Columnist Dean Juipe: NCAA weighs two drastic alterations

Dean Juipe

Tuesday, March 11, 2003 | 10:08 a.m.

Dean Juipe's column appears Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. His boxing notebook appears Thursday. Reach him at juipe@lasvegassun.com or (702) 259-4084.

Two of the most basic elements of college athletics are under review, and any changes that might be made will severely alter the nature of amateur competition at the higher-education level.

The suggestions seem drastic upon initial inspection, yet be aware that each has some momentum and both could find their way to reality within a reasonable period of time.

Like it or not, there are two moves afoot: one, to extend a collegiate athlete's term of eligibility from four years to five; and two, to pay athletes -- above the board -- for their services to their universities.

While most fans comprehend the play-for-pay issue and can picture a resolution to that tricky question within their lifetimes, very few people that I come in contact with are even remotely aware of this idea of granting athletes a fifth year of eligibility.

But something called the Football Issues Committee has drawn up a recommendation and passed it to a task force that will, in turn, compile its own report and forward it to the NCAA this summer. The gist of the initial report: athletes will be eligible to compete in their given sports an additional year.

As if four years isn't enough.

Here's what I suspect is behind this dumb idea: With graduation rates tumbling, the NCAA is considering lowering the bar and not only allowing athletes a fifth year of sports but a fifth year to complete their studies.

If this item passes, it will be without a groundswell of public support. Best I can tell, college fans enjoy the turnover of their favorite teams' personnel and no one seems enamored of the concept of having athletes stick around into their mid-20s. (Or, in BYU's case, mid-30s.)

Yet don't put it past the NCAA Division I Management Council to OK this proposal when it reaches its desk 13 months from now. While a similar proposal was withdrawn when the issue was first explored at the committee level in 1994, this time there actually seems to be some sentiment within the athletic community to make this jaw-dropping alteration.

If the rule was already in effect, the UNLV basketball team, for instance, could look forward to having Dalron Johnson back for a fifth year next season. The fact that he would be approaching middle age and should, instead, be out in mainstream society earning a living is beside the point.

How about a sixth year, or a seventh? Where does it end?

Comparatively, it's easier to make a strong case for paying collegiate athletes than it is to allow them to play five seasons. And the play-for-pay advocates have managed to bring the subject before the state legislatures in both Nebraska and Texas, where a stipend of $200 per month for a college athlete is being considered despite its NCAA obstacles.

The debate over whether college athletes deserve a piece of the financial pie has been going on forever and likely has a few years yet to run. Proponents and opponents alike can make strong cases supporting their views.

But, if anything, the subject is slowly coming to a head and will, at some point, be reviewed and permanently resolved.

My only hope: Whenever the NCAA finalizes its position on this matter, the athletes it immediately affects won't be perceived as old-timers in need of a handout.