Over the next month the NCAA member schools will vote on two override issues that were approved by the Board of Directors last summer. Both are being positioned as student-athlete welfare issues, but many long time athletic directors wonder if this is the first step in the creation of a “Super Division”. As the non-BCS schools struggle to financially support their programs and find alternative revenue sources (mostly student fees), the huge television deals and bowl payouts provide significant revenue streams for the Big 6 conferences.
The Board has passed legislation where athletics departments can provide an annual supplement of $2,000 above the normal athletic scholarship. However 161 of the 355 Division 1 schools signed an override measure against the stipend, enough to suspend the measure for now. The reality of this movement is that this legislation will divide the Association into haves and have-nots. NCAA President Mark Emmert says that this is permissive legislation. No school has to provide the stipend to its athletes. However, the reality is that a school will quickly be classified as to whether they provide the stipend or not. Those programs that cannot afford to provide the stipend, will quickly be stigmatized as not committed to “big time” athletics.
To many Athletic Directors who have been in the game for a long time, they perceive President Emmert ‘s reform movement as the early stages of the ultimate move to a “Super Power” Division with different rules and different agendas. Typically this is an example of a leadership style (used frequently in Higher Education) where different scenarios are created over a long period of time that ultimately lead to a major desired outcome. Compare that leadership style to the one where leaders just deal with the main issue and explain the pros and cons of the big issue and the implementation process.
So President Emmert and the NCAA Board has two options:
1. Pass many pieces of legislation that ultimately demonstrate the extreme differences in the 355 Division 1 members so there is no doubt there is a need for the creation of a new “Super Power” Division.
2. Deal with the inequities in college athletics right now and develop a plan (based on input from all levels of the Division 1 membership) that outlines how this “Super Power” Division would operate and then present that concept.
With the huge amount of money that is at stake here, it is really hard to fathom that sooner or later the big boys won’t want both a bigger share and more control. The next 6 months should provide interesting as President Emmert pushes his agenda. Will his leadership provide a strong unified Division 1 or will college athletics turn into a bifurcated system of have and have-nots. Stay tuned to see where President Emmert’s reform movement and leadership takes Division 1.
I always wondered how a small school with limited resources can compete with a Florida or Florida State that has revenues equal to The Tampa Bay Bucs, but whose skybox buyers get a tax break for supporting the university.
ReplyDeleteSomething doesn't fit.
I never understood how people who give money to athletic departments that generate annual revenue over $100 million can get the same tax break as an individual who makes a charitable contribution to a kids charity. They make the gift get ticket priority, invites to special events, other thank you items and still get a tax break. Don't get it.
Delete