Thanks, but an article on AL.com indicates that this was a decision made for other reasons. Good reasons, but not the ones that you describe.
I can only go by the numbers, to demonstrate Alabama had a choice to make, but it wasn't one in which they had everything on the table. I wouldn't want to say Alabama could not afford LOV insurance for Tua under any scenario. I think in one post I said the could, but went on to say but not for Jeudy, Ruggs, etc...
This quote is a big part of that article: "
though schools have been allowed to pay the premiums through the NCAA’s Student Athlete Assistance Fund." I've already explained where that money comes from and that it's finite. The school is allowed to pay through that fund,
but not from their general funds.
So, to be clear I'm not saying Alabama couldn't buy both for Tua. I remember the ballpark of the Winston number when he was the #1 projected pick, but Alabama probably could have afforded both for Tua. It's just that they couldn't afford both for everyone else. They could possibly say alright, let's buy both for the first rounders, then the 11 other guys get no insurance. Or they say Tua gets both, but we'll drop a few other guys, etc... There's just no way to make the fund stretch as far as it would need to, to get both insurance for all those guys.
The other choice is Alabama could have chosen LOV over the insurance they did go with, and that's what Byrne seems to be describing. There are a lot of choices there, but I want to emphasize the fact that the fund is a finite amount, and no indication at all is that Alabama was being "cheap". I don't see a better way to do this, with the NCAA restrictions in place.
So what I see from Byrne is an explanation of why he chose the policy he did choose. I'm just stating definitively, he did not have unlimited resources. In fact, use of the Student fund for this is kind of a loophole, the first time I saw anything about it being used that way was Winston actually. It's within the rules, but for quite some time it wasn't even normal use, which is why in 2011 Ohio State was using it for parking and health insurance, I'm not sure they even considered the possibility of using it back then for LOV or it was even clear that the NCAA would allow it back then.
To reiterate, this is an area the NCAA can get better in, and I hope they do. Byrne shouldn't have to make these sort of choices. Just to give broader context, Alabama's athletic department spends nearly double the entire NCAA Student fund (for 353 schools) every year on their program. There's no question they'd spend more on these athletes and insurance if allowed. It would be helpful to recruiting if they could, and that's one of the big reasons they aren't allowed.
Edit: I just want to bring this quote back because I hope now the context is clearer.
"
The money Alabama spends on those premiums took up 68% of the school’s allocation of its Student Assistance Fund this year."
This is not just a matter of Alabama only has 32% of the fund left after all uses of the fund, this was only 32% left after they bought insurance alone! That means they spent over two thirds of the entire fund on just insurance.
And then this part, which I might have neglected to post earlier but it as definitive as can be on the issue:
"
The NCAA stipulates that the only way schools can pay for insurance premiums for players is through this fund,"
I'm sorry if my rhetoric accidentally masked the most important parts...
