http://www.dnj.com/article/20140421/BLUE...open-forum

The SBC has already come out in favor of a stipend. It will get interesting if they try to use a cost of attendance based on the varying cost of living from city to city as that will harm a lot of traditional football powerhouses. I suspect it will end up being a set amount across the board.

As for whether they will only provide these benefits to football? You shouldn't have to have a law degree to see where that would end up. There is no way they can enhance the compensation for football players only. My concern is how doe this affect the schools that don't play football? Do only our football playing schools provide a stipend to all athletes along with the other benefits? That will help the budgets of the non-football but it will kill them in recruiting. How does a Wichita State compete with South Alabama if they are not paying a stipend and USA does?

It isn't as easy as it is being portrayed but those five conference ALREADY get the vast share of the revenue and have nicer toys than the rest of us. That isn't going to change. As long as we still play those schools, have access to the postseason and have the "FBS" label we will all still be better off than our FCS counterparts. It will be up to us to find ways to enhance our revenue outisde of what the big conferences share.