Ouch!

[Phantom Warrior]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/talk-super-conference-gains-steam-040039810--ncaaf.html

The proverbial feces could be in preparatory stages to hit the proverbial fan. This could end up very, very, very ugly, and the proverbial stink could very well cover MU from head to toe.

The reality appears to be that the five big football conferences are laying the groundwork for a revolution that will make realigment seem like kids' play.

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

Yeah this could get ugly, that said its way too soon before anything is decided, maybe they just take football and leave basketball, what will all the lawyers have to say? I doubt this will happen without some serious ramifications or without some sort of protest. Heck maybe they separate and bring the Big East with them for basketball purposes if they do split off the whole thing. It's really hard to say but I could see this going one of a few ways. I guess at this point it's really not about what the fan wants anyway which is disappointing.

[TedBaxter]

Yes, there are serious ramnifications like loss of scholarships, loss of athletic department jobs to the schools, but in looking at the bigger picture, how much of an economic impact do programs like Marquette and Creighton have in communities like Milwaukee and Omaha? I'm asking since I don't know. Take away 250,000+ attendees out of the Milwaukee downtown every year and how much are they spending in parking, lodging, food, rent for the arena's.

It's nothing more than a business, unfortunately.

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

http://m.espn.go.com/ncf/story?storyId=9499740

The bottom of this article suggests it would just be a football split and wouldn't affect other sports. That would be fine with me, do whatever the hell they want with football I don't care, just leave the basketball alone. Hell the BCS already wasn't a part of the NCAA so in my mind they were already doing their own thing.

[Goose85]

This stuff drives me crazy.

Boise State, Cincy, etc are on the outside just because they are not in the right conference.
Rutgers, Maryland, Wake, Duke, Minn, Indiana, Wash State, Kansas, etc are in just because they are lucky enough to be tied to the right group of football schools. Does Nevada's program as good as Indiana? Is Boise State's program as good as Washington State? Was Northern Illinois as good as Duke this past year?

I think in 10 years or so schools like Texas, Florida State and others just may do what ND is doing and go independent for football. Why should Texas share their money Iowa State? Why should Ohio State get the same share as Indiana? Florida State gets the same football money as Duke and Wake Forest.

I love watching college football, but the money grab by the few (they already get most of the money) is getting to really ruin the game.

[Goose85]

The difference between what the NCAA controls (basketball) and what the conferences control (football) is how money is distributed. The NCAA gets the hoops tourney money and gets nothing from football.

In basketball, the NCAA runs the tourney where schools are compensated based on success. Schools earn the same amount of money for winning and advancing. Michigan State doesn't get twice as much as Butler for making the sweet 16, their tourney credits are the same.

In football, bowls are tied to conferences so those conferences are guaranteed that income. Even if a school like Boise State does get a chance to play in one of the BCS bowls against an ACC team, and peforms better and beats that top ACC team in the bowl game, the ACC team still gets more money for participation.

Basically the big schools don't want to be paid for success, they want to be paid because of who they are. I can't stand that and the way the bowl ties are done.

[TedBaxter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_ice_hockey_programs

Would they even have hockey? Right now they'd only have 10 or so BCS programs to choose from.

[TheSultan]

I think in 10 years or so schools like Texas, Florida State and others just may do what ND is doing and go independent for football. Why should Texas share their money Iowa State? Why should Ohio State get the same share as Indiana? Florida State gets the same football money as Duke and Wake Forest.


Texas, Iowa State, Ohio State, Indiana, Duke, Wake Forest and Florida State all make more money on their television contracts than Notre Dame does.

The power of banding together to offer your television rights has proven to be very effective. BYU for example, by many accounts, is regretting the fact it doesn't have a conference to fall back upon because independence hasn't quite worked out as they had hoped.

[TheSultan]

http://m.espn.go.com/ncf/story?storyId=9499740

The bottom of this article suggests it would just be a football split and wouldn't affect other sports. That would be fine with me, do whatever the hell they want with football I don't care, just leave the basketball alone. Hell the BCS already wasn't a part of the NCAA so in my mind they were already doing their own thing.


Here's the problem...

The football schools want to pay the football players a stipend....and they don't want to share the $$$ with the lower level FBS schools. And honestly I can't say I blame them. The BCS conferences are what draws the audience. The SEC is infinitely more valuable than the MAC.

