There are major inequalities between the schools and conferences that compete within the

divisions of the NCAA. People can speculate about the many different reasons for these
inequalities, but what it comes down to is money. Division 1-A schools generate more money
and offer more scholarships for student athletes. Within Division 1-A, you have the Big Six
(Big 5 in football) conferences which consist of the ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, PAC-10, and
Big East, also known as the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) conferences (Rosner &
Shropshire, 2011). The BCS conferences lead money generated of Division 1-A conferences. Its
the level of competition, national exposure, and prestige of these conferences that attract the best
athletes in the country. The opportunity to play for National Championships, in BCS bowls, and
in other bowls, allows these schools and conferences to generate additional revenue. In 2008-
2009, BCS conferences won 32 of 35 Division 1-A Championships (Rosner & Shropshire,
2011). In the NCAA Basketball Tournament, no school outside the BCS conferences has won
the championship since 1990 (Rosner & Shropshire, 2011). This level of popularity is what
draws the fan base and the huge television contracts. Division 1-AA offers limited scholarships
and Division 1-AAA do not allow scholarships (Rosner & Shropshire, 2011). This limits the
athletes and the talent drawn to these schools. There is minimal fan interest and television
exposure with these divisions as well.
The text mentions a few possible solutions such as breaking up the NCAA, filing an antitrust suit
against the NCAA, or altering the rules that change the incentives for universities (Rosner &
Shropshire, 2011). If we are to be completely honest, the only solution that might possibly
happen is changing the incentives for universities. If they wanted to make them more academic
based then some other schools and universities may be better off. I have a few opinions about
this topic. To the point of financial equality amongst all schools and conferences, many
programs such as football and basketball already fund many other programs for these schools. If
you take more money from these programs to disperse, these programs themselves will suffer
which will decrease funding more. Then there is the discussion of paying these student-athletes.
Lets not open Pandoras box. Once this starts, where do you draw the line? Do lacrosse players
get paid the same amount as football players? Im ok with a stipend, but it should be based of
the revenue that sport generates. I understand their arguments, but if you start paying them then
there will be unions, schools will pull scholarships, and they will be employees. A stipend
should be discussed, but thats the extent of it.
Rosner, S., & Shropshire, K., (2011) The Business of Sports (2nd Ed) Jones & Bartlett Learning,
LLC.
The inequalities between schools and conferences are simple in terms of money. The schools generate
more money during the game. The main reason for the same is due to the level of competition, national
exposure, and prestige of these conferences that attract the best athletes in the country. several options
are suggested in the text to handle the problem. The solution suggested is to carry out changes in the
way incentives are given to the universities. Giving stipend will raise the problem of taking part in sports
activities. If everyone gets the same stipend, even if it is as per the rank, where is the incentive or
motivation to play? So the best way forward is to have a incentive system coupled with a fixed stipend.
This would increase the level of completion and will be good for the sports as well as the sportsperson as
well.