Federal Ruling Could Stop Academic Bonuses (Commentary)

Remember those big, fat bonuses University of Arkansas coaches – and athletic director Jeff Long – collect based on what the Razorbacks do on their respective courts and fields?

Well, they just might be going the way of the dodo bird.

That’s according to Jennifer Harper and Gregg Clifton, authors of a story in Legal Issues in College Athletics, a newsletter that monitors “case law and legal developments at the intersection of sports and the higher education industry.”

It seems a recent ruling by the U.S. Department of Education prohibits schools participating under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 from paying incentive compensation based on securing student enrollments or financial aid. Title IV funds essentially are federal monies given to schools for financial aid.

Because coaches and other athletic department officials are active recruiters for the university, therefore, they are affected by the ruling as equally as an admissions officer. The DOE’s interpretation, according to Harper and Clifton, also expands the definition of “securing enrollment” to include incentive pay based on factors such as program completion and graduation rates.

In other words, Bobby Petrino and John Pelphrey might be kissing those $50,000 checks they received for their players’ academic performance during the 2009-2010 academic year bye-bye. Long, likewise, might be forced to come up with another trigger to help him get the $112,500 he pocketed last year.

“After July 1,” Harper said in a telephone interview, “things are going to be different.”

July 1 is the day the new rules go into effect, and you can bet UA counsel and other officials will be scrambling between now and then to figure out exactly what they mean. The UA, after all, doled out $112,950 in academic bonuses for the 2009-2010 academic year.

If you think that’s big money, Harper said it would be wise to consider the amount of Title IV funds some schools receive. Those are the funds a school might have to return if it is found guilty of breaking the new rules.

“We’re not talking about a fistful of dollars here. We’re talking about significant money,” Harper said, adding such a sum likely would be counted in millions, not thousands or tens of thousands.

The rub, of course, is coaches aren’t likely to be too thrilled about the possibility of eliminating the academic bonuses from their contracts. As Harper put it, any coach or administrator benefiting from academic bonuses probably won’t want to “undo what’s already done” in their contracts.

This is true despite the fact it’s hard to believe any coaches or athletic directors help players with calculus homework. Instead, the bet here is the schools that employ these types of bonuses will look for loopholes.

And, perhaps predictably, the federal government might have provided one. In the same ruling in which the DOE drew a line in regard to program completion and graduation rates, it left open the possibility of rewarding coaches – and administrators, presumably – for “team academic performance.”

Harper said team GPAs easily could fit under such an umbrella. Other, even less stringent guidelines, seem exceedingly plausible in a world in which former Georgia assistant coach Jim Harrick, Jr. once asked the following question on a Coaching Principles and Strategies of Basketball course exam: How many goals are on a basketball court?

Granted, such blatant flaunting of the rules isn’t likely. No school would subject itself to the backlash that surely would follow.

Schools will be forced to act, though, and soon. The reason is simple.

“What big-time school wants to become a test case for the Department of Education?” Harper said.