Originally posted on Crystal Ball Run  |  Last updated 12/21/11

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.

MORE FROM YARDBARKER:
Cult of Sport: Before there was Ezekiel Elliott, there was Eric Dickerson
GET THE YARDBARKER APP:
Ios_download En_app_rgb_wo_45
MORE FROM YARDBARKER

NFL: Ezekiel Elliott investigation is still ‘active’ and ‘ongoing’

Report: Relationship between Jeff Fisher, Rams GM is ‘toxic’

Ex-Eagle: Strippers told him that Donovan McNabb hated him

Admiral rips Kaepernick during Pearl Harbor speech

Kevin Love has great tweet about his mucous malfunction

LIKE WHAT YOU SEE?
GET THE DAILY NEWSLETTER:

Houston AD seemingly refutes Kiffin rumors with clever tweet

Dana White: Conor McGregor will appear on ‘Game of Thones’

Report: Aroldis Chapman signs with Yankees

Le’Veon Bell thinks Giants were trying to hurt him

White Sox trade Adam Eaton to Nationals for haul of impressive prospects

Looking at NFL injuries that could impact the Super Bowl chase

Matt Ryan is now Mr. Pick-Two

MLB Winter Meetings report, Day 3: News, notes and rumors

Four stinkiest games remaining on the 2016 NFL schedule

Ten young NBA players developing into stars

TailGreater: Tips for bowl travelers

Ranking the single-player modes of the 2017 sports games

The 10 best sports docs available for streaming

Box Score 12/7: The date we got to know Bo

MLB Winter Meetings report, Day 2: News, notes and rumors

Ten most intriguing non-NY6 bowl games

Breaking down the NFL playoff picture heading into Week 14

The best (and worst) times athletes hosted 'SNL'

All Sports News
Delivered to your inbox
You'll also receive Yardbarker's daily Top 10, featuring the best sports stories from around the web. Customize your newsletter to get articles on your favorite sports and teams. And the best part? It's free!

By clicking "Sign Me Up", you have read and agreed to the Fox Sports Digital Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. You can opt out at any time. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.
the YARDBARKER app
Get it now!
Ios_download En_app_rgb_wo_45

The 10 best sports docs available for streaming

Matt Ryan is now Mr. Pick-Two

MLB Winter Meetings report, Day 3: News, notes and rumors

TailGreater: Tips for bowl travelers

Ranking the single-player modes of the 2017 sports games

MLB Winter Meetings report, Day 2: News, notes and rumors

The five best (and worst) times athletes hosted 'SNL'

The five must-have sports games of 2016

Winter Meetings report, Day 1: News, notes and rumors

The five 2016 Heisman finalists: How do they measure up?

Today's Best Stuff
For Publishers
Company Info
Help
Follow Yardbarker