Something I heard today was that it was really a change of guard that brought about the change. The commissioners who had really been fighting to keep the old guard were the Big 10 and Pac 10 mostly because of the Rose Bowl and their other bowl commitments, but the old guard that shot down that proposal back in 08 are mostly gone and others left realized they were fighting a losing battle.
What people like Reed don't get is that programs like Texas already are run as a separate entity. They take no state money, but their football program provides enough income to support all other athletics including women athletics. Those should not be the schools people look at and question why they continue to try and compete in Division I. The real question should be why schools like Idaho, which spends over $3 million a year of state money continue to have athletics while having to cut academic programs.
WKU's president had a hand in this coming about.
ReplyDeleteSomething I heard today was that it was really a change of guard that brought about the change. The commissioners who had really been fighting to keep the old guard were the Big 10 and Pac 10 mostly because of the Rose Bowl and their other bowl commitments, but the old guard that shot down that proposal back in 08 are mostly gone and others left realized they were fighting a losing battle.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Well, I'm rolling with WKU and the new guard.
ReplyDeleteHere's what Billy Reed thinks.
ReplyDeleteLet it go, Billy. Just let it go.
DeleteWhat people like Reed don't get is that programs like Texas already are run as a separate entity. They take no state money, but their football program provides enough income to support all other athletics including women athletics. Those should not be the schools people look at and question why they continue to try and compete in Division I. The real question should be why schools like Idaho, which spends over $3 million a year of state money continue to have athletics while having to cut academic programs.
Delete