CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

Some may call it posturing . . . some may call it a conspiracy . . . some would say it was inevitable . . . some (with less than understanding) even actually believe it is about time . . .

Personally, I take the view that it has been in the works for a while now.
That becomes more so obvious when you consider the timing of it all.

Having these "lawsuits" and the grumblings from the "conference presidents" (who we all know cannot make such decisions without the support of the school presidents)(who cannot make their decisions without the board of trustees at their respective university).

Let's face it, the whole issue of conference realignment has been to propel this ideology forward . . . and the use of realignment was their way of conditioning the common fan into saying: "They may as well do it", because with as much as has been already changed, this step wouldn't make that big of a deal . . .

What Am I Referring to, this:

.......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........

When it comes to posturing in college football, there are different levels of threats.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany suggested that his conference could de-emphasize athletics and drop down to Division III if the Ed O'Bannon case versus the NCAA doesn't go in the NCAA's favor.

Ridiculous? Yes.

SEC commissioner Mike Slive, however, made a more believable threat Monday.

While speaking to the Associated Press Sports Editors in Birmingham, Slive suggested that the SEC could move towards a divisional split if full cost of attendance isn't included in athletic scholarships, according to AL.com.

Mike Slive: "Obviously, if things like that don't get accomplished, then it may be appropriate to talk about some alternative or division or something like that. But that's not our desire. That's not our goal and that's not something we're trying to get to."

This comes on the heels of last week's report in USA Today that suggests that other backroom conversations on the topic are being held among unspecified decision-makers.

Big news, for sure. When Slive speaks, college football should—and often does—listen.

In this case, it's a realistic possibility.

The proposal that would allow programs to include a $2,000 per year stipend to cover miscellaneous expenses associated with attending college was tabled by the NCAA Board of Directors in January 2012 and has gone "back to the drawing board," according the Chronicle of Higher Education.

In reality, though, that $2,000 figure still wouldn't bridge the gap in an athletic scholarship. The gap in the estimated cost of attendance varies from school-to-school. Programs like Auburn ($5,396) and LSU ($3,050) estimate that the personal and transportation costs not covered in a scholarship would be more than $2,000 per season, while Georgia's estimates put that gap at $1,590 for 2012-13.

It'd be a start though.

Considering the schism that exists within Division I, some sort of division or re-classification is almost inevitable.

Alabama's bottom line is far different than that of South Alabama. Notre Dame's is far different than Texas-San Antonio's. So why should they play by the same rules?

They shouldn't. It's not practical. It's not good business, and after all, this is a business.

Does that mean a split from the NCAA? That's where it may get tricky. The benefit from being under the NCAA's tax-exempt umbrella cannot be discounted.

There is a happy medium, and a divisional split like the one that formed Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) could be on the horizon. The difference between the "haves" and "have nots" in college football is getting bigger by the day, and the structure of first the BCS and now the new College Football Playoff makes that crystal clear.

If Slive doesn't get his way about full cost of attendance, that relationship could get further defined with a split of FBS.

.......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........

The telling thing here is:

So why should they play by the same rules?

They shouldn't. It's not practical. It's not good business, and after all, this is a business.

There is a happy medium, and a divisional split like the one that formed Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) could be on the horizon. The difference between the "haves" and "have nots" in college football is getting bigger by the day, and the structure of first the BCS and now the new College Football Playoff makes that crystal clear.

We all knew they looked at things from this stand point. Now, they have found that loophole they needed to separate themselves . . . and they are using the media to "explain" things to the clueless populous, and justify their actions for them.

They wanted it for years.

It was the reason they formatted the BCS the way they did.

Now, they're gonna use this "lawsuit" as a scapegoat to give the perception that they have a logical excuse to do it.

And of course, Slive ended his comment with: "But that's not our desire. That's not our goal and that's not something we're trying to get to."

Comes off to me as the typical rhetoric that would come out of Bobby Petrino's mouth when he spews of, "I am happy to be coaching here, and plan to be here for a long time" or the ever famous words of the conference presidents who claim, "No, we're done with realignment, and do not expect to expand any further in the foreseeable future".

.

.

.

