The Big Five conferences have flexed their muscle with this newly granted autonomy from the NCAA.
Late last week, the Big Five passed the groundbreaking — and potentially budget-breaking for smaller programs — “cost of attendance,” which will allow schools to give student-athletes yearly stipends.
It was passed almost unanimously, getting approved 79-1, with Boston College casting the lone dissenting — and rational — opinion. According to national reports, Boston College issued a fairly terse and direct statement that expressed its concern with increasing expense when most athletic departments already are “institutionally subsidized” and warned of the potential of sports programs being cut and possible underhanded recruiting and rule-bending happening under loose federal guidelines.
These concerns are valid and fair. We have long said and written that players already get paid — college educations are far from free — and while the current system needs examination, paying players what equals to “slave wages” is not the solution and only leads down the slick trail of “How much is enough?” The process never will end the “$100 handshake” or rogue boosters or any of the seedy underbelly that makes passionate college sports fans cringe.
But we knew that was coming, regardless of which side of the debate you stand on. And while we are against the stipend and the “cost of attendance” fallacy that has been propagandized by the image of some player not being able to “buy a pizza for his girlfriend,” it is becoming increasingly tough to argue against some sort of reward since a normally frugal place such as the University of Georgia is paying more than $2 million annually for its football coordinators, for crying out loud.