Play Fantasy Use your Fantasy skills to win Cash Prizes. Join or start a league today. Play Now
Blog Entry

30 BCS schools vote against scholarship proposal

Posted on: February 22, 2012 5:08 pm
Edited on: February 22, 2012 5:10 pm
 

Posted by Jerry Hinnen

The new NCAA legislation allowing schools to offer multiple-year scholarships to athletes only narrowly survived its recent override vote, with only two of the 330 votes cast needing to have swung the other way to have nixed the legislation, despite the support of NCAA president Mark Emmert. The overwhelming majority of support for the override came -- as expected -- from non-BCS or mid-major schools worried over the potential increase in costs.

But a report in the Chronicle of Higher Education shows that a healthy portion of BCS conference schools also voted for the override. According to this NCAA document obtained by the Chronicle, 30 different current and future BCS members supported the override, including the entire Big 12. The Big 12 was also the only BCS conference that exercised its institutional vote in favor of the override.

The Big Ten was the conference most solidly in opposition to the override, with only Wisconsin voting in favor. Among the other high-profile programs voting against multiple-year scholarships were Alabama, Clemson, Florida State, LSU, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M and USC. After the Big 12, the conference with the most votes in favor of the overrides was the ACC, with five. (The Big East did have six override votes if future members Boise State, Navy and San Diego State are included.)

As for that 30 vote tally, the opinion here is that that's only slightly fewer than 30 too many. It's one thing for cash-strapped mid-majors or even BCS schools on a notably tight budget -- say, Rutgers or Colorado, both of whom supported to override -- to oppose a measure they would struggle to afford, giving more cash-flush schools an instant recruiting advantage. It's another for programs like the Longhorns, Bayou Bengals, Volunteers and Sooners -- all of whom the Chronicle names as four of the 10 wealthiest athletics departments in the country -- to attempt to vote it down when they have the kinds of budgets that will barely flinch under the new scholarship burden. The motivation in Austin, Baton Rouge, Knoxville and Norman isn't that they can't hand out four-year scholarships, it's that they simply don't want to. 

Of course, the legislation doesn't mean any school -- BCS, mid-major, or otherwise -- is required to offer multiple-year scholarships. But since that might put the schools that don't at a recruiting disadvantage against schools that do, the Texases (and USCs, and Alabamas) have tried to prevent anyone from offering them.

In short: because these schools don't want to promise their athletes a full four-year college education, they've decided the athletes at other schools shouldn't have the benefit of that promise, either. 

A full BCS conference-by-conference breakdown of votes in favor of the override:

ACC: Boston College, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Virginia

Big East: Boise State, Cincinnati, Louisville, Navy, Rutgers, San Diego State

Big 12: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU, Texas, West Virginia

Big Ten: Wisconsin

Pac-12: Arizona, Cal, Colorado, USC

SEC: Alabama, LSU, Tennessee, Texas A&M

Keep up with the latest college football news from around the country. From the opening kick of the year all the way through the offseason, CBSSports.com has you covered with this daily newsletter. View a preview.

Get CBSSports.com College Football updates on Facebook   

Comments

Since: Nov 27, 2010
Posted on: February 23, 2012 10:55 pm
 

30 BCS schools vote against scholarship proposal

The author tries to make the BCS schools who voted against 4-year scholarships as the bad guys, but perhaps they did so to prevent larger schools like themselves from having yet another recruiting advantage over smaller programs.

If you believe that you're naive. No school at any level, especially Texas, is going to vote to remove an advantage they might have. It's just not in their nature. The Big 12 is big on never changing, hence the loss of four schools over two years.



Since: Dec 29, 2006
Posted on: February 23, 2012 9:08 pm
 

30 BCS schools vote against scholarship proposal

I see my school voted against it. I can understand that since it is a private school. Schools that get money from the state are in a better position to afford four-year scholarships if there is some mistakes. You chances for walk-ons etc. are better. Also USC is currently under penalty. Not good for the next two years. If that wasn't the case, then maybe the viewpoint changes some. Does it apply to other sports than football? Maybe there is some rub there also. Still, it wasn't clear exactly how it would work and how you might get around it. Maybe that is why some schools voted against it. Maybe it isn't clear to all just what the change really means. If you are not sure, better to stay with the status quo.



Since: Jan 9, 2008
Posted on: February 23, 2012 12:39 pm
 

30 BCS schools vote against scholarship proposal

The author tries to make the BCS schools who voted against 4-year scholarships as the bad guys, but perhaps they did so to prevent larger schools like themselves from having yet another recruiting advantage over smaller programs.




Since: Jan 19, 2012
Posted on: February 23, 2012 11:43 am
 

30 BCS schools vote against scholarship proposal

In an emerging world of entitled youth who call press conferences and receive national coverage to announce their commitments, a four-year scholarship guarantee seems to put all the risk on the university and in the case of public schools, the taxpayer. In the real world just about every employee-employer relationship is at will based on a myriad of expectations. Why should this be any different?





