The saddest thing about this WSJ article about a change in the rules for feeding student-athletes is the use of the word “may” in the header. As in it’s not a slam dunk for the NCAA to reconsider the possibility that its current regime prevents kids from eating sufficiently throughout the month.
Why isn’t change a given? Well…
Why can’t schools give athletes three squares a day? Poorer athletic departments worry that doing so would burden them financially or lead to elaborate meals such as “pheasant under glass,” said Dave Ellis, a registered dietitian who worked for years with teams at Wisconsin and Nebraska.
True ‘dat. Pheasant under glass is only for school presidents.
Get The Picture 
Do these fools not have any clue how absurd their remarks are? Pheasant under glass. Jeez.
LikeLike
And the NCAA & University presidents wonder why players want a union
LikeLike
Dont you guys know that there is no way those kids are going hungry…that is just plain silly. Dont those kids know they could just steal if they are hungry. *
LikeLike
With 351 schools in Division I, it’s too big, period. Athletics at Alabama is big business no doubt, but Alabama A&M struggles to keep its program afloat. I understand the complaints of the smaller D-1 athletic programs, but the current winds of change will shut some of these program down or force them to drop down to either D-II or D-III. Regardless, it means fewer scholarships available at the end of the day.
LikeLike
It might not. Allowing an athletic department to provide meals for athletes is different than requiring it. True, it will make a scholarship to Alabama that much more attractive than the Alabama A&M option, but them’s the breaks.
LikeLike
Check in at the vending machine down the hall, friend.
LikeLike
Well, the USDA’s food pyramid guidelines have changed since the late 80s / early 90s. What was once a decent meal may not still be the same.
In any case, while I highly doubt that any big-time college athlete goes to bed hungry, maybe the NCAA thinks that “the athlete” thinks that he/she is “hungry” … after all, “hungry” is a perception.
I admit that I was never a “playa” in the arena. As a matter of fact … I only caught a single pass in my illustrious high school career due to the fact that our high school offensive coordinator accidentally called the wrong play while I sent in the “said play” as one of the “blocking tight ends”.
In any case … I remember my high school coach yelling at me that “being hungry” was something to be … and something to believe in. Yeah, that was 30 years ago, but it was something that I heard and that was pounded into my thinking. Something that I heard then and something that I hear now. I don’t know what the “true” answer is.
What I do “think” is … It’s gonna totally change the college football landscape into something that none of us is looking forward to.
LikeLike
And unlimited meals and snacks was just approved. maybe not as tone deaf as we imainged
LikeLike
Coach RIcht used to use food as a motivational ploy for the spring game. The winners ate steak and lobster while the losers ate beanie-weenies. He quit that a few years ago as half the team would rather eat beanie-weenies.
The real advantage to this would be the ability to provide supplemental protein to the guys that have a hard time putting on weight. It is hard to eat 300 grams of protein a day when you are eating in the dining hall. It is a lot easier when you can provide whey isolate powder to the players. NCAA regulations currently prevent providing protein supplements, and lower income players can’t afford them on their own.
LikeLike