Andy Staples just wrote an article detailing the possible consequences of the O'Bannon lawsuit, if the plaintiffs win.
"...it has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs," Delany wrote. "Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model, which does not offer any athletics-based grants-in-aid, and, among others, a need-based financial model. These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten's philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student athletes."
"It's not that we want to go Division III or go to need-based aid," Delany said. "It's simply that in the plaintiff's hypothetical -- and if a court decided that Title IX is out and players must be paid -- I don't think we'd participate in that. I think we'd choose another option. ... If that's the law of the land, if you have to do that, I don't think we would."
Lately I've been torn about the issue of players getting paid or not, but this seems a bit hypocritical. Staples points out the discrepancy between the Big Ten adding Maryland and Rutgers for no other reason than cable money, and then trying to claim it's really all about the athletes education, that's all.
It's worth noting, that Delany isn't alone on this either, he's just the biggest guy to speak about it. Per Staples:
Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, SEC executive associate commissioner Mark Womack, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, Texas athletic directors DeLoss Dodds and Chris Plonsky, Wake Forest president Nathan Hatch and a host of others also filed declarations.
I thought this was an interesting turn of events, even if it is just an empty bluff (does anybody really think UM or OSU would drop Football as a D1 sport?). Curious what people here think
