Naturally, right?

But as the backlash rises against the Big 12 commissioner — and I’m not sure which is getting more … the “cheating pays” or the “you’re going to hate” intercollegiate athletics — there are a few things we have to consider.

First and foremost, Bowlsby and the Big 12 support providing student-athletes the total cost of attendance … even as Bolsby concedes it will cause trouble. And that effect should not be overlooked. I don’t think it’s a media days talking point. Didn’t think that when