This issue has been discussed for years. I think it will come to a head, not from the top but from the bottom. This boils down to some high school students not being able to accept college scholarships because they do not come from an economic background that allows their families to give them the $2000 dollars ( or whatever figure its determined) a year. You can not attend college without some money for living expenses. Who this affects is people of modest economic means and that means a majority of those people are minorities. As soon as it gets enough attention in simple terms, e.g. 'Joe Brown, outstanding black high school athlete, can not accept a scholarship from XYZ school because his family can not provide him with living expenses. Brown comes from a family of 5 children raised by a single mother.' There will be a lawsuit filed for prejudicial treatment to minorities and with the right publicity and the widespread telling of the problem, it will be fixed quickly.

And yes...the metro west, tree hugging, political correct,.....I forget what else...but my friend Mr. Billybud can fill in the blanks.....thinks this is a valid argument.

And large schools would pay the stipend in quicker than Derek jumps on a Krispy Kreme...well maybe not that quick. As Spence has accurately pointed out, schools can not afford to let successful football programs fall back, they support too many non athlete projects and all of the minor supports, save basketball in some schools.

They also can't support all the other non revenue sports by paying a lot of extra money. The NCAA has to loosen some of the rules on working, so these kids can earn some pocket money. Donovan is right that no one can go to school without money. A kid with an art scholarship can hold a part time job with no problems. They either need to raise the stipend or let them work.

I was once one of those kids who couldn't really afford the full expenses of college....

I was lucky enough to have Uncle Sam's help in undergraduate (GI Bill). After graduation, the state of Florida payed all tuition and books for my graduate studies plus a living stipend (in return for my promise to work for the state one year for every year of school paid).

I think that athletes should have the same opportunities in return for their work supporting the school's football program.

billybud wrote:I was once one of those kids who couldn't really afford the full expenses of college....

I was lucky enough to have Uncle Sam's help in undergraduate (GI Bill). After graduation, the state of Florida payed all tuition and books for my graduate studies plus a living stipend (in return for my promise to work for the state one year for every year of school paid).

I think that athletes should have the same opportunities in return for their work supporting the school's football program.

Isn't that what a scholarship does? Have an athlete get his school paid in return for his work on the football field?

What you are all saying is right . . . however, the BCS conference presidents are chest thumping, and using this lawsuit as a means by which to angle toward a new division where only the current BCS affiliated programs will be let in.

I have no problem with the stipend should it reflect a fair balance. To do that, you need to cover the expenses at all athletic levels, and I'm not sure many schools could cover that much of a financial burden.

Every school will have to raise the same allotment. Each athlete will have to be covered by the same offered stipend.

The either the little guys drop some of their other sports programs (which takes away scholarships from the prospective student athletes), or a medium is formed, where you will see the larger schools pull away from the smaller revenue markets.

Right now, the latter is being presented by the conference presidents.

donovan wrote:And yes...the metro west, tree hugging, political correct,.....I forget what else...but my friend Mr. Billybud can fill in the blanks.....thinks this is a valid argument.

I do not believe it is as necessarily latitudinarian as that.

I'm sure most would agree a larger stipend should be afforded, especially with the rise in cost of living expenses.

However, it would also be nice if the NCAA at large, would do as Spence suggests; allowing the student athlete to work for their money.

Somewhere in there, a policy needs changing . . . but, from the position taking by the conference big wigs, it would seem a separation is going to take place.

And with the birth of the BCS formatting style of the playoff system we are going to see; that position would most assuredly end the Bowl genre.

.

.

.

[Isn't that what a scholarship does? Have an athlete get his school paid in return for his work on the football field?[/quote]

No...it is not.

When you are a poor kid from a family with a single parent, as many of our players are, you do not have living money. Money to buy shoes, clothes, a hamburger and a beer, have a car, buy gas, get a hair cut, take a date out, go to a movie. For four or five years.

No wonder some kids sell jerseys, rings, take money from agents, etc.

When I went to school on someone else's dime, I had living money. I didn't have a nice car, but I did have basic transportation, I could have date if I kept the costs reasonable, buy a hamburger, have my hair cut.

billybud wrote:[Isn't that what a scholarship does? Have an athlete get his school paid in return for his work on the football field?

No...it is not.

