For something that was discussed quite a bit earlier this summer, yesterday's vote by the NCAA Board of Directors seemed to come and go fairly quietly. The NCAA approved, by a vote of 16-2, a new governance structure for Division I that gives the Power 5 conferences (ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC) an unprecedented amount of power. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing remains to be seen and is very much dependent on your viewpoint in the discussion.

 

There is no question that change was coming to college athletics. This should come as no surprise. When money flows like it has in college athletics over the past decade, you can rest assured people will line up to get their cut. For years, college coaches have been the main beneficiaries. Salaries have risen at a pace that is really quite remarkable. According to USA today, in 2006, 42 college football head coaches made at least $1 million per year. Six years later, in 2012, 42 coaches made $2 million per year or more. The top 10 highest paid coaches in 2013 all made more than $3.7 million per year, topping out with Nick Saban at $5.5 million. Oh, by the way, Saban got a nice little increase which will see him make in excess of $7 million per year for the upcoming season. That's more than a million dollar RAISE in one year. Eat your heart out those of you who hope for the 3% cost of living increase each year from your employer. Nick Saban's raise this year alone would have made him a millionaire.

 

Now, full disclosure…I actually think Saban may be underpaid believe it or not, but that is a discussion for another day. Back to the issue at hand.

 

Why the change in the governance of the NCAA? A couple of reasons: 1) the Power 5 conferences have been lobbying for changes for a while now. You hear the term full cost-of-attendance thrown around quite a bit. In simple terms, it means the actual cost for a student-athlete to attend college, not just housing, tuition and books. This cost is greater than the amount of money provided by the university for the athlete to attend the school.

 

Here's two quick examples of where that gap exists. First, housing. Each school provides a stipend for student-athlete housing. If a student-athlete lives off campus rather than in the dorms, there is a good chance the stipend he/she is receiving is not enough to pay the full amount of rent. The amount will cover the cost to live in a dorm, but with so many athletes living off campus you can see where that gap becomes an issue. For a second example, let's look close to home. If you are a student-athlete at WVU and you live near the Evansdale campus, but have a class downtown, you most likely drive your car to class. Not only do you have gas expenses, but you will incur expenses to park at the Mountainlair while in class. Those are costs of attending school that are not covered with a scholarship check.

 

The Power 5 conferences are in essence saying, we have money in our budgets to be able to pay for those "additional expenses." Allow us to do so. We can afford it and it will make life a little easier for our student-athletes. The issue has been, with roughly 350 Division I institutions, the bulk of the athletic departments do not have the money/budget to cover those additional expenses. Many of them are losing money as it is, or the very least being almost entirely subsidized by their university.

 

So, when this issue would come up for a vote, the majority of schools would vote no. Autonomy would allow the Power 5 schools to pass something like the full cost-of-attendance stipend without having to endure a roadblock from schools that can not afford the additional expense. Now, if there are smaller schools (conferences) that do have the resources and the desire to absorb the additional costs, the option exists for them to go along with the adopted legislation and follow the lead of the Power 5. The bottom line is the schools with the most resources will be able to enact the rules that they want to enact when they want to enact them.

 

This is an issue that on its surface seems like a no-brainer. If the money exists and the schools are willing to provide it to help the student-athletes, then by all means do it. However, many detractors, including Boise State President Bob Kustra claim it will further divide the "haves and the have-nots." The gap between the Power 5 and the rest of Division I will be even larger than it is now.

 

Kustra has been one of the most vocal detractors to this new model, saying yesterday "For those who already think that Division I athletics has devolved into a business that too often dictates university priorities rather than the other way around, it's about to get worse. These elite programs will bear less and less resemblance to amateur athletics and the mission and role of a university. No one should think it will stop here."

 

He is right. There is no question, there have been "haves and the have-nots in college athletics for years. This new legislation, however, makes the dividing line even more bold. Are we moving closer to a professional league model? Fewer schools (teams), playoffs and billions of dollars being pumped into the "business." You could certainly make the case that's where college sports is headed.

 

In the short-term this is a win for student-athletes. They benefit. This new ruling coupled with the change earlier this summer allowing schools to provide unlimited food and snacks for student-athletes makes their lives easier and better. I'm all for benefits that enhance the lives of the student-athlete.

 

However, here's something to keep an eye on. WVU Director of Athletics Oliver Luck often refers to unintended consequences. It's a phrase that describes situations that arise based on a particular decision that you didn't plan on happening. I think that phrase is perfect for what is going on in college sports.

 

In a rush to avoid further lawsuits, regulation and oversight, did the the NCAA (and more accurately, it's membership) fully comprehend what consequences would arise from their decisions? If you thought college sports has become all about the money in recent years, just wait until you see what happens now. Unlimited food, increase in the stipends paid to student-athletes, the continued arms race when it comes to facilities…the race for more revenue will only intensify now.

 

And that's where fans come in. We've already seen attendance dropping at games all over the country, including right here in Morgantown. As prices go up and performance on the field goes down, it becomes tougher as a fan to pony up the thousands of dollars it takes to be a season ticket holder. Add in the television experience that exists now and it's easy to see why thousands of fans choose to stay home.

 

The money from television networks continues to rise so that helps ease the financial burden schools face from lost season ticket holders. But let's face it, schools need butts in the seats. Fans drive the experience. Live fans are your lifeblood. Alienate them too much and the whole product suffers.

 

We'll certainly talk more about this subject in the coming year(s). One thing is for certain though…the world of college athletics changed significantly yesterday. The debate on whether it was for better or worse remains to be seen.

 

What do you think? Are college sports becoming too much like the pros? Leave a comment below or send me a tweet: @bradhowe07 and let me know what you think.