Gap Between Haves, Have-nots Grown

[MeanGreen61]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=4331075

[GrandGreen]

Very interesting article. Diverting from the main theme of the piece, one thing that really struck me is the following quote:

"Fulks said there are only three major items that would really affect the budget: salaries (33 percent), grants and aid (17 percent), and facility maintenance (10 percent). But, because tuition is set by the school, most athletic departments can't alter grants-in-aid, and many are unwilling to cut coaching salaries or even agree to a uniform NCAA cap on coaching salaries. Schools with smaller athletic budgets generally spend a higher percentage of their money on salaries than the schools with large budgets."

I think coaching salaries are approaching obscene at many of the football powers. Eventually, I think this could lead to a complete restructuring of the college game. If any player group ever takes the current system to court to obtain pay for college players, I think it is going to be very difficult for the NCAA to defend situations were the players get a college education versus college head coaches making $4m a year. Does it seem equitable as stated above that coaches and staff salaries are paid almost twice the value of the entire teams' scholarships? I may be wrong but aren't the players the ones who are taking the risk and account for most of the success of the team. Ultimately, this could lead to the division of college football into the teams that can afford to pay players and those that cannot above a scholarship. Coaches mega-salaries are defended in this article by noting that at larger schools, salaries make a smaller percentage of the budget than at the have-nots. Typical logic to support the status quo and insure that competition remains as unfair as possible between the top and bottom tiers.