When you are a poor kid from a family with a single parent, as many of our players are, you do not have living money. Money to buy shoes, clothes, a hamburger and a beer, have a car, buy gas, get a hair cut, take a date out, go to a movie. For four or five years.

No wonder some kids sell jerseys, rings, take money from agents, etc.

When I went to school on someone else's dime, I had living money. I didn't have a nice car, but I did have basic transportation, I could have date if I kept the costs reasonable, buy a hamburger, have my hair cut.[/quote]

This is exactly the issue. And though I do not know their names because I cant even remember my grand kids names.....well I could if they had chosen names like Joe or Tom or Sally and not some concoction that will scar the kid for life, I digress..., I know athletes that were offered scholarships could not accept them because they did not have means to get $250 a month for the things you mentioned.

Athletes use to be able to have jobs..working on campus type jobs....true some were sweeping the basketball court during half time and maybe not supervised all that well...and yes..there were boosters giving them jobs when they did not even show up to work......the NCAA solution....student athletes can not work....and now we have this mess. Either give them spending stipends or allow them to have jobs......I know it is only restricted during the season...but sports have no seasons anymore..it is year round..... And...just because %10 abuse the system and there are boosters that should be booted...this is the the quintessential throw the baby out with the bath water and or my choice...first the verdict, then the trial.

I believe the NCAA should revise the rules on athletes working as I have said, but there is a payment for players that lots of kids would love to get. Most players in most sports get more than they put into it. A few players are cash cows for the programs and they get value for their play, but not nearly what the school reaps from them. The scholarship programs, in all areas, are good things IMO.Take them away and there is no such thing as college football. All you get is an inferior product to the NFL. Instead of being what they are now, they are just minor league teams with little market value. I don't want that. Most kids on a scholarship can work, that is where the NCAA needs to look at relaxing the rules. The NCAA need to move forward with rules the focuses on protecting the players from the predators.

And now the writing is on the wall:

NCAA president Mark Emmert said Monday he expects "a lot of change" to the governance structure of Division I sports over the next year.
Emmert said during his opening remarks at a meeting of more than 100 Division I faculty athletics representatives.

Mark Emmert: "I've said publicly on a number of occasions the only thing everybody agrees on with Division I governance is that it doesn't work. I think the board anticipates a lot of change. They're going into their October and January meetings expecting to look at a whole different governance model for Division I. So it will be significantly different."

The NCAA's annual convention is in January. The board is saying that it hopes to adopt proposals at its meeting next April, then have a special meeting for the full membership next summer.

SEC commissioner Mike Slive suggested last week that the NCAA's rules on governing agents are part of the problem [this statement came amid reports of possible problems at Alabama and Tennessee].

The discussion touched briefly on whether the NCAA would consider creating a new big-school bowl division -- in essence, splitting up the current Division I.

A packet distributed at the session called "Principles and Model for New Governance Structure" suggests that FBS institutions and conferences that are more closely aligned in issues and athletics resources form a new division --- This packet states, "The simpler the governance structure, the better".

.

.

.

Not often mentioned is the point of view of what would it cost for an athlete to pay for 4 years of coaching from a top coach in the SEC or otherwise. The 'student athlete' gets that free in preparation for the pros. I'm not trying to balance it out but there are many benefits often left out of the should we pay athletes equations.

Swamp Daddy

That's true . . .

Some players get professional position coaching during the off season [supposedly paid for by their parents] that costs as much as $100 an hour.

Equate that to 3-4 years [5 in some cases] of Div-I Collegiate skill training {noting that many of these coaches actually have NFL coaching experience}.

How much would that be worth on the open market?

.

.

.

NCAA athletes are one of the last vestiges of slavery in this country. Does not matter what spin you put on it.

Only in that the market profits the NCAA by these players performing on the field.
Then again . . . if they didn't want to do it, they can always opt out . . . a slave cannot.

I'm not sure who's spinning harder . . . the NCAA standard --- or those that rage against the machine.

.

.

.

donovan wrote:NCAA athletes are one of the last vestiges of slavery in this country. Does not matter what spin you put on it.

Very true. I think that players should be able to get employment. They should also be able to benefit from their name. If the schools can do it and it has been proven that they do, then the player should be able to sell wheaties if he has the opportunity.