This is in discussion mode only, but an interesting concept. Money would come from TV revenue. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6564134
That is very interesting. If in fact rules will allow B10 schools to offer athletes money beyond scholarship and room/board then it will force all it's competitors to do the same. If they didn't then they would be at a severe disadvantage in competing with the B10 for athletes. I'm not sure though how it will work with non-revenue sports, both from a legal point and from a practical point. Also if you are going to try to cover the cost of transportation for kids, what does that mean? Does it mean pay air fare home, how many times a year? What if the kid lives close where he/she just drives home, mileage allowance? It seems like lots of opportunity for abuse, kids saying they want to go home for whenever, but instead taking the money and going to Vegas instead. I could see some sort of "laundry" money increase to 100-200 month and/or providing school supplies as opposed to trying to pay for clothes or transportation.
Once you head down this slippery slope there is no turning back. You'll have have agents and union reps lining up.
The worrying thing for me is this... Maybe they are thinking that SEC schools use the rules to their advantage in oversigning so they (B1G) teams can use the rules to provide extra benefits (legally) to their players.
I did not understand the meaning of that statement. Did they mean all teams under the school's athletic program or all teams in the country?
It would have to be all teams in all sports around the country. Otherwise it would be discriminatory and an unfair advantage at the same time. If the B10 were the only conference to increase pay to these kids then they would have a huge recruiting edge. All in or all out?
I think what he is saying is that he doesn't want to be constrained in what B1G schools can do for their players by what MAC, or Sun Belt or CUSA, or whatever can afford to do for their players.