(05-20-2014, 08:09 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:I dunno, stipends plus allowing kids to talk to agents is a pretty big change to previous NCAA precedent and business as usual. It might not go far enough for some, but it's a pretty big shift from the status quo.
As always the devil is in the details.
Stipends in this case is apparently the "full cost of attendance" stance that the big conferences thought they had previously passed in 2012 but it was then voted down by the more numerous smaller programs. I don't think that upping the scholarship by $3-4K per year changes any of the issues as to whether athletes are employees or if they are getting a fair share of football income - and therefore won't forestall the suits and union drives. It would cost a school like Stanford about $1.2 million, and unlike tuition it would likely have to be real money, which is a moderate change on the scale of the AD budget.
Talking to agents is hard to tell. Just talking to agents doesn't change much - it's already done in baseball with a wink and a nod. If the proposal were actually to let athletes sign on with agents while maintaining eligibility then that would be a big change, but I don't think that is what the presidents are talking about.
There are several provisions in the letter that could be big changes.
"Guarantee scholarships for enough time to complete a bachelor's degree, provided that the student remains in good academic standing."
If that were to mean scholarships are open ended until a degree is finished, without regard to playing eligibility, it would help some kids. Even better if it mandated that all scholarship offers are a four year commitment that cannot be assigned to anybody else until the four years are up.
"Decrease the demands placed on the athlete in-season [and out of season]"
Actually making the current specified demands real would be a big change.
"Address the "one and done" phenomenon in men's basketball. If the NBA and its Players Association are unable to agree to raising the age limit for players, consider restoring the freshman ineligibility rule in men's basketball."
This one would be a big change. Would hurt some kids to spite the NBA, but it would be a change.
"Liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions."
Really liberalizing - like removing all such restrictions - would be a big change.
But somehow, I don't get the impression that they mean the "big change" version of any of these - and who thinks the frosh-ineligible threat is going to happen?
On the other hand, maybe the cynicism lobe is just taking over my brain tonight.