The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Got this from the main board which focused on Emmert's statement:

Emmert retorted that the proposals were vetted for months by the NCAA’s membership committee with opposition from only Rice University, “who I don’t believe is a mainstream D1 school,” Emmert wrote.

http://thegazette.com/2013/05/29/emails-...officials/

I was struck by the Big 10, particularly Urban Meyer's, reaction to the final proposal:
“that there are already teams that have made plans to have separate scouting depts. ”

This is EXACTLY what Alabama and, to a lesser degree Auburn, did. They gave non-coaching jobs to a truckload of southeastern region high school coaches whose sole purpose was to evaluate and recruit. So the Big 10 stands up for the integrity of college football? I imagine, if this had passed, scouting depts would have been the norm for P5 schools. That was a terrible idea and should never have been proposed.

The NCAA has always generally acted to reduce the advantages enjoyed by the wealthier universities (eliminating athletic dorms, tear-away jerseys to name two) over the less endowed schools. We now have these "royal schools" talking about forming an exclusive club of like endowed schools apart from the NCAA's rules. If these schools get their way, they will still need the "peasant schools" to fill out their home schedules since their fellow schools won't agree to anything but home & home scheduling. (Bama has played USM dozens of times in the last 50 years. How many have been played in Hattiesburg?)

The MEDIAN SEC school in 2010 spent about $164,000 per athlete. (#1 over #2 Big 12 by over $30,000) Since (officially) none of this money actually went to the players, it had to go for such things as scouting, coaching stipends along with physical (FACILITY) improvements.

(05-29-2013 02:21 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The NCAA has always generally acted to reduce the advantages enjoyed by the wealthier universities over the less endowed schools.

(05-29-2013 02:46 PM)demiveeman Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 02:21 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The NCAA has always generally acted to reduce the advantages enjoyed by the wealthier universities over the less endowed schools.

Remember - the NCAA is a private club that is sustained by the members being willing to follow its rules. It must consider the power of these members when making rules that affect them. Altruism has nothing to do with their decisions but the political exercise of what they can get the majority of its members to vote to agree with and abide by. The ruling about athletic dorms, for example, was accepted because many of them had gotten the reputation of being where BMOC athletes could take admiring girls for a "roll in the hay" in a protected environment. Many schools were glad to get rid of them.

Yeah, that's why Kentucky has a dorm for their men's basketball team which sits right beside the practice facility, has big screen TV's and leather couches, a chef in the kitchen, and the entire place is sized to fit someone who is 6'10". The bathroom vanities are about armpit high on someone my size.

Regular students fight to get a room in there, and not just to hang with the players.