So do you think these stipends will be limited to football? In the long run that is doubtful.

[IWB]

Basically the big schools don't want to be paid for success, they want to be paid because of who they are. I can't stand that and the way the bowl ties are done.

Exactly Goo - when fans of Land Grant U rip on teams like MU and their conference affiliation it kills me, "Oh sorry, they were not in a position to joining your conference 100 years ago, so they are some sort of sub species? Yep, just keep the Northwesterns of the world in your conference so you can claim its about alignment of academic philosophies."

And how about Bowlsby's comments? "Football needs its own set of rules, its own revenue sharing, its own playoff, its own enforcement department, one with real teeth!"

Ok, let's break this down, shall we?

1) Own set of rules - ok, what rules do you need that have been turned down? Seriously, what is it that you need?

2) Own revenue sharing - Ummmm......YOU ALREADY FREAKING HAVE THAT! You don't contribute to the NCAA, in conferences like the old Big East, the basketball schools did NOT get the football money, so you ALREADY HAVE YOUR OWN REVENUE SHARING!

3) Your own enforcement department, one with real teeth - Ok, you want that? How about you contribute to them to give them an enforcement department with teeth? You give them ZERO dollars, then complain about the work they do, or what they don't do. If football gave 1% of their revenue - 1 freaking percent - the NCAA would be able to staff themselves to properly enforce football, with their own rules, with teeth.

So until you pay for it - shut the hell up!

[TheSultan]

Jim....the rule that they want is the ability to pay players a stipend.

And from their perspective, they *do* pay for it. If the NCAA makes 90+% of their revenue from the basketball tournament, how much of that is due to the BCS schools participation? Really it could be argued that 75% of the NCAA's revenue is due to the BCS schools simply participating in basketball.

The NCAA needs the BCS schools way more than the BCS schools need the NCAA.

[IWB]

They do not pay for it. The NCAA gets ZERO from football. ZERO. The NCAA is fully funded by the NCAA tournament and the Colllege World Series.

Let's compare.....
Northwestern - they suck in football, so they contribute nothing there, yet they pull in $30 mil per year for TV rights. They suck in basketball, so they do not go to the NCAA tournament, yet they get their conference share. They contribute nothing.

Marquette - they do not have football. So this is a wash, right? Not exactly. They make the NCAA tournament which funds the NCAA. They get money from the tourney which they split with their conference.

NCAA - yes, both basketball and football are supported by the NCAA. Rules, regulations and the overwhelming amount of work of the clearinghouse. All supported by basketball, not football, yet football still gets their work done for free.

[TheSultan]

NCAA - yes, both basketball and football are supported by the NCAA. Rules, regulations and the overwhelming amount of work of the clearinghouse. All supported by basketball, not football, yet football still gets their work done for free.


I'm sorry, but that is simply the wrong way of looking at it.

The schools are what matter...not the sports. The BCS schools provide a great deal of value to the NCAA because they drive the numbers to support their basketball contract. If those schools leave the NCAA, and take those eyeballs with them, the NCAA is a great deal of trouble. The BCS schools would likely have a more valuable contract for their basketball championship than the NCAA's revised one.

So I can see why BCS schools don't appreciate that it is their fans that bring the eyeballs, but they don't get as much say as they should.

[Goose85]

I think the greedy 5 see this playoff thing coming and are worried they might have to share some money.

What if, like in every other sport, the end of the year tournament is an NCAA event? Ouch. Football has been such a cash cow that they want to make sure the NCAA continues to share no financial part of it, so they are trying to head that off before they go to an 8 or 16 team tourney.

What if Boise State or Nevada or Fresno State or Houston or Memphis or Cincy or Northern Illinois or ..... has a good year and is deserving of a playoff spot? They aren't a Big school so they should get less? That is a crock of crap.

Too many D1 teams. Yep, in football there are 5 'Big' Conferences and five others (MAC, MWC, CUSA, Sun Belt, AAC). Really, that is too many? It is too easy to be a D1 school? Giving out 170 schollies and staffing teams is too easy? I know they are including the hoops schools, but come on, this is all about five football conferences not wanting the other five football conferences to get even one thin dime. That is pathetic.

Break from the NCAA and you make up your own game number limits. How about all college teams play 14 regular season games and then a 16 team playoff?

[Goose85]

I'm sorry, but that is simply the wrong way of looking at it.

