Here IT comes

[#660000]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/sp...benefits-.html

N.C.A.A. May Let Its Top Conferences Play by Their Own Rules

The universities with the country?s most prominent athletics programs are expected to gain preliminary approval Thursday to break away from some of the strictures of the N.C.A.A., a significant change that would give them more freedom to govern themselves and could allow athletes to share in the wealth of college sports.

Under the proposal, the N.C.A.A. would clear the way for sports powerhouses like Alabama and Ohio State to pay their athletes a few thousand dollars more than what the current scholarship rules allow, loosen restrictions against agents and advisers, and revamp recruiting rules to ease contact with top prospects.

The so-called Big 5 conferences, with their glittering facilities and huge stadiums, have long existed in their own tier on the college sports landscape. But the vote Thursday would make their first-class status official, granting them greater autonomy from the N.C.A.A. rules that are currently applied evenly across 32 conferences and nearly 350 institutions in the N.C.A.A.?s top division.

The new rules would further widen the gulf between the 65 universities in the wealthiest conferences ? the Southeastern Conference, the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Pac-12, the Big Ten and the Big 12 ? and other universities across the country that have less money for their sports programs and would still be governed by N.C.A.A. rules.

The new model would codify the college sports world as one ?much more, perhaps, of haves and have-nots,? said Peg Bradley-Doppes, the vice chancellor for athletics at the University of Denver, which is not in a Big 5 conference. ?It may make the competitive experience more challenging.?

The measure stops short of allowing colleges to pay athletes lucrative salaries. But the new rules would effectively acknowledge that big-time college sports have long ceased to be purely amateur exercises, and that many of the restrictions that prevented universities from providing resources to athletes were outdated.

The move comes amid vigorous public debate about the proper role of sports in higher education, and whether college athletes should be compensated for the billions of dollars they help generate.

The N.C.A.A. has been under siege over what critics call its exploitation of athletes, who, the argument goes, enrich their institutions and the N.C.A.A. while risking injury and getting shortchanged academically.

The N.C.A.A. has been targeted with high-profile lawsuits, including the Ed O?Bannon case, in which athletes have argued that the N.C.A.A.?s use of their images has violated antitrust law. A union movement has also gained traction among Northwestern?s football players.

If approved, the autonomy model, which will be voted on by Division I?s board of directors at N.C.A.A. headquarters Thursday in Indianapolis, would be a dramatic shift in the relationship between athletes and those universities.

?You?re really taking the lid off of significant N.C.A.A. regulations that were intent on protecting the amateur status of the student-athlete and trying to minimize further expenditures for the athletic programs,? said Bob Kustra, the president of Boise State, which does not belong to the Big 5.

Other critics of autonomy forecast increased imbalance between the wealthy football powerhouses and everyone else, both on the field and in recruiting. They also warn that sports like swimming or volleyball, which do not generate revenue, could be eliminated in an effort to control costs while abiding by Title IX, and that the changes could erode the academic value of the student-athlete experience.

The Big 5 conferences and their universities, however, said they want to accommodate their athletes in a way that reflects the new reality of college sports, which are bigger than ever, while maintaining their tie to higher education. Wealthier universities should not be impeded from expanding their benefits, they argue, just because some institutions would struggle to afford them.

?Within Division I there?s such vastly different economics, and that would?ve been a huge burden to many schools,? said Nathan Hatch, the president of Wake Forest ? a Big 5 university ? who led the steering committee that conceived the proposal.

He added, ?And to some degree it?s trying to respond to the wave of concern for student-athletes ? treating them with dignity and respect, using some of those resources on their behalf.?

The N.C.A.A. currently restricts scholarships to the cost of ?tuition and fees, room, board and required course-related books.? The new measure would allow athletes to receive the ?full cost of attendance,? a sum that is generally a few thousand dollars higher. The Big 5 officials have also suggested they would use autonomy to uniformly give athletes better medical coverage and greater leeway to borrow against future earnings to purchase disability insurance.