Since: Jan 13, 2012
Posted on: February 23, 2012 2:23 am
 

30 BCS schools vote against scholarship proposal

This was never about the money, and always about "correcting recruiting mistakes."

C'mon, folks,  is it really THAT HARD to understand? 



Since: Jun 5, 2011
Posted on: February 23, 2012 12:13 am
 

This could be a lot more clear

To avoid confusion, it may be better to simply explain that the schools you listed voted against four year scholarships instead of bringing the override into play.  By saying "in favor of the override" when they were voting against four year scholarships, you are creating a situation where many readers could perceive the opposite of what the article is trying to say.  

I would prefer something more bellicose, such as "here is a list of scumbags who don't want to keep their coaches' promises to take care of your son for the next four years," or something along those lines.   Either way, the kids get a lot of promises and the schools make a lot of money off of them.



Since: Dec 1, 2009
Posted on: February 22, 2012 8:51 pm
 

30 BCS schools vote against scholarship proposal

SeminoleDog, Jerry wrote a good column badly. My 7th-grade English Usage teacher would have red-penciled his effort to illegibility. Which is only fair, given that it took me a second, painfully close reading to keep the players straight in my mind.

To wit, the Presidents narrowly voted to DO THE RIGHT THING, for once. No thanks to all of the usual suspects. Sad to see that, having kicked Bobby Bowden to the curb at long last, the Powers That Be at your beloved alma mater appear to be emulating their most heathen brethren.



Since: Dec 1, 2009
Posted on: February 22, 2012 8:37 pm
 

30 BCS schools vote against scholarship proposal

Jerry, thank you for bringing this to our attention. I'm in complete agreement with the following: "The motivation in Austin, Baton Rouge, Knoxville and Norman isn't that they can't hand out four-year scholarships, it's that they simply don't want to. 

Of course, the legislation doesn't mean any school -- BCS, mid-major, or otherwise -- is required to offer multiple-year scholarships. But since that might put the schools that don't at a recruiting disadvantage against schools that do, the Texases (and USCs, and Alabamas) have tried to prevent anyone from offering them. 

In short: because these schools don't want to promise their athletes a full four-year college education, they've decided the athletes at other schools shouldn't have the benefit of that promise, either."

I would emphasize that this reveals--STARKLY--that these schools PREFER to maintain an advantage not spelled out in the article. They are well aware that some of their rivals are willing to deliberately handicap themselves by refraining from screwing young men to the wall for any trifling advantage. Bottom feeders that they are, they were prepared to merrily continue all of their usual outrages and corruptions. As always, the Trojans, Crimson Tide, and Longhorns leading the hyena pack.

Certain details pop out for me. As a Michigander and life-long Wolverine fan, the unseemly vote for override by the Badgers is a great disappointment. Apparently the folks in Madison have become infected with STDs, the inevitable result of carrying on as if one was a Trojan. May their academic potency rot each the other.

Sad, too, to see Boston College abandon its rivalry in all things with Notre Dame. The Friars would seem to be the religious world's newest moral relativists. Situational ethics, anyone?

As for Navy, I'll let a Marine do my talking. Gomer Pyle says "For shame! For shame! For shame!" I mean, it's not as if the Academy doesn't put EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of THEIR recruits lives on the public dime, now, is it? As it is, they've got exemptions, for practical reasons, from a host of the petty restrictions by which their civilian counterparts are bound. Yeah, the KIDS more than make up for it with the freight that they must carry, but the Admirals are transparently seeking to deny a recruiting advantage to their competition for which they themselves have no conceivable use.

And finally I come to Virginia, still unable to take that last little step toward full Liberty. Just as they did when the guns sounded at Fort Sumter, they've put their noble sentiments aside and stood foursquare with those whom they know full well are on the wrong side of history.

As a footnote, in light of the ongoing saga regarding conference realignment I have held out hope that the Big Ten Presidents prefer  either to remain at 12 schools or to expand to exactly 14 and no more. I'm still STRONGLY convinced of my reasons for the latter, which, suffice it to say, center around the centrality of Notre Dame in building such castles in the air. However, the Middies' low rent behavior here necessitates a rethinking of my preference for a package deal of the two. Similarly, my favored fallback plan involved the Cavaliers pairing with the Terrapins. Much now to contemplate. Feet of clay walk the Eastern marches, it seems.




Since: Mar 18, 2009
Posted on: February 22, 2012 8:30 pm
 

30 BCS schools vote against scholarship proposal

None of us low brow (entertain us, and you won't hear a peep) fans seem to care.  Imagine that!  But our tradition steeped "institutions of higher learning" have shown their business panties big time. Those bastions of academe should have set an example for us blathering hordes of trophy groupies.  However, our colleges' and universities' majority vote has not surprisingly prioritized whatever it takes to fatten their "organizations'" bank accounts.  Wow!  It really is all about the money!  Who knew?


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