Blog Entry

Slive joins 'full cost' scholarship bandwagon

Posted on: May 23, 2011 10:57 am
  •  
 
Posted by Jerry Hinnen

In his Friday column, our CBS Sports colleague Tony Barnhart reported that SEC commissioner Mike Slive had told him the "full cost of attendance" scholarship plan recently championed by the Big Ten's Jim Delany was "something he would like to discuss."

But speaking to the Birmingham News's Jon Solomon over the weekend, Slive made it clear he'd like to do a lot more with those scholarships than just discuss them:
"I think we're to a point now in intercollegiate athletics where we have been very fortunate to have developed significant revenue streams," Slive said Friday. "A lot of our student-athletes have significant needs and it's one of those issues whose time has come" ...

"Often times when I think of the foundation and basis of a lot of NCAA legislation, a lot of it tries to ensure a level playing field," Slive said. "It's an unattainable concept, but that's often the foundation. If you say the foundation ought to be student-athlete welfare, it's a different place for which to start thinking about full cost of attendance. Using that as the starting point, I think it's time for the national conversation to begin in a very serious way about the full cost of attendance."
Those statements about the NCAA and their legislative emphasis on a "level playing field" echo those already made by Delany--statements not-so-subtly intended as a shot across the bow to small-school opponents who would block their plans to aid BCS conference athletes in the name of competitive equality.

Delany and Slive clearly understand that full cost scholarships (an item far too expensive for most non-BCS leagues) would drive the finanical wedge even further between D-I athletics' haves and have-nots ... and they just as clearly do not care where their conferences' "student-athlete welfare" (and, surely, the attendant competitive advantage) is concerned.

There are still major impediments to the Delany plan; Title IX may legally guarantee the same scholarship funds for all varsity athletes, not just those in revenue sports, and such a plan would have to be approved by a vote of the entire NCAA membership. (That Mark Emmert supports full cost scholarships would seem to be a big help in clearing the second hurdle.) But with such powerful backers as Delany, Slive, and the NCAA president, there seems little question this issue (and the potential FBS-shattering fallout) is going to get the "discussion" Slive wants sooner rather than later.
  •  
Comments

Since: Aug 22, 2006
Posted on: May 27, 2011 1:17 pm
 

Slive joins 'full cost' scholarship bandwagon

I wonder if this could be the issue that causes the major revenue schools to split away from the NCAA and set up their own governing organization.  They would then be free to grant all the "full cost" scholarships they want, set up their own playoff format, and not have to worry about sharing any $$$ with smaller schools.
This same argument has been going on forever.  The "haves" versus the "have- nots" is the reason we have divisions is sports.  The alleged reason is the "fairness" issue- giving eveybody a fair chance to win- only at their division.  Let's face it- teams with more money attract more fans and top players- resulting in bigger bowls, bigger wins, and more championships.  Those who can't compete eventually find their niche at another conference or division.  Whether we call it BCS/non- BCS or something else- it's the same issue.  The little boy wants to play with the big boys, but can't.  Despite years of indoctination that "everybody's a winner", eveybody gets a six foot trophy, every player gets to play the same number of minutes- regardless of how much he/she stinks, and my favorite- "it doesn't matter what the score is- whether you win or lose, but whether you had fun".  How nuckin' futz is that?  How much fun did you have in T- ball getting your brains bashed in? 




Since: Dec 10, 2007
Posted on: May 24, 2011 11:40 pm
 

Slive joins 'full cost' scholarship bandwagon

I wonder if this could be the issue that causes the major revenue schools to split away from the NCAA and set up their own governing organization.  They would then be free to grant all the "full cost" scholarships they want, set up their own playoff format, and not have to worry about sharing any $$$ with smaller schools.



Since: Dec 3, 2006
Posted on: May 24, 2011 3:07 pm
 

Slive joins 'full cost' scholarship bandwagon

I don't care what conference supports this.  It is still a horrible idea.



Since: May 10, 2007
Posted on: May 24, 2011 2:58 pm
 

Slive joins 'full cost' scholarship bandwagon

No doubt any conference that can afford to do this will fall in line with the B10. The recruiting advantage of this is enormous. All non full expense conference would decline dramatically.



