Baumgardner wrote a good piece that strongly criticizes Delany for his passive stance on summer camps and how the SEC continues to get its way.
The bigger issue here is conference vs. conference. Big Ten vs. SEC.
The SEC has dominated college football on the field for a decade. And Friday afternoon, it scored another win -- just because it could.
League members expressed concern over an issue -- regardless of how legitimate that concern was (in this case, it wasn't) -- and the SEC's power players went to bat for them. They did it again this winter when Harbaugh announced his plans to take Michigan to Florida for spring break.
And, again, same thing. Sankey slammed the table for days over the issue. Did his arguments always make sense? No, not really. But he stood up and fought for his league, just like he did in the satellite camp saga.
Delany? The only time he really ever touched on the topic came a year ago this month, when he made a claim that the NCAA has bigger fish to fry than satellite camps. Point taken. Point ended.
Fearless Leader starts the column from SI's Stuart Mendel. He looks at population growth and says that B1G expansion isn't (only) about TV dollars, but about population trends too:
EDITED TITLE for easy visibility of Brian getting the article lead.
Delany thinks that NCAA should work with NFL and NBA to allow players to go from HS to pro or to develop academies like IMG or another league for players who want to be paid for their sports abilities or their likeness instead of having schools get involved.
Great article from ElevenWarriors about the long-term powerhouses Delany and Scott are creating while we mere mortals get all whiney about the playoff scenarios...
Thx to user mgm 05 who doesn't have the points but posted this in another thread.
So prepare for a Michigan vs. Oregon weekend festival in Ann Arbor or Eugene with their field hockey, soccer and women's volleyball teams playing each other, culminating on Saturday at the Big House or Autzen Stadium when the helmets meet in the main event. Similar festivities will also happen in Columbus, Los Angeles, Bloomington, Tempe, Minneapolis and the Bay Area.
Football is and was the breadwinner for athletic departments; it's the black line on the balance sheet that cancels out the slew of red lines beneath it. Under this agreement it becomes the yeoman for larger attractions and more consumers while creating efficiencies in everything from transportation costs to promotional activities.
And it will happen with everyone watching on the two most profitable and extensive college networks in the country.
EDIT: Just saw that Brian linked to this article at the bottom of today's UV. His comment:
Can we stop giving credit to Jim Delany's amazing foresight when the conference he's piloting has won two national titles in fifty years?
My feeling is that this article puts some perspective on what the reasoning might be for both Delany's recent comments and how the B1G/Pac12 alliance ultimately benefits. Whether you agree with Delany or not, there's a lot of substance here. Also, yes, our conference should be winning more than 2 national titles in 50 years...
On how Delany's proposal makes a lot of sense, and doesn't really hurt anyone. I'm bad at blockquoting but read some excerpts below. Also, it's not a ton of new ideas, some of the same things that Brian has suggested in fact, but it's really good that this is a front page article at the WWL, might actually help things come to fruition. There's even a shot of the Big House.
"The power broker -- Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany -- suggested a plan that would bridge the growing financial gap between the value of a scholarship and the actual sticker price of going to school. That average estimated annual gap of about $3,000 would be given to the D-I player to help defray the costs of, say, transportation, clothing, laundry and pepperoni pizzas. It works out to a whopping $8.22 a day."
"I never used the words, 'play-for-pay,"' says Delany. "I never used the word, 'compensation.' All I said is, 'Can we have a discussion? We'd like to have a discussion about providing a grant-in-aid that corresponds to the cost of education.'
"I never once mentioned that we thought it would undermine cheating. The kinds of comments, and the kinds of headlines, and the kinds of leads are so far removed and so far from what was said, it's pretty hard to understand. … I don't think in any of our discussions internally, or any of the discussions with our staff, or any of the thoughts in my mind was it ever thought about in terms of Ohio State, or agent issues, or any regulatory issues."
In its simplest terms, Delany's proposal is a cost-of-living adjustment for D-I scholarship athletes. It would make college life a little bit easier and, given the revenue the players generate for their universities, a little fairer. But nobody is going to buy a yacht with the additional money.
My favorite anxiety-filled response from those who instantly opposed the idea: Providing scholarship athletes with a "cost of education" increase would give such conferences as the Big Ten a recruiting advantage.
Delany's response: They're right, it would. After all, it only makes sense that a recruit might be more tempted to sign with a conference whose institutions can afford to put that $8.22 in his or her pocket each day.
But it's not like all conferences are created equal, or ever will be. The Big Ten, the Southeastern Conference, the Big 12, the Pac-10, the ACC and the Big East already enjoy recruiting advantages over other conferences. Their stadiums, arenas and practice facilities are larger and more luxurious. Their geographic footprints are wider. Their TV contracts are more lucrative. Their coaches' salaries are higher. Their tradition, Q ratings and alumni bases are more pronounced.
The outcry possibly worked!
Says they will possibly reconsider division names after first of the year. I applaud him if he does. If you screw up, acknowledge it and try to fix it. Hopefully they will take a mulligan on the logo too.