Paid to the parents or primary guardian of the D1 player. That would prevent "loose useage" so to speak as the parents pretty well know their kids and could decide how much access the particular player would have.
Assuming the parents banked it up, for 5 years of eligibility, it could be a $10k egg to have upon graduation. That might also up the number of RS-FR unintentionally.
Also I'm in favor of a zero-tolerance system, whereby a player is found with bagman money or the like, its all over. Not sure exactly how it would be policed but driving an expensive car would be a red flag.
as long as you believe there's is no difference between accepting a free meal and an SUV. The extra $2000 is meant to cover the actual cost of attending school. It amounts to $40 a week. Do college students, mostly in their 20s and sometimes with children of their own, really need their parents to decide if they can handle that size allowance? I have a hard time imagining them not being insulted.
Many of these kids have parents that would not "decide how much access the particular play would have."
Remember, many of these kids don't come from Royal Oak. In many instances, giving the money to the parents would be more irresponsible than giving it to the kids themselves.
This would also get the "helicopter parents" off the kids back.
They're not kids. This seems to be something that's forgotten. Except in very rare instances, every person playing college athletics is a legal adult, and preemptively docking their pay is quite frankly, insulting.
The NCAA does not act in loco parentis. That's not their job. That's not our job. These young men and women deserve to be treated like adults, full stop, because they are adults, full stop.
Not sure the sarcasm tag is needed, actually. Whether or not college athletes are "kids" always seems to depend on the context.
August 6th, 2014 at 11:26 AM ^
Here's the proposed model and the vote distribution between conferences as linked in the article, as well as the two ways a given proposal could be approved:
Apologies for the size, but the original slide is huge. It's interesting really - 15 students, three per conference, plus 65 votes distributed somewhat (not totally) evenly. I wonder if reason for the numbers is population-based or some other factor.
This rather follows up a discussion had yesterday too - one of the things the Big 5 would like to do is liberalize the rules regarding borrowing against potential future earnings to get disability insurance, so that was a timely thread really.
Thanks for sharing this one, OP.
Thanks for not making us wait to see some "stupid fucking arrogant reasoning."
August 6th, 2014 at 10:20 AM ^
The small conferences have already voted collectively to have each member institution vote it down. It's definitely going to go under review, my guess is that it's going to get enough votes to be shot down altogether.
The five "power" conferences have also said that they would like to remain as part of Div 1A NCAA, but if the vote doesn't go their way, they are inclined to establish their own association separate from the NCAA charter.
Total non-sequitur: I thought it was a little strange that the Times abbreviates "SEC" but also "A.C.C." and "N.C.A.A."
August 6th, 2014 at 10:38 AM ^
S.E.C. wouldn't make sense, but it shows a drawback to their style guide.
August 6th, 2014 at 11:37 AM ^
Best guess: there's some automation in there which makes SEC be dotless because of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
August 6th, 2014 at 11:34 AM ^
Most of the execs from smaller schools are savvy enough to understand that they have two choices here:
1. Vote it in, let the Big 5 have autonomy and still share some of the money they make.
2. Vote against it, watch the Big 5 say "bye-bye" and not get any of the money.
Since it's all about the money, the choice is pretty clear.
How do they share the money in the current system?