The Division I Financial Aid Cabinet is considering a change in the way need-based aid factors into institutional totals as part of a comprehensive review of the division’s financial aid bylaws.

Charged by the Division I Board of Directors with reviewing NCAA legislation for potential cost savings while also enhancing student-athlete well-being, cabinet members are exploring changes in the way need-based aid is tallied – perhaps allowing student-athletes to accept either institutional or athletics aid, whichever is greater, without negatively affecting team totals.  In September, the group will look at how that concept and others would work legislatively and begin generating membership discussion with an eye toward crafting legislative proposals within the next year.

The cabinet will consider a broad range of possible changes that could influence the financial aid model, including changing what it means to be a recruited student-athlete or a counter.

Cabinet Chair Grace Calhoun, senior associate athletics director at Indiana, said the time is perfect for a review that would emphasize student-athlete well-being while also relieving financial strain on athletics departments. Various groups in the governance structure have reviewed the financial aid model in recent years (particularly in 2002), but this will be the first extensive review of the system in a decade.

Cabinet members last month heard from about a dozen financial aid administrators who believed that assigning aid to student-athletes was complicated by NCAA rules regarding different forms of aid. Those rules pertain to institution-, state- and federal-based aid and grants and scholarships from outside sources.

The circumstance is made more complicated by the fact that some student-athletes prefer to accept athletics aid over need-based aid in order to be perceived as “an NCAA scholarship student-athlete.” For example, if a prospective student-athlete was qualified for more need-based aid but was offered a nominal athletics scholarship, the prospect might be tempted to accept the athletics money because of the prestige factor.

Calhoun said she was struck by survey results from the financial aid community that the Division I athletics culture sometimes puts student-athletes in an awkward position when they are deciding to accept minimal athletics aid or apply for need-based aid, which can often be more comprehensive. Also, student-athletes with a demonstrated need often turn it down because of NCAA rules that would make them “counters” (in head count sports) or count against team financial aid limits. Many of those rules were put in place to ensure competitive equity.

“In so much of what we do, we try to make sure that student-athletes are integrated and have a comparable experience to other students,” Calhoun said. “We want to place a premium on student-athlete well-being and treat student-athletes consistently with the general student body.”

Not only do the economic downturn and a focus on student-athlete well-being play a part in any revisions to the way Division I regulates financial aid, the revamped governance structure also allows for the Financial Aid Cabinet  to spend more time on an issue that might not have gotten as much attention in the old structure. When the structure was reorganized in 2008, the cabinets and councils were told to “think globally.” They were instructed to think less about how legislative changes would affect individual institutions or conferences – an adjustment that allays some concerns about financial aid changes that some believe could impact the competitive balance in Division I.

The review also is prudent, given the economy, since scholarships represent such a large percentage of athletics departments budgets in Division I (ranging from about 17 percent in the Football Bowl Subdivision to nearly 30 percent for Division I schools without football). Calhoun said changing the financial aid model could provide some welcomed relief.

 “When you look at the financial aid conversation, we have to get people there philosophically,” Calhoun said. “Do they agree with keeping student-athlete well-being at the forefront? Do they want to make sure that everyone who wants and is qualified to pursue higher education has that opportunity? Can we get people feeling like these are just the basic things we should stand for?

“We have to get people to think in different ways. And once we do, I think we can make some meaningful changes.”