The Power Five Conferences voted in some big changes to the college football landscape, today. This is the first time they've been able to use their autonomy status since last year's vote. Let's take a look at what they passed:
Proposal allowing athletes to borrow against future earnings passes unanimously— Inside the NCAA (@InsidetheNCAA) January 17, 2015
Well, I'm sure that's going to go well. It's not at all as if some home-town, booster-owned banks won't guarantee loans and plans with safety nets to some athletes in order to lure them in.
I really hope that's just me being cynical, but I can see athletes borrowing far too much money based on their own perception of their own worth. Banks will likely put in place some serious restrictions on these loans that require evaluations of health, maybe even talent, but I guarantee you there will be abuses of the system. At some point we'll see an ESPN "30 for 30" special on college athletes that ruined their lives because they borrowed too much money and then didn't make the big bucks they were planning on bringing in.
There is always the chance that this will be managed by the schools and the conference as a part of the NCAA. I would think it would have to be, or else it really runs the risk of getting out of control. I guess we'll find out more in the days to come.
DI autonomy proposal allowing financial assistance up to cost of attendance passes 79-1 #NCAAConv— Inside the NCAA (@InsidetheNCAA) January 17, 2015
I have no issue with this one. I think it's a no-brainer and a great choice.
D1 autonomy proposal guaranteeing that scholarships can't be reduced or canceled for athletics reasons passes #NCAAConv— Inside the NCAA (@InsidetheNCAA) January 17, 2015
Now let's follow that one up with this one:
Interesting: SEC, Big 12 athletes argued AGAINST rule prohibiting coaches from removing underperformers scholarships http://t.co/as01sGvKhH— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel) January 17, 2015
There were many athletes (not coaches, but athletes) who argued AGAINST the guarantee of scholarships for four years. The reason? Those athletes want to win, too. They want to be on the teams that win championships, and if someone gets lazy on the field and their performance doesn't cut it, then they feel those players should be let go.
I can see their argument. As an ROTC instructor, we give scholarships to Cadets as freshman, but if they don't meet the academic or physical fitness requirements that we set for becoming an Officer, then we cut them loose. In the case of those Cadets, they then have to either pay back their scholarship (if they've been in for more than one year) or else enlist in the Army. These football players owe nothing if their scholarships are revoked. They can transfer, too.
I'm not going to go into some of my feelings on what the athletes are wanting or many are advocating until those issues come up. I suspect I'm in a minority - especially amongst many in the SB Nation crowd. Full cost of attendance scholarships - and even small stipends - are things I'm perfectly fine with, though.
Finally, there's this one:
Proposal requiring new concussion management protocols passes— Inside the NCAA (@InsidetheNCAA) January 17, 2015
I really haven't done a lot of research on just what that entails, so I'm going to hold off commenting on that too much.
So what do y'all think of these new rules? Sound off below!