The schools are what matter...not the sports. The BCS schools provide a great deal of value to the NCAA because they drive the numbers to support their basketball contract. If those schools leave the NCAA, and take those eyeballs with them, the NCAA is a great deal of trouble. The BCS schools would likely have a more valuable contract for their basketball championship than the NCAA's revised one.

So I can see why BCS schools don't appreciate that it is their fans that bring the eyeballs, but they don't get as much say as they should.

Not sure I agree with that when the NCAA tourney is concerned. Do I only watch when MU is playing, heck no. My wife couldn't tell the SEC from the ACC, but she fills out a bracket and watches the games.

The NCAA tourney has become an event to most of the country, not just Big 10 country or SEC country. Sure big state U's put out a ton of alum, but if a conference like the SEC brings so many eyeballs, why aren't all of their regular season games sold out? Why are basketball tv ratings so bad?

Sure big schools have big time support for football, but the NCAA tourney is a completely different animal where the fact that everyone has an equal shot is a big part of the tourney's interest.

[TheSultan]

I think the greedy 5 see this playoff thing coming and are worried they might have to share some money.

What if, like in every other sport, the end of the year tournament is an NCAA event? Ouch. Football has been such a cash cow that they want to make sure the NCAA continues to share no financial part of it, so they are trying to head that off before they go to an 8 or 16 team tourney.

What if Boise State or Nevada or Fresno State or Houston or Memphis or Cincy or Northern Illinois or ..... has a good year and is deserving of a playoff spot? They aren't a Big school so they should get less? That is a crock of crap.


Again, from their perspective, since it is their fan's eyeballs that have driven up the big television numbers, they feel that this is money that they deserve to have. And honestly schools like Nevada, Fresno, etc. are MUCH better off financially than they were under the old model where bowl invites were a free-for-all. The big schools shared none of that money with the little schools...and in fact one of the reasons for the grown in FBS is because the "little schools" have access to $$$ that they didn't have previously. Do you think Boise gets three invites to a BCS bowl without the BCS system in place? Nope...in the old days they are playing in the Liberty Bowl or some such.

This isn't a professional sports league with equal revenue sharing and yeah it isn't "fair" from an on field competition POV, but financially from the big schools perspective, they view it as more than fair.

[IWB]

Yes - the fans drive it all. But, a huge percentage of those fans did not go to BCS schools. There are more people in this country that watch the NCAA tournament that went to non-BCS schools than those that did.

Also, take the tournament itself. The Big Ten may have six teams in the tourney, but their fans watch ALL of the games. Why? Because they love Florida, Texas, North Carolina or UCLA? No - because they all want to see Belmont, Princeton or Illinois State knock them off.

Football is a different animal. Basketball is not.

Both football and basketball need the non-BCS schools. If Michigan wants to put together an all BCS non-conference football schedule, or Syracuse wants to put together an all-BCS non-conference basketball schedule - they would already have done so.

[MayorBeluga]

Both football and basketball need the non-BCS schools. If Michigan wants to put together an all BCS non-conference football schedule, or Syracuse wants to put together an all-BCS non-conference basketball schedule - they would already have done so.

Ding ding ding. The BCS schools (primarily taxpayer-funded) already have the ability to marginalize the non-BCS schools via scheduling. They choose not to in order to maximize revenue from home games. Look at the local taxpayer-funded school's non-conference schedule in 201 and 2014: UMass, Tennessee Tech, Western Illinois and Bowling Green. The BCS schools need the smaller schools to pad schedules. They just don't want to share a dime with the smaller schools.

I know I've said it before, but it's time to strip college athletics (including the NCAA and conferences) of their non-profit status. I've even read articles saying they need to be explicitly subject to anti-trust legislation, but don't know enough about that area of the law to comment intelligently (insert your own comment here).

[CaribouJim]

Ding ding ding. The BCS schools (primarily taxpayer-funded) already have the ability to marginalize the non-BCS schools via scheduling. They choose not to in order to maximize revenue from home games. Look at the local taxpayer-funded school's non-conference schedule in 201 and 2014: UMass, Tennessee Tech, Western Illinois and Bowling Green. The BCS schools need the smaller schools to pad schedules. They just don't want to share a dime with the smaller schools.

I know I've said it before, but it's time to strip college athletics (including the NCAA and conferences) of their non-profit status. I've even read articles saying they need to be explicitly subject to anti-trust legislation, but don't know enough about that area of the law to comment intelligently (insert your own comment here).

