At the 2003 NCAA Convention, Division II Proposal No. 33 sailed to approval after the briefest of debates.

After only a couple of minutes of discussion, delegates adopted the amendment to Bylaw 15 to exempt certain kinds of state educational grants from Division II individual and financial aid limits. In the words of one administrator, "It just kind of flew by without giving anybody a hiccup."

The lopsided vote suggested that the issue is not controversial, and in fact no related problems have flared since the legislation became effective last August. Yet, those who opposed the proposal continue to believe that the division stepped down a perilous path when it approved the change. At a minimum, the vote raised interesting questions about where the line is to be found between the often-conflicting concepts of student-athlete welfare and competitive equity.

The rule in question, Bylaw 15.2.4.1-(k), added state government grants to nine other grants that are not included when determining the permissible amount of a full grant-in-aid or cost of attendance for a student-athlete. Specifically, the bylaw exempts "state government grants received by a student-athlete as part of a program in which academic ability and/or financial need are the primary criteria and which have no relationship to athletics ability."

All of the other exemptions previously listed under Bylaw 15.2.4.1 were available to student-athletes in all 50 states, either because they described federal programs (Pell Grants, for example) or programs administered by all 50 states (state welfare benefits).

But not every state offers the state government grants described in Bylaw 15.2.4.1.(k). As a result, institutions in states that don't have such programs may believe that their ability to compete will be compromised over the long term as they have less financial aid to offer than institutions in bordering states.

Too much leeway

That have-vs.-have-not scenario created friction among institutions from a number of states as the issue was considered in 2002 and 2003. Those who finished on the losing side of the proposal appear to have little interest in resurrecting the issue at this time, but they remain convinced that they were right.

"I fought this really hard because I thought it was totally wrong," said Don Parham, director of athletics at Southeastern Oklahoma State University, which is located about 15 miles from the Texas state line. "It involves huge amounts of money, in the millions."

Parham's special concern involves the TEXAS (Toward Excellence, Access and Success) Grant Program. Almost any prospective student-athlete from Texas can qualify for the grant, he said, since it has minimal requirements involving residency, high-school graduation and financial need.

"The point is that the institution receives the bulk money from the state, and they determine who gets the grants," he said. "Now, that leaves a lot of leeway for a school that is overly athletically ambitious -- and you know there are some animals like that in the country. If they really want to use that money to enhance their athletics program, they can do it because a lot of kids qualify one way or the other."

The perspective is different at Augusta State University, where Athletics Director Clint Bryant endorses the benefits of the Georgia Hope Scholarship Program. That program, supported by state-lottery money, provides a grant to a Georgia college or university for any Georgia high-school graduate who has achieved a cumulative grade-point average of at least 3.000 in a specified curriculum. Similar programs are being established in other states, including neighboring Tennessee.

"I know the Hope Scholarships have had a tremendous impact on our state," Bryant said. "They were set up to help kids who would not necessarily be able to afford college. Any school in the state of Georgia can take advantage of the Hope Scholarships, whether they are public or private. So as long as it's for everybody and state-supported, I have no problems."

In fact, those who support the legislation consistently observe that it provides educational funding for student-athletes that otherwise would not be available. In Convention debate in support of Proposal No. 33, Paul Engelmann, faculty athletics representative at Central Missouri State University, said: "We think that it's a student-athlete welfare issue."

But while Bright Flight grants may benefit Missouri students, they do nothing for their neighbors in Kansas, said Emporia State University Athletics Director Kent Weiser. Not only can Kansas students not access similar state benefits, Weiser said they are disadvantaged by having to compete against a number of athletes who were recruited with larger financial aid packages.

"Saying this is about student-athlete welfare is a complete cop-out," said Weiser, who noted that his institution would feel better about the legislation had it been written differently.

"We had no problem with it not counting on the team limit, but we do have a problem if it also doesn't count on the individual limit," he said.

"The reason for that is when we look at Division II, who gets the full scholarships? You're talking basketball and a few football players. When it doesn't count on team limits, it's just noncountable aid, so you're not penalized for it, your teams aren't and it's good for the kid.

"But in those rare instances where it only affects student-athletes you're giving a full grant to anyhow, if it would count against individual limits, what you would do is take that money and give it to somebody else."

Athletics-ability factor

That's one concern. Another is that the money may end up being inappropriately directed based on athletics ability even though the legislation expressly bans athletics ability as a consideration in determining whether the awards are permissible.

"I know there are some states that are really struggling with this," Bryant said, "and I think that's more a problem where the awards are given to a selected number of students and athletes are being inappropriately placed in those numbers. There's been some concern that athletes were being given advantages over non-athletes."

That describes a major concern of Parham, the Southeastern Oklahoma State athletics director.

"I've heard the athletic directors say, 'We don't have anything to do with who gets it,' " Parham said. "And technically, they shouldn't. But if the registrar is the brother-in-law of the coach or a close friend, or if the president is overly interested in the athletics program to the point where he's willing to stretch it a little, with that money floating around to pay for tuition and an institution having the leeway to decide who gets it, there's no question that makes a difference."

That may be true, said Kim Vinson, senior woman administrator at Cameron University, but it's also an enforcement issue that shouldn't be confused with the core question of whether such aid is proper.

"Given the details of how those grants come about and how they are administered on campus, it has pretty much alleviated any of my fears," said Vinson, a member of the Division II Legislation Committee. "I don't think there is any way that athletics administration can dictate who's going to get those grants. It's like that old adage: 'If you're going to cheat, you're going to cheat.' If your financial aid office is going to manipulate dollars, then it's going to manipulate dollars."

Although the issue seems to be regional since it pits neighboring states against one another, Emporia State's Weiser said the question has national ramifications.

"It's regional in some aspects -- certainly it's a regional issue in Kansas and Missouri," he said. "But Texas has it and Oklahoma doesn't. And we recruit kids from Texas, too.

"When you're talking about surrounding states, it's not too far of a stretch for it to become a national issue just because it already affects eight or nine states that are close to us."

When the matter is examined in the media, the publicity surrounding the benefits of the grants is typically positive. A recent story in the Chattanooga (Tennessee) Times praised how that state's Hope Scholarship has assisted that institution's Division I wrestling program. "I was considering UTC," said one recruit, "but this is really what pushed me over the edge to go there. It's like, 'OK, I'm getting $3,000 to go anywhere in state. Why not to go UTC?"

That certainly sounds like student-athlete welfare at its best, but Parham said that there are times when athletics is best viewed collectively.

"If you're going to say on the one hand that anything you do that keeps an athlete from getting some help is bad, then you're saying that that overrides the competition aspect," he said. "And I don't think you can do that in athletics.

"There's only so much aid there, and everybody has to have the same amount. If they don't, the field's not level. And so you start finding ways to channel money to athletics and it doesn't count and the institution has something to say about who gets what, then the competitive aspect went out the door under the guise of 'We've got to do everything we can for the student-athlete.'

"But you can only do everything you can for the student-athlete as long as you don't lose the competitive equality of the whole thing."

It's too early to tell if this new legislation will tilt the "level playing field," but it's not too early to say that people will be paying attention to its effect over the long haul.