Under the new model, the rule-making body would include a representative from each institution plus three athletes from each conference. The number of scholarships awarded per sport would remain the same for all Division I universities, and all Division I institutions could continue to participate in championships and revenue-sharing. Any other Division I conference or university (pending its conference?s approval) could opt into the Big 5?s rules. Notre Dame, which is independent in football but is in the A.C.C. and Hockey East in other sports, would be treated as a Big 5 institution.

Both supporters and detractors of the new model see the vote as pivotal, even as outside developments threaten to force more drastic reform.

?This is a game-changer,? Ms. Bradley-Doppes, of the University of Denver, said.

If the board rejects the model, it could prompt a more severe break. Big 5 commissioners have suggested that in that event, they would consider much more drastic measures: departing from the N.C.A.A. and taking their teams ? and the billions in revenue they produce ? to a so-called Division IV.

N.C.A.A. President Mark Emmert, the former president of Washington and chancellor of Louisiana State ? both Big 5 universities ? has appeared to support autonomy. In 2011, he pushed for a proposal to allow Division I colleges to offer athletes additional $2,000 stipends. (The board passed the proposal, but the membership overrode it.)

The vote Thursday may not be the last word. If 75 universities outside the Big 5 express disapproval, the N.C.A.A. board would reconsider its decision; if 125 object, the new rules would be suspended pending a resolution.

Many autonomy supporters said their thinking was not influenced by the public climate nor by a desire to bring in more money.

?When we put together this vision, it was before most of the litigation, before the unionization and before Congress got involved,? SEC Commissioner Mike Slive said last month. ?All the things we?re trying to get are tied to the well-being of the student-athlete. This is not about competition. This is not about enhancing revenue.?

But some suggest that the conferences were nudged by the belief that change is coming one way or another, and it was in their best interests to reform on their own terms.

?I believe the leaders in college athletics are in the best position to be the catalysts of this change, rather than a court system or some type of federal hearing,? said Ian McCaw, the athletic director of Baylor, a member of the Big 5. ?The practitioners who deal with this every day understand all the issues and all the complexities.?

The Big 5 conferences have already taken several steps in the direction of reform. Big Ten and Pac-12 presidents have supported more benefits for athletes, and two universities ? Indiana and Southern California ? said they would guarantee four-year scholarships. The N.C.A.A. relaxed rules restricting how much food universities can provide competing athletes, issued new concussions guidelines, and recently recommended no longer pressuring athletes to sign a statement granting conferences use of their names and likenesses.

Several outside advocates for reform are cautiously supportive of the new governance model. They are swayed by the benefits it would give many of the highest-profile ? and hardest-worked ? athletes, even as they are concerned that incremental reform is not sufficient.

?I think what we have at some level is P.R.,? said Ellen Staurowsky, a sports management professor at Drexel who has co-written a paper with the prominent student-athlete rights advocate Ramogi Huma. ?It tends to protect the brand without acknowledging the value of the athletes.?

But, she added, ?I don?t want to be so dismissive to say this means nothing.?

[FISHDAWG]

in other words - we can't stop you but we still want some of the money yall generate ...... govern yourselves & OM skates again

[BossDawg]

Lazy bastards..

[Rick Danko]

Will ruin college sports, JMHO

[starkvegasdawg]

I smell lawsuit. You're about to see the ULL's of the world unite and file a class action lawsuit. Also wouldn't surprise me if they refused to start playing teams out of the power five. No more sun belt teams on the schedule.

[thunderclap]

Will ruin college sports, JMHO

I agree. I don't think this is good.

[sandwolf]

Also wouldn't surprise me if they refused to start playing teams out of the power five. No more sun belt teams on the schedule.

This definitely won't happen. They get paid huge chunks of money for those games.

[maroonmania]

in other words - we can't stop you but we still want some of the money yall generate ...... govern yourselves & OM skates again

OM would skate regardless. They haven't even been seriously investigated since the Billy Brewer probation days. We've been on probation 3 times over ticky-tack crap (thanks Bracky) since OM's last probation and all the while their boosters have done what appears to be many more openly blatant in-your-face type illegal activities to attain recruits than we have. They don't rat on themselves and they know how to cover a paper trail. Everyone here just needs to give up the notion that the NCAA will do anything with OM.

