If you can’t decide how you feel about pay-for-play after all the effort ESPN has put into the subject, then you simply aren’t good at making decisions.

Seemingly every commentator in the ESPN arsenal has weighed in on the subject, and the whole shebang is aggregated on one big pay-for-play page.

Of all that was written, I thought Pat Forde drew the best conclusions. In his column “Myth of Exploited, Impoverished Athletes,” Forde made the following points:

• “Most revenue-producing football and basketball programs are largely populated with guys … who are unlikely to make a long-term living playing professional sports and understand the value of a cost-free education.”
• “For those who feel compelled to monetize everything in college athletics, don’t forget to factor in the cost of four years of schooling. At a lot of places, that will run about $200,000. Most students emerge from college saddled with debt that will take years to pay off, but scholarship athletes are exempt from that burden.”
• “Most college sports fans identify more with the school than the players. They root for the place they attended, or grew up with — the old front-of-the-jersey cliché. If that weren’t the case, minor-league football and basketball would be more popular.”

One of his most important observations, however, had to do with how women factor into the discussion.

Writing about options that would compensate basketball and football student-athletes while stiffing non-revenue athletes, including women, Forde wrote: “If Title IX doesn’t squash that notion, campus politics and simple fairness would.”

We do female student-athletes a disservice when we act as though the law is the only factor working on their behalf. Indeed, as Forde states so well, their interests are strongly underwritten by political and ethical considerations. To portray women as an inconvenient, and likely irresolvable, legal obstruction to paying male football and basketball players puts them on the defensive, a position they have occupied for most of the four decades since Title IX was made into law.

There are many reasons to tread carefully in the pay-for-play waters, and the treatment of non-revenue athletes – including women − certainly is a factor.

But as all of the conversations play out, everybody would do well to get their sequence straight: Think first about what’s fair, and then consider what’s legal.

Is requiring a program to vacate wins gained while using ineligible players an effective deterrent?

The Division I Committee on Infractions has used the penalty from time to time, and committee chair Dennis Thomas clearly believes the sanction has clout based on his reaction to how Kentucky counted vacated wins in honoring men’s basketball coach John Calipari for 500 victories.

Now comes the Ohio State football case and the program’s self-sanction of vacating wins earned involving ineligible student-athletes.

Based on reaction to the Kentucky matter (that is, the sentiment that people pay no attention to vacated outcomes and evidence that programs other than Kentucky disregarded orders to vacate victories), you might think the media reaction to the Ohio State’s self-penalty would be uniformly negative, but that’s not the case. Sports Illustrated’s Stewart Mandell thought the penalties seemed reasonable given the nature of the allegations at the moment.

Two commentators, though, have advanced a different approach. They want to require offending programs to pay train-riding dollars for games in which they used ineligible athletes.

Blogging for Forbes’ SportsMoney, Patrick Rishe proposed consideration of severe monetary sanctions – millions of dollars − for programs that knowingly violate the rules. “(V)acating revenues earned with ineligible players and instituting strict financial penalties for cheaters is the only way to truly show contrition,” Rishe wrote. “If the NCAA truly wants to institute change while scaring the bejesus out of Division I coaches and administrators, it needs to ‘man up’ and legislate specific and strict financial penalties that would surely cause a reduction in infractions.”

Rob Oller of the Columbus Dispatch took a similar approach. “College football is big business,” he wrote, “so treat it as such by throwing the checkbook at cheaters. It’s time to speak the language of athletic directors and presidents. You cheat, you pay. Packing such a powerful punch could be as restorative as it is punitive. The NCAA could divide the guilty school’s payment evenly across other conference schools. Talk about an effective deterrent.”

The list of possible penalties is provided in Division I Bylaw 19.5.2.2, and one of them (paragraph f) is “a financial penalty” − although that hasn’t been taken to mean anything on the order of the $10 to $15 million hit that Rishe described in his article. The most recent change to those penalties occurred in 2003, and the nature of the enterprise has changed remarkably in the intervening years.

Maybe it is time to see if the punishment fits the time.

A recent poll in Sporting News provided interesting insight into the attitudes of Division I Football Bowl Subdivision coaches.

The magazine (almost always a fun read, by the way) surveyed 40 coaches from the spectrum of FBS schools – from the mega-powers to the smaller programs.

A lot of the content focused on which programs run the most effective offenses or defenses, or which coaches are most admired by their peers. But the survey also probed a number of off-the-field hot topics.

To wit:

What would make recruiting more fair and ethical? The most common response (29 percent) was that the number of official visits should be reduced from five to three. A similar percentage also wanted an early signing period during the spring of the prospect’s junior year.

What percentage of FBS programs break recruiting rules? The highest response (35 percent) was that less than 20 percent – the most conservative choice offered – bent the rules to land recruits. The next most popular answer was 20 to 30 percent. In other words, most coaches believed most schools operate on the up-and-up in recruiting.

What is the most appropriate financial aid approach for FBS players? Fifty-four percent favored a full-cost-of-attendance approach, which is currently being explored. Another 46 percent said student-athletes should not receive any additional financial aid support. The third choice was “a salary commensurate with their skill level and importance to the program.” Nobody appears to have chosen that option.

Are there too many bowl games? The coaches said no. Sixty-eight percent were happy with the current 35-bowl arrangement. Only 22 percent wanted a playoff of some sort.

It’s all interesting stuff, but you’ll have to buy the magazine to get the full report. Sporting News doesn’t appear to offer its printed material online for free.

With so many opinions out there about pay for play, we might as well have a virtual forum of the nation’s opinionators.

Here’s a Q&A taken from a number of recent columns and blogs:

DP: Should student-athletes be paid?

Josh Folck, Lehigh Valley Express-Times: These are supposed to be amateur athletes. I know it’s hard to grasp that with the constant reports of money being thrown around the college game. But if the NCAA starts issuing payments to athletes, we might as well throw out the term ‘student-athlete’ and replace it with ‘semi-pro.’ ”

DP: That’s an interesting perspective. What do others say?

John Harris, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Pay them.

DP: How much?

Harris: Who knows? But anything is better than what college athletes are currently receiving.

DP: But aren’t the student-athletes in revenue sports receiving an education? Isn’t that worth something?

Reg Henry: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: As much as enlightened coaches encourage education and promote graduation, it is a fact that playing college football is the accepted apprenticeship for a career in the National Football League. If universities were solely about education, they would be solely about education.

DP: Do we have anybody here from outside of Pennsylvania? Bob Kravitz from the Indianapolis Star – what do you think?

Bob Kravitz: As the father of one college student, with another heading to college after this coming year, I am sick and tired of hearing how college athletes get nothing. I’m tired of their sense of entitlement and I’m tired of the politics of victimization.

DP: So you think the NCAA is right to regulate in this area?

Kravitz: The NCAA has a scam going….Athletes should get more money beyond tuition and housing for their services.

DP: Sorry. I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth. But you are saying that the education the athletes receive has real value?

Kravitz: Those of you who have kids who don’t run 4.3 40s or throw a 90-mph fastball know how much things cost. You (and I) know how expensive it is − and Indiana state school tuition is going up more than 5 percent next semester. I’ve seen it here with my daughters’ friends, all of whom live in middle-class/upper-middle-class suburbs. Some of their really smart, gifted friends are not going to college because the parents have hit a rough patch. These scholarship athletes need to be reminded how blessed they are. Their parents won’t have to take out loans. They won’t leave school and still be paying off their own loans years after they graduate, as my wife did until she was 30 years old.

DP: I like where you’re going with this – that the educational benefit is real and that it matters. Jerome Solomon, what do you say to that?

Jerome Solomon, Houston Chronicle: We act as if college football and basketball are pure sports and, worse, as if they have something to do with education. We talk about graduation rates as if we really care or as if the three or four seniors on a basketball team and dozen or so seniors on a football team could actually hurt (or help) a university’s academic standing. Major college football and basketball programs are companies operating under the guise of being part of the education system.

DP: That seems harsh and perhaps a bit overstated. Isn’t it true that student-athletes graduate at a higher rate than various peer groups?

(Silence)

DP: I would like to hear some thoughts on why you all believe student-athletes are not paid. Jay Heater from the Idaho State-Journal – you look like you want to say something?

Jay Heater: College athletics is big business and those who run it reap the rewards. Coaches make millions each year. Those who run the NCAA and bowl games or the NCAA tournament are set for life. Apparently, there is plenty to go around. So why not let the athletes, who are the reason all those people pay admission prices to events, share?

DP: What do you mean by ‘share’?

Heater: I am just suggesting that we allow the free market to determine pay. And, oh, by the way, this money is not coming from any university. No, universities have enough budget problems. Not a dime other than tuition, books and normal living expenses. In the new system, all college athletes would be allowed to take whatever handout from the public they could get. If somebody is willing to donate a SUV to carry an athlete’s bling, so be it.

DP: Jay, that’s an interesting thought. While your approach might solve some problems, might it not create others?

Heater: Sure, there would be the mega-programs flashing big bucks for some of the top stars. Eventually, though, the market would determine the price, and I would imagine it would be far lower than what we might imagine. Those willing to compete would develop a set plan. Those unwilling to compete could drop into the NCAA Division IA Less Corrupt.

DP: Let’s put that idea in the parking lot for the moment. If we assume that compensation needs to be conducted within the university structure, what are the concerns? Kristi Dosh, you write for Forbes and produce a daily blog on college athletics finances. Do you think institutionally based compensation works?

Kristi Dosh: Where is the money going to come from?

DP: What do you mean?

Dosh:  If you’re unaware, the NCAA released data showing that only 14 programs are turning a profit without having to rely on institutional support (like student fees or a check cut directly from the university coffers).

DP: Right, I’m familiar with the study. The annual update is coming out soon, and it will contain some interesting information.  Are there issues out there besides the general lack of money?

Dosh: Here is the second big problem. Actually, it’s probably the first, but I chose to focus on the issue of finances first. You cannot pay players without invoking Title IX. Safely assuming that any pay-for-play plan would include paying male football and basketball players, you run into huge issues with federal law.

DP: Any other thoughts from the rest of you?

Bob Knight, ESPN: This NCAA that we’re currently involved with is so far out of touch with the integrity of the sport that it’s just amazing.

DP: Coach, it’s always good to hear from you. We’ll wrap it up on that note. Thanks to all of you for your participation.

The choice of NCAA membership classification has always been based, more or less, on institutional choice. Is it time to consider something different?

The question becomes more important as the question of full cost of attendance begins to fill the window for Division I members.

Of course, the cost-of-attendance discussion is at the earliest stages, and it’s far from certain that the Division I membership will take the plunge.

A number of high-powered Division I administrators have been talking the concept up, saying it may be time to think more about benefiting student-athletes at major programs and less about keeping the playing field level. Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive made that point in a conversation with CBSSports.com’s Tony Barhart that was posted Monday.

“For the longest time,” Slive said, “our focus on intercollegiate athletics has been to try and maintain a ‘level playing field’ for all the institutions involved. But now I believe we need to discuss whether or not those of us with the resources should be able to provide the needed help to athletes when the cost of attendance exceeds the actual value of the scholarship. Academic scholarships have for a long time provided this kind of support based on the need and based on the location of the campus. At this point we don’t know if it’s workable but you can’t make that decision if you don’t sit down and talk about it. So it’s time for us to a least talk about it.”

The decision ultimately belongs with the membership, so we’ll all track together as the issue unfolds over the next year.

If this does shake out as “permissive legislation,” the conventional wisdom is that it would widen the gap between the largest programs and the others. There’s nothing deplorable or admirable about that. It’s just the way things are.

I do worry, however, about how far schools on the margin will act in their efforts to be perceived as elite. Is there a point at which new criteria should be introduced into the mix to protect them from themselves? Or should everybody be comfortable with a more Darwinian approach?

I would be interested in whether elements like undergraduate enrollment and permanent endowments (there would have to be multiple standards) could factor into elite-level classification. Maybe enrollment and endowment aren’t the correct gauges − I am but a humble blogger, after all − but surely there are some non-athletic markers that could help define the institutions that are suited to sponsor mega-programs.

Is it likely to happen? Probably not. The biggest programs likely can get what they want without such a drastic move, and intermediate programs likely wouldn’t want their access to the “top” cut off.

Should something like this be discussed? I wish somebody would take the concept on a spin. The perceived benefits of large-scale athletics success exceed reality in too many places. Maybe it’s time to look at a new way.

The outburst of opinions from high-profile administrators about adjusting Division I financial aid limitations has the news wires crackling.

So, what are we talking about, based on remarks made over the last several days?

Britton Banowsky, Conference USA: “Universities justify spending tens of millions of dollars on coaches’ compensation, with a seemingly insatiable appetite for more growth. At the same time, a small fraction of that amount is spent on all scholarships for all student-athletes. Unless the student-athletes in the revenue-producing sports get more of the pie, the model will eventually break down. It seems it is only a matter of time.”

John Swofford, Atlantic Coast Conference: “Could it be limited to only revenue-producing sports? I’m not sure we would want to do it. And from a legal standpoint, how does it mesh with Title IX? I think we’re a ways away from getting there. But it’s a student-athlete welfare issue. It’s a way to enhance the student-athlete experience and put a dent in some of the financial strains that some athletes have.”

Gene Smith, Ohio State AD: “The reality is that schools can afford it more than you realize…Just look at some of the television contracts that have come out recently.”

Mike Slive, Southeastern Conference: “I have long thought that we should revisit the current limitations on athletic scholarships by expanding to the full cost of attendance.  This is a student-welfare issue that deserves full consideration at both the conference and national level. I look forward to that discussion.”

Jon Steinbrecher, Mid-American Conference: “The first question to answer is − is this the right thing to do? That is a worthwhile debate. As an association the NCAA strives to differentiate intercollegiate athletics from professional sports, and it is important that we continue to maintain the collegiate model.”

Tommy Bell, Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne AD: “There is a small percentage of the NCAA membership that has the financial wherewithal to even consider that. The overwhelming number of schools are not in a position to do that.”

Jim Delany, Big Ten commissioner: “There are some conferences and some institutions that have higher resources than others …. Forty years ago, you had a scholarship plus $15-a-month laundry money. Today, you have the same scholarship, but not with the $15 laundry money. How do we get back more toward the collegiate model and a regulatory system that is based more on student-athlete welfare than it is on a level playing field, where everything is about a cost issue and whether or not everybody can afford to do everything everybody else can do?”

Troy Dannen, Northern Iowa AD: “Television has already put certain leagues in a position where they’re playing a game that no one else can play. The cost-of-living component issue is a legitimate problem, and the NCAA is on-record saying that. I don’t think that’s any secret. I would much prefer the NCAA look for a way that all institutions across the board can address the problem as one.”

You don’t have to be Hercule Poirot to see that some of these men are more enthusiastic than others about the prospect of this change. Larger financial aid packages likely would broaden the competitive gap between the biggest programs and those that are struggling to make ends meet now. As a number of commentators noted, administrators from Division I’s “equity conferences” do not appear to be losing much sleep over that concern.

Dannen, the Northern Iowa AD, correctly alluded to the fact that discussions about full cost of attendance are not new. The late NCAA President Myles Brand had a dalliance with the topic, and Mark Emmert has been all about discussing the idea almost from the day he assumed the NCAA presidency last September.

Where this goes next isn’t exactly clear. As Delany said, there’s “a long way between the talk and the action.” Presumably, there’s going to be a lot of chatter at conference and NCAA meetings over the next several months.

Finally, I thought columnist Drew Sharp offered an effective contrarian view on the subject. Writing in Friday’s Detroit Free Press, he cautioned that what’s being discussed likely would not sanitize big-time sports: “The fallacy in paying scholarship athletes a regular stipend is the delusion that such practices would reduce the covert dirty dealing that too often turns big-time college sports into a prime-time-televised pig sty,” he wrote. “Even if you pay them all you want up front and in the open, it won’t stop some players from demanding even more from scurrilous boosters and sports agent ‘runners.’ ”