More advantages for the BCS schools?

I thought about starting this under the "NCAA pres is a pansy" thread but figured it needed its own. Have ya'll seen this yet?



http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6564134" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



"...Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said league athletic directors and officials have seriously discussed whether they should use some of their growing TV revenue to pay athletes more..."



Apparently they want to be able to pay more for the athletes living expenses. I'm not opposed to the idea itself necessarily. In fact, I think that there definitely needs to be a re-evaluation of the system and what the athletes should be entitled to. However, I've never been and never will be in favor of paying athletes outright. But this is the part that chaps my hide...



"Delany stressed that the Big Ten was merely at the discussion stage, but he added the league is interested in talking to other conferences to see if they also favor such a plan. He acknowledged many schools and conferences across the country couldn't afford to cover those additional expenses, which could run about $300,000 a year just for football and men's basketball players alone.



But some Big Ten officials say if they can help out their athletes, then the concept of using the same rules for all teams should be abandoned. Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said the stakes are simply higher for schools like his than for those in the MAC or Sun Belt.



"The reality is, if there's cost of attendance and you can't afford it, don't do it," Smith said. "The teams you're trying to beat can't do it either. Don't do it because Ohio State's doing it. That's one of the things schools at that level get trapped into thinking.""



More "little sisters of the poor" thinking here. 'Well if they can't afford to do it, why should that stop us?' Above all, it should be fair across the board. If passed, this would just be one more way the "power schools" would ensure their dominion... by being able to offer just a little (or a lot in many cases) more than the next school fighting for the scraps. There are certain things that can't be controlled, like the perceived value of your education. For example, a paid education at OSU carries more value than a paid education at say UCF. But when one university starts paying extra cash to their students, that doesn't seem exactly fair here. As long as we're so strict on the Title IX rule of equality amongst the sexes, let's be sure we keep the equality between the schools too.



And here's another thing, a lot of these athletes aren't exactly hurting for money anyway. And if they really are, then maybe they need to think about adjusting their priorities, like spending a little less on 'bling' and a little more on their other living expenses. What's more, most of the athletes I've known have been put up in some pretty posh places. I'm sure the universities don't exactly scrimp on the money they pay for rent. I'd be fine with athletes getting a set amount of money for all their living expenses. Then it's up to them how they spend it. If they need more money for their wardrobe, then they are going to have to find a cheaper place to rent. If they want to live in a sweet crib, then they're going to have to cut back on their party costs. If they want to eat out more, then they better learn how to use coupons like the rest of us did as students. This is all part of the experience of learning how to become a responsible adult.



I realize the big business that NCAA athletics have become but most college-age kids have to work to help pay for their education, or the very least for their living expenses, spending money, etc. Athletes are getting their education paid for so they have that over the rest of the students. That can be anywhere from $1500 to $10,000 a semester (and let's not be fooled to think it ends there - they get a lot of other perks and things too as well as a per diem I believe) And then, how do you distinguish between the men's football/basketball player and the rest of the athletes on campus who put in just as much time as the "revenue producing" athletes? This is a can of worms that cannot be opened. If the NCAA is smart (lots of evidence to the contrary) they won't touch this at all. And they'll be sure to keep the Big Ten from doing so too. Otherwise, I foresee a lot more of congress intervening.

I think what you're going to see is the BCS programs are eventually going to secede from the NCAA and create their own governing body. Where they can pretty much do what they want.

While I agree with the sentiment spiff, I don't see it happening. I work for a school and the accreditation of the school means everything. We have all kinds of policies to avoid even come close (law of moses?) to appearing like we're doing anything that would jeopardize our accreditation. The accreditation of these universities would be in serious jeopardy, ie everybody's degrees from those schools mean absolutely nothing. If they begin to be appear to be more focused on athletics than they are on education (hard not to see some of these schools as being such alreadby), regional accrediting bodies will do some serious evaluation of whether or not they want to continue to say that those schools are under their umbrella of "education approval". Not sure I would pay OSU, for example, their $9,420 (for residents) or $23,604 (for non-residents) tuition every year to get my degree that won't count for much if anything and I'm almost $40,000 (or worse, nearly $100,000) in debt for it. I think they're in a good place for now, no pressure from the NCAA or anybody that can actually force change, and they'll continue to milk this cow as long as possible.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I think what you're going to see is the BCS programs are eventually going to secede from the NCAA and create their own governing body. Where they can pretty much do what they want.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. There has a been a big influx of D2 schools switch over to D1 and there really is a huge difference between the small schools and the BCS. That's not saying there aren't instances where DII or even lower level DI schools don't beat BCS teams, that's part of what playing sports is all about...the underdog beating the bigdog. I would never include BYU in that characterization because regardless of our standing we are a BCS level school, but how do you equate schools with stadiums that seats 10 to 20 thousand and can't fill them to the BCS conferences. I think as long as they made sure there was a quantifiable way for all schools to get into the BCS they should have their own governing body.

BYU could easily afford this, and I personally have no problem with it as long as it is handled the right way. Per NCAA rules, kids have major restrictions on them for jobs and earnings during the academic year, unlike other students, but then not given benefits to offset it. I think a living stipend would be just fine as part of a scholarship, which already covers room and board. It just needs to be tied to the scholarship itself, so the # is limited, then set an appropriate amount, like $100/month during school year. I think it is a logical add on to a full ride, so long as the amount monthly is not too outrageous.