This year’s Most Valuable Player of the NCAA tournament, Shabazz Napier made headlines last week during the Final Four when he complained that he sometimes goes to bed “starving” because he can’t afford food. The NCAA responded Tuesday and have decided to expand meal allowances for all Division I athletes.
The NCAA also announced the decision to reduce the penalty for a student athlete’s first positive drug test. This rule will only be effective for those who fail drug tests in which the substance is something other than a performance-enhancing drug. The decision also changed the rule of a player failing a drug test during NCAA tournaments. Instead of the student athlete missing the entire next season, the new proposal would cut the penalty to only half a season.
These new rules not only apply to scholarship student athletes, but they apply to walk-on participants, as well. Although the legislative council approved the new rules on Tuesday, the NCAA board of directors still have to make the final decision. That meeting is scheduled to take place on April 24th.
Perhaps the decision of “unlimited meals” for Division I athletes can be viewed as being a little over the top. Currently, many Division I student athletes receive some sort of scholarship or at the very least, some sort of stipend deal. In my personal opinion, those who complain about “going hungry” at night are not using their school-funded scholarship funds appropriately.
There’s a certain point when the NCAA and universities around the country have to stop babying student-athletes. How are they ever going to grow up? I’ve had the opportunity to visit numerous colleges around the country and spend time with friends of mine who are Division I athletes. A continuous theme seems to be that many of these student athletes use a lot of their stipend money on some of the most expensive living villas offered on campus.
On top of not planning out their scholarship funds, numerous student athletes spend their money on clothes and different accessories. Today, tattoos have become more and more evident on student athletes bodies. Some tattoos cost hundreds of dollars depending on the size. So my question is if you have enough money to put ink all over your body, how do you not have the funds to get food if you’re hungry?
It’s hard to avoid the numerous eating opportunities these student athletes received prior to the new ruling. In fact, the NCAA previously had a bylaw that allowed schools to provide snacks such as fruits, bagels, and nuts to athletes. Each school that I visited had a variety of these offerings, and you would think if a player were “starving” he or she would at the very least have those snacks to choose from.
The argument on these new rulings could go on and on and to be quite honest there are valid points that come from both sides. However, I think many of these athletes need to spend a little more time managing their money. Who knows, maybe it would translate to professional athletes who seem to need financial practice most.
There's Always Next Year 
