides for every starting position. The disparity galled many coaches who participated in the survey.

“If the NFL only needs a 53-man roster plus seven practice players,” wrote a women’s track coach in the Big 12 Conference, “why does college football need 85 full-scholarship players?”

Several coaches proposed reducing football scholarships to 65, which would still give full rides to a 22-man starting squad and roughly two back-up players at each position. Such a change, which is in line with what lower-level Division I football programs are allowed to offer, would help athletic departments free up money for talented athletes in other sports.

It would also lead to a less frustrating distribution of aid, said one Big Ten coach.

ADVERTISEMENT

“To give an athlete a full ride to be a practice player in one sport while asking an all-American in another sport to pay 50 percent of his bill,” the coach said, “makes little sense.”

‘Earning Your Money’

Many coaches said they would like more scholarships but not necessarily more fulls. They said the partial-scholarship model works to their benefit.

It eliminates the “wastefulness” of every athlete’s receiving a full award, said one Big Ten swimming coach, who proposed eliminating full scholarships in all sports. “That way we could cut out all the athletes who are undeserving of a full scholarship.”

When athletes are guaranteed a full award upfront, one SEC track coach said, some “just quit working and sit on their money.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Awarding partial scholarships allows coaches to try out a variety of athletes without making much of a financial commitment, the SEC coach said. Those scholarships also let players work their way up the ladder.

“This creates a healthy atmosphere of earning your money on the team,” he said. “Not the everyone-gets-a-trophy mentality that has made athletes soft.”

Many coaches proposed ideas for simplifying scholarships or tying them solely to educational costs. A softball coach in the Big Ten Conference suggested that most scholarships be tuition-only, in part so more athletes have to shoulder part of the cost of college.

“It’s important that players and families have skin in the game,” she said. “Anything which is free is diminished in value.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Mr. Teich, the researcher, proposed nine alternative scholarship models for coaches to consider, borrowing several ideas from Kate Kantor, a fellow master’s student in North Carolina’s sports-administration program. Two of the most popular ideas, supported by half or more of the coaches, would allow athletic departments to allocate scholarships based on the average roster size for each sport, formulas that would give many coaches more aid to offer.

Despite their support for new approaches, coaches seemed resigned to the current system, which one ACC baseball coach said favored university cost containment over the needs of players.

In the current system, he wrote, “I see few advantages for the student-athletes."— b.w.

A version of this article appeared in the November 25, 2016, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Athletics
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
Brad Wolverton
About the Author
Brad Wolverton
Former senior writer Brad Wolverton covered college athletics at The Chronicle beginning in 2005, focusing on the confluence of money and sports on campus. His research highlighted allegations of academic misconduct, reports of coaches’ meddling in medical decisions, and concerns about a rapid rise in athletics donations.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

The Myth of the Sports Scholarship
At Least 15 Athletics Programs to Offer More Than $4,000 in Extra Aid to Athletes

More News

Harvard University
'Deeply Unsettling'
Harvard’s Battle With Trump Escalates as Research Money Is Suddenly Canceled
Photo-based illustration of a hand and a magnifying glass focusing on a scene from Western Carolina Universiy
Equal Opportunity
The Trump Administration Widens Its Scrutiny of Colleges, With Help From the Internet
Santa J. Ono, president of the University of Michigan, watches a basketball game on the campus in November 2022.
'He Is a Chameleon'
At U. of Michigan, Frustrations Grew Over a President Who Couldn’t Be Pinned Down
Photo-based illustration of University of Michigan's president Jeremy Santa Ono emerging from a red shape of Florida
Leadership
A Major College-President Transition Is Defined by an About-Face on DEI

From The Review

Photo-based illustration of a college building under an upside down baby crib
The Review | Opinion
Colleges Must Stop Infantilizing Everyone
By Gregory Conti
Photo illustration of Elon Musk and the Dome of the U.S. Capitol
The Review | Opinion
On Student Aid, It’s Congressional Republicans vs. DOGE
By Robert Gordon, Jordan Matsudaira
Photo-based illustration of a closeup of a blue-toned eye with a small hand either pushing or pulling a red piece of film over the top
The Review | Essay
We Don’t Need More Administrators Inspecting Our Ideas
By Nicolas Langlitz

Upcoming Events

Ascendium_06-10-25_Plain.png
Views on College and Alternative Pathways
Coursera_06-17-25_Plain.png
AI and Microcredentials
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin