The author tries to make the BCS schools who voted against 4-year scholarships as the bad guys, but perhaps they did so to prevent larger schools like themselves from having yet another recruiting advantage over smaller programs.

In an emerging world of entitled youth who call press conferences and receive national coverage to announce their commitments, a four-year scholarship guarantee seems to put all the risk on the university and in the case of public schools, the taxpayer. In the real world just about every employee-employer relationship is at will based on a myriad of expectations. Why should this be any different?

Of course, the legislation doesn't mean any school -- BCS, mid-major, or otherwise -- is required to offer multiple-year scholarships. But since that might put the schools that don't at a recruiting disadvantage against schools that do, the Texases (and USCs, and Alabamas) have tried to prevent anyone from offering them. 

In short: because these schools don't want to promise their athletes a full four-year college education, they've decided the athletes at other schools shouldn't have the benefit of that promise, either."

I would emphasize that this reveals--STARKLY--that these schools PREFER to maintain an advantage not spelled out in the article. They are well aware that some of their rivals are willing to deliberately handicap themselves by refraining from screwing young men to the wall for any trifling advantage. Bottom feeders that they are, they were prepared to merrily continue all of their usual outrages and corruptions. As always, the Trojans, Crimson Tide, and Longhorns leading the hyena pack.

Certain details pop out for me. As a Michigander and life-long Wolverine fan, the unseemly vote for override by the Badgers is a great disappointment. Apparently the folks in Madison have become infected with STDs, the inevitable result of carrying on as if one was a Trojan. May their academic potency rot each the other.

Sad, too, to see Boston College abandon its rivalry in all things with Notre Dame. The Friars would seem to be the religious world's newest moral relativists. Situational ethics, anyone?

As for Navy, I'll let a Marine do my talking. Gomer Pyle says "For shame! For shame! For shame!" I mean, it's not as if the Academy doesn't put EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of THEIR recruits lives on the public dime, now, is it? As it is, they've got exemptions, for practical reasons, from a host of the petty restrictions by which their civilian counterparts are bound. Yeah, the KIDS more than make up for it with the freight that they must carry, but the Admirals are transparently seeking to deny a recruiting advantage to their competition for which they themselves have no conceivable use.

And finally I come to Virginia, still unable to take that last little step toward full Liberty. Just as they did when the guns sounded at Fort Sumter, they've put their noble sentiments aside and stood foursquare with those whom they know full well are on the wrong side of history.

As a footnote, in light of the ongoing saga regarding conference realignment I have held out hope that the Big Ten Presidents prefer  either to remain at 12 schools or to expand to exactly 14 and no more. I'm still STRONGLY convinced of my reasons for the latter, which, suffice it to say, center around the centrality of Notre Dame in building such castles in the air. However, the Middies' low rent behavior here necessitates a rethinking of my preference for a package deal of the two. Similarly, my favored fallback plan involved the Cavaliers pairing with the Terrapins. Much now to contemplate. Feet of clay walk the Eastern marches, it seems.