This is a huge point - SU won't be able to play LeMoyne and Colgate and their ilk for the first month of the season - you won't have 18 game home schedules for b-ball and the same proportion in football. I'm surprised that the Big 10 went with a 9 conference games as they are giving one quality home game every other year aren't they?

[TheSultan]

This is a huge point - SU won't be able to play LeMoyne and Colgate and their ilk for the first month of the season - you won't have 18 game home schedules for b-ball and the same proportion in football. I'm surprised that the Big 10 went with a 9 conference games as they are giving one quality home game every other year aren't they?

What makes you think that the "new" association wouldn't allow its members to play a set number of games against NCAA members?

[CaribouJim]

What makes you think that the "new" association wouldn't allow its members to play a set number of games against NCAA members?

What makes you think that the NCAA teams would want to accommodate the pricks that left everyone at the alter? Use the leverage that you have.

[TheSultan]

What makes you think that the NCAA teams would want to accommodate the pricks that left everyone at the alter?

Because it's members will want the paycheck.

Look, I really don't think they are going to split from the NCAA. I do think another division for football is the likely outcome.

[CaribouJim]

Because it's members will want the paycheck.

Look, I really don't think they are going to split from the NCAA. I do think another division for football is the likely outcome.

Why do that? Things would head south real quick anyway ending up being the equivalent of a Division II scenario so why make it easy for the fat cats. Tell them thanks but no thanks to playing them in the future up front so they can take that into consideration before they take the "it's all about us" route. Let them have Northwestern as their doormat.

I agree with you that is it unlikely that they will split for b-ball, although I wouldn't put it past them at all. I agree with you on football - I've been posting that for years. Saw UCONN and Cinci on the outside looking in a couple years back.

[Goose85]

Because it's members will want the paycheck.

Look, I really don't think they are going to split from the NCAA. I do think another division for football is the likely outcome.

I don't see why the need to form another division for football.

There are currenly only 10 conferences that play D1 BCS football, and five of those are the 'chosen' big 5. Those five already have all the bowl games and the in to get to the championship game. Is the MAC, MWC, AAC, CUSA and Sun Belt really draining cash from the Big 5 to the point they want to differentiate themselves?

It's all Northern Illinois, TCU and Boise State's fault for being good enough to get a spot in the BCS bowls in the past few years. The nerve of them putting together a good season and being ranked.

I actually think college football has been pretty good lately. The power teams have been worth watching and there has been a team from the other conferences every year like Houston / Hawaii / Boise State / TCU / Utah / Northern Illinois / etc to spring up and challenge a spot at the table with the big boys.

Careful Big 10 (and others), adding that 9th conference game (half the teams in the league get another loss) and trying to step up non conference schedule could once again force you to not be able to fill all of your bowl commitments.

[TheSultan]

I don't see why the need to form another division for football.

There are currenly only 10 conferences that play D1 BCS football, and five of those are the 'chosen' big 5. Those five already have all the bowl games and the in to get to the championship game. Is the MAC, MWC, AAC, CUSA and Sun Belt really draining cash from the Big 5 to the point they want to differentiate themselves?

It's all Northern Illinois, TCU and Boise State's fault for being good enough to get a spot in the BCS bowls in the past few years. The nerve of them putting together a good season and being ranked.


That's really not what is bothering them. It is the inability to pass legislation to allow for player stipends.

[Goose85]

So what happens if the Big 5 do break away? They will then establish rules (like NCAA) to be a member that allows, among other things, player stipends.

Can ND join them as an indepenent? If ND can join, then what about others like Boise State, Nevada, Houston, East Carolina, etc? Can they sue if they are not allowed to join as an independent? How about Cincy, UConn or South Florida who were members of the BCS conferences?

The NCAA has certain rules to be a D1 school and rules for the various sports. I'm sure the Big 5 would have established rules to be included as well. What if half of the schools in the MAC, CUSA, AAC and MWC meet those guidelines and are willing to pay player stipends, do they have to legally be admitted?

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

These schools are basically run like big businesses, that's fine by me if they take away their tax exempt status. If they do that then go ahead and have at it, chase that almighty dollar I really don't care, that said given their tax exempt status it really drives me nuts to watch this and watch them ruin the college sporting system, they have completely gotten away from what college sports were meant to be which is a shame. Realistically MU Basketball is my last tie to college sports, if they get marginalized in all of this ill just stop watching all together because I have no interest. I'm sure the vast majority won't but whatever that's not my problem.