[codeDawg]

Will ruin college sports, JMHO

I honestly do not understand what part of college football will be ruined by kids getting extra stipend money.

[#660000]

I honestly do not understand what part of college football will be ruined by kids getting extra stipend money.

This is the part that bothers me.

...loosen restrictions against agents and advisers, and revamp recruiting rules to ease contact with top prospects.

[codeDawg]

This is the part that bothers me.

Why?

[DudyDawg]

I honestly do not understand what part of college football will be ruined by kids getting extra stipend money.

Completely agree. Just cause Dak could buy a nice watch and go out to eat more wouldn't make him love State less/not play as hard. It's still college sports, the kids are just now paid (still very little) labor.

I'm not really worried about the contacting recruits either. Coaches do shit now one way or another to talk to them, not they can just call.


And these kids should have the ability to talk to agents. They are making multi million dollar decisions at 21 of wether to go pro or stay.

[#660000]

For loosening restrictions against agents and advisers I don't know that every player will be well enough equipped to make sound decisions on when to leave for the league. ETA - maybe this loosens the draft to where a player can return if not happy with where/if they are drafted.

On revamping recruiting rules to ease contact with top prospects - what is the deciding factor of a top prospect? Maybe this is poorly stated in the article but it seems like unfair benefits for certain players/programs. This being that we likely won't be recruiting as many "top prospects" as Alabama.

[SheltonChoked]

I'm for it, but I'm not sure how this will apply to partial scholarship sports like baseball. If it is a $2000 at opened to cover full cost of attendance, then does baseball have 27 scholarships now? Or just the $2k and 11.7?

And I expect the backlash to be only big5 plays big 5. All hard opponents.

[DudyDawg]

For loosening restrictions against agents and advisers I don't know that every player will be well enough equipped to make sounds decisions on when to leave for the league. ETA - maybe this loosens the draft to where a player can return if not happy with where they are drafted.

On revamping recruiting rules to ease contact with top prospects - what is the deciding factor of a top prospect? Maybe this is poorly stated in the article but it seems like unfair benefits for certain players/programs. This being that we likely won't be recruiting as many "top prospects" as Alabama.

I'm sure that will be stated (if they are even doing a distinction btwn top prospects), but you're right, if that's the legal wording of it it needs to change.

And I think a kid talking to an agent/advisor gives him way more knowledge on if to stay or go than not talking to one.

[#660000]

And I think a kid talking to an agent/advisor gives him way more knowledge on if to stay or go than not talking to one.

I think of agents as money hungry. I can see them telling a player to go to the league, even with a small chance of being drafted, just to get their hands on money. Maybe this is my misconception. Although basketball, I think back to Jamont Gordon.

[starkvegasdawg]

My main thing about paying players is that it still won't stop the cheating. If it changes tomorrow where the player gets $5,000 on top of what he can get now a year. Great. You'll still have bagmen saying come play for my school and I'll throw a another $50,000, a new car, and a no show job for your baby mama. That's like saying we're going to curb cocaine use by making it legal to purchase 5 grams a day.

[DudyDawg]

I think of agents as money hungry. I can see them telling a player to go to the league, even with a small chance of being drafted, just to get their hands on money. Maybe this is my misconception. Although basketball, I think back to Jamont Gordon.

I certainly have that fear as well. So that needs to be policed. But I think it'll do more good than bad when it's all said and done

[#660000]

My main thing about paying players is that it still won't stop the cheating. If it changes tomorrow where the player gets $5,000 on top of what he can get now a year. Great. You'll still have bagmen saying come play for my school and I'll throw a another $50,000, a new car, and a no show job for your baby mama. That's like saying we're going to curb cocaine use by making it legal to purchase 5 grams a day.

I don't see it as a measure to prevent cheating. It's a measure to protect and assist your money making resources - players.

[FISHDAWG]

maybe the big 5 would do a better job of policing and enforcing violations than the current NCAA effort