Yesterday the NCAA released information in regards to the expedited passing of the $2,000 student athlete stipend being voted down. Some 109 schools voted to table the motion for the time being, forcing the legislation to take the standard, lengthy process to come into fruition. The bulk of the schools against the motion were small schools, not on the FBS radar but there were several FBS participants against the movement as well. Boise State led the way for the host non-BCS “No’s” while Rutgers and Wake Forest were the only two BCS teams to vote it down.
Boise State cited the unfair competitive edge this would give the “haves” while Wake and Rutgers pointed to Title IX as their qualms point of origin. Where do you fall on this? More importantly, given the amount of contention in the ranks what can be done to push this through?
Allen Kenney: You’ve opened a proverbial Pandora’s Box here. This involves so many competing interests – government spending, legal requirements, etc.
Ultimately, I find the argument about “competitive advantage” unpersuasive. Differences in resources are inherent in college sports. Hell, as we’re seeing in the NBA lately, they’re inherent in pro sports, even those with salary caps.
More importantly, though, if we accept that college athletes would benefit from a stipend – and I do – that easily trumps the importance of a smaller school in the WAC being able to compete with schools in the SEC and Big Ten. Universities that don’t feel they can afford to pay the stipend don’t have to.
In terms of what happens next, the big dogs are probably loving this decision. They can break away from the NCAA now under the cover of wanting to pay this stipend. Alternatively, they can stick with the NCAA and, going forward, use this vote to combat public pressure to pay athletes.
Win-win.
Regie Eller: I think Allen has touched on a way to push this through; threaten to
leave. The NCAA does not want anything to do with, in my opinion.
I was surprised by Boise State, honestly. As Michael noted, Boise stated it would expand the divide between the “have’s”. Boise also said it would create a recruiting advantage for those that can afford it and puts those that can’t at a disadvantage. Boise continued, stating: that the stipend would create a divide internally between those student-athletes who receive a full ride and those who do not. How is this any different from what it’s like today?
I understand the premise of smaller schools not wanting to jump on board but I have a really hard time believing that any school in Division-1 cannot come up with a $2,000 stipend; I mean really?
Aaron Torres: I have no real “big picture” thoughts on the topic, beyond what Allen just said. Mainly, that any idea that this is somehow a “competitive advantage” is ridiculous. You know why? Because Boise (or New Mexico State or Florida International) isn’t recruiting against Ohio State, Oregon and Texas. If a kid has a choice between going to Florida and going Boise, he’s going to choose Florida over Boise 99 times out of 100, and in not one of those cases will it be because Florida offers $2000 that Boise doesn’t.
Nope, the truth is, I don’t see how enacting this legislature would really make all that much of a difference. Quite frankly, the inherent advantages that the big schools have (money, resources, large alumni bases, TV exposure) will always be there. Whether they can offer another $2,000 on top of room and board is irrelevant.
Again, not much different than what everyone else has said, but this is all still ridiculous none the less.
Michael Felder: I hear you, personally when I look at it I think the point Aaron made is the most valid. Boise State isn’t trying to “outbid” Texas right now when it comes to grabbing kids in the recruiting race. They’d stil be competing with the same “have nots” that they’re outrecruiting right now. This posturing that by passing on the stipend they’re preserving some charade of equity means they think we’re dumb enough to buy that or they are dumb enough to believe that.
Personally I think it is clear they’re worried about cash and how they’ll have extra money going forward. If they’re paying the $2,000 stipend that cuts into the cash they have to pay coaching staffs and get facilities upgrades. Things they need to push towards their continued competing at the high level.
Ultimately for me I’d like to see the schools who can afford it push forward, even if it does mean separating the divisions. We already see the tremendous chasm growing being between the BCS schools and the Non-BCS schools. Perhaps it is time to ultimately give up on the charade of all of FBS being on a level playing field. When Ohio State looks at Cincinnati, Ohio, Toledo, Akron or Miami of Ohio they’re not seeing “equity” anymore than Georgia sees when they look at Georgia State or Georgia Southern.
Allen Kenney: I really think we’re heading for the current BCS schools breaking away, Mike. I mean, this proposal was a Jim Delany joint, right? The chances that he didn’t know this would get shot down by the little guys are about as good as you or I conceding a point in our Twitter debates.