[MUMac]

That's really not what is bothering them. It is the inability to pass legislation to allow for player stipends.

How do player stipends end at football? I can't wait to see the attornies jumping all over themselves to take that suit from the basketball, baseball, hockey ... whichever revenue sport. The stipend also may become a slippery slope for the leagues.

Not sure I really understand their desire to breakaway to do this, anyway.

[IWB]

"We want player stipends........yes, all but 9 of us lost millions last year, but with stipends, we can lose a lot more."

[Goose85]

Let's say the schools in the Big 5 conferences are getting $25 mil per year for athletics.

If you want to make a big splash and challenge ESPN what about this.

What if Fox Sports says to Florida State, Texas, USC, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, LSU, Oregon, etc - go independent for football and we will pay you $40 mil each per year for the your TV / media rights and the rights to a coaches show, etc. Hey Cincy and South Florida (and others at that level), we will give you $3 mil per year for your football rights.

Keep your other sports where they are or find another league for them.

Would any of these schools jump?

[MayorBeluga]

"We want player stipends........yes, all but 9 of us lost millions last year, but with stipends, we can lose a lot more."

Modeling college football on the city of Detroit? It's just crazy enough to work!

[TheSultan]

"We want player stipends........yes, all but 9 of us lost millions last year, but with stipends, we can lose a lot more."

All the BCS schools make money on football...even if the goofy accounting says otherwise. Increasing player scholarships to the total cost of attendance is something that the BCS schools want to do.

[TheSultan]

Let's say the schools in the Big 5 conferences are getting $25 mil per year for athletics.

If you want to make a big splash and challenge ESPN what about this.

What if Fox Sports says to Florida State, Texas, USC, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, LSU, Oregon, etc - go independent for football and we will pay you $40 mil each per year for the your TV / media rights and the rights to a coaches show, etc. Hey Cincy and South Florida (and others at that level), we will give you $3 mil per year for your football rights.

Keep your other sports where they are or find another league for them.

Would any of these schools jump?


No. Because the conferences would not allow them to simply keep their sports there nor would they find a comparable place to do so. What is Ohio State going to do? Join the MAC?

[MUMac]

All the BCS schools make money on football...even if the goofy accounting says otherwise. Increasing player scholarships to the total cost of attendance is something that the BCS schools want to do.

A couple of links on the topic:

http://espn.go.com/chicago/college-football/story/_/id/8818929/alabama-crimson-tide-notre-dame-fighting-irish-coaches-support-stipends-college-athletes

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/07/16/steve-spurrier-opines-on-irish-stipends-/2523587/

[TheSultan]

That ESPN article is from January. The head of the NCAA supported it, but it got derailed by the non-BCS, FBS schools...which is why the BCS schools are sword-rattling now.

[MUMac]

That ESPN article is from January. The head of the NCAA supported it, but it got derailed by the non-BCS, FBS schools...which is why the BCS schools are sword-rattling now.

I know it is. I linked it, as it describes the reasoning for the stipends and showed support from the NCAA, but at a lower amount. Some may not have known.

The other article is from today.

[Goose85]

All the BCS schools make money on football...even if the goofy accounting says otherwise. Increasing player scholarships to the total cost of attendance is something that the BCS schools want to do.

Not sure about that. Some athletic departments have been making stadium renovations that are pretty costly.
Now that might not come out of the football budget, but those costs are related to the football program.

Take Wisconsin for example. They had a $109.5 million Camp Randall renovation from 2001 to 2005.
Camp Randal is in now in the midst of a $76.8 million Camp Randall improvement that was approved in 2011.
Basically, in the past 10 - 12 years you are looking at $186.3 million just for Camp Randall improvements.

Sure, not all of that was borrowed money, but it was still money spent on the football program.

[TheSultan]

Not sure about that. Some athletic departments have been making stadium renovations that are pretty costly.
Now that might not come out of the football budget, but those costs are related to the football program.

Take Wisconsin for example. They had a $109.5 million Camp Randall renovation from 2001 to 2005.
Camp Randal is in now in the midst of a $76.8 million Camp Randall improvement that was approved in 2011.
Basically, in the past 10 - 12 years you are looking at $186.3 million just for Camp Randall improvements.