Since: Dec 2, 2009
Posted on: May 24, 2011 1:43 pm
 

Slive joins 'full cost' scholarship bandwagon

unevenWizard I think you make an excellent point.  What about those on academic scholarship, should they also receive a stipend?  If football players on scholarship get a full cost scholarship then shouldn't the math geek?  Some of those kids are responsible for contributing work towards research grants and then patents and copyrights that can dwarf what even a top flight NCAA football program will bring in. 

I am not necessarily opposed to the idea but it opens such a pandora's box of problems that I am not sure its a good idea.  I think the solution probably goes back to loosening up the earnings rules so these kids can earn some bucks.  Whether it is through autograph signings, selling ugly uniforms and awards, or working at the Dairy Queen (making personal appearances cause they ain't gonna sling no ice cream).  A math geek writes a computer program while in college on academic scholarship and sells it for thousands, do they lose their scholarship, of course not!  Why should a basketball player lose their scholarship because they are able to cash in on their skills?  Will there be abuse, sure, but there is abuse now so really what is the difference.  I just think it's like online gambling or illegal drugs, the powers that be can't figure out how to get their piece of the pie so nobody gets to do it. 



Since: Aug 22, 2006
Posted on: May 24, 2011 9:42 am
 

Slive joins 'full cost' scholarship bandwagon

Looks like the SEC if following the B10 once again. 


Oh, you mean like enhancing revenue by having a conference T.V. network- oh, wait the SEC did that first.  Oh, you must mean expansion to two divisions to have a playoff- oh, wait- again, the SEC came up with that.  You must mean the BCS formula- oh, wait that was Kramer the former SEC commish.  What was your lame point again?  The B10- er, B11 Suckshindteat?  

I'm absolutely certain you aren't talking about on the field within living memory.  BCS Bowls haven't been kind to the B11.  The NC hasn't seen a B11 participant since when- 2006- the massacre in the Desert by that pitiful little Gator team that didn't even belong on the same field with the might Buckeyes. 

See ya.



Since: May 25, 2008
Posted on: May 23, 2011 10:58 pm
 

Slive joins 'full cost' scholarship bandwagon

It is simply amazing that there are so many comments on these boards considering half of them come from people who can't spell.  It could make one wonder how they even understood what they read.  Take some pride in what you write and spell check your work. 



Since: Sep 5, 2010
Posted on: May 23, 2011 10:48 pm
 

Slive joins 'full cost' scholarship bandwagon

The rollout of this potential strategy would SAVE the SEC millions of dollars every year over their current pay-for-play. Ha! Ha!

More seriously, there are a lot of inherent flaws that need to be addressed with this new ideology before it could be utilized but for all of you guys saying that the athletes are spoiled and "don't know how good they have it" are pretty clueless. Most of these kids, a lion's share of which are coming from family's in the bottom 20% or worse of national wage earners, ONLY have what is given to them via their scholarship - i.e. books, tuition and room/board. They have NO other basis of assistance.

So what do they do if they want to go out and have a beer or dinner with friends? Or a new shirt for a date? Or better yet, how will they pay for a date?  Those things are part of college life or more importantly the life of any person between the ages of 18 and 23. 

And don't say, "well, they should get a job" because that's not an option during the school year per NCAA rules.

    



Since: Aug 7, 2010
Posted on: May 23, 2011 10:15 pm
 

Slive joins 'full cost' scholarship bandwagon

Well, I would think he would...haven't they been giving "full cost" scholarships for years in the SEC?



Since: Aug 25, 2006
Posted on: May 23, 2011 6:19 pm
 

Slive joins 'full cost' scholarship bandwagon

First off, don't you think there will be abuse? If you are a college kid and you get this extra money, do you treally think it all goes to incidentals?

Secondly, I agree these are some big TV packages but people are acting like the beneficiaries are a bunch of gray-haired fatcats drinking martinis at the country club. There are no Jerry Joneses or George Steinbrenners in college football. The money goes back to the Universities! What is more nobler in sports than that? They are using the money to improve the campuses and make the Universities better - which in turn, benefits ALL students. And where would college sports be without the students?

Third, if you give full cost scholarships to football players, you're going to have to give them to ALL student-athletes. Yes, that means even the women's rowing team.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com