Sure, not all of that was borrowed money, but it was still money spent on the football program.


I would guess that whatever isn't be paid up front by donors is being bonded. The cost of financing something in the bond market makes it a very good option these days.

But this really proves my point. Wisconsin uses no student fee money to pay for athletic projects like these. Lower level FBS schools use a great deal of mandatory student fees for such projects. UW can afford to cash flow this thing based on football revenue and donations. So while they may not show a "profit," if they are sinking this kind of cash into their facilities without access student money, you can be assured that they are making plenty.

[TheSultan]

BTW, Delany apparently said at the B10 press conference that the full cost scholarships will be intended for all "full-scholarship athletes." Men and women. That would obviously include men's and women's basketball players.

[BLT]

So, question for the tax guys. If a school now pays players a stipend (income), will the athlete also have to pay income tax on the value of their scholarship?

[Goose85]

BTW, Delany apparently said at the B10 press conference that the full cost scholarships will be intended for all "full-scholarship athletes." Men and women. That would obviously include men's and women's basketball players.

Many sports like baseball, soccer, track, etc are allowed to give out partial schollarships. Football and basketball are the two that cannot.
Baseball, for example, can only give out 11 or 12 total schollarships and most of those are not given as full rides.

So is Delaney saying these other sports athletes will not get the same benefits?

I would bet those few soccer / baseball / track / volleyball players getting full rides would in the future get 75% schollarships in these other sports. Tough to have two guys on the soccer team getting paid when the 20 or so players are not.

So they want to form D4 and the main rule will be full schollies get paid something like an extra $6K.
I'd guess that would be no problem for most, if not all, of the Mountain West, CUSA, MAC, AAC and Sun Belt schools in football.

For those hoop only schools it will for sure be little to no problem as that is only $128,000 per year for the 28 schollies (if it only pertains to full schoolies).

The big boys better come up with another rule if they want to keep the rest out.

[CaribouJim]

...and the extra $6K is not "paying" them correct? It's for everyday type of expenses beyond room and board? Just semantics then?

[Goose85]

...and the extra $6K is not "paying" them correct? It's for everyday type of expenses beyond room and board? Just semantics then?

Correct. When you visit a school and talk about the expenses, they will always include additional expenses that should be expected to be incurred beyond tuition, room and board.

[TheSultan]

Correct. When you visit a school and talk about the expenses, they will always include additional expenses that should be expected to be incurred beyond tuition, room and board.


Correct. Cost of attendance scholarships, which is what they are talking about here, are not taxable beyond the direct charged costs. There is an upper limit to that however.

[CaribouJim]

Northwestern's Fitzgerald using stipend to recruit:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/colleges/21534582-419/northwesterns-fitzgerald-on-using-cost-of-living-stipend-to-woo-recruits-you-have-no-idea.html

Pat Fitzgerald is a clever tactician when it comes to using media sessions to appeal to the nation’s general recruiting base. Big Ten Media Day on Thursday was no different, with the Northwestern coach liberally discussing his recruiting strategies and in turn letting the masses know the benefits of playing for the Wildcats.

That didn’t make what he said any less-eye opening.

In continuing the discussion about giving athletes an additional stipend or financial compensation, Fitzgerald said he already uses the cost-of-living stipend as a recruiting tool.

Collegiate athletes are provided with money to cover living expenses, but that amount is adjusted based on the location of the university.

‘‘The stipend at our place is a heck of a lot more than it is at other schools because of the cost-of-living adjustment,’’ Fitzgerald said. ‘‘And I’m not going to lie to you — I use that like you have no idea in recruiting.’’

As it pertained to increasing the stipend, an idea that gained momentum after Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany made comments in favor of doing so, Fitzgerald felt that conversation couldn’t exclusively include football and basketball coaches.

‘‘I’m looking, probably like every coach, to do whatever is right best for our student-athletes, whatever gives them the opportunity to have the best experience possible while they’re going through the full-time job by being a student-athlete,’’ Fitzgerald said. ‘‘Does that mean a stipend? I don’t have the answers.

‘‘The bigger issues and the discussions that need to happen have to go with the non-revenue sports and how is their equality, how is there the same opportunity? If you’re only going to do it for the revenue sports, I’m not sure how that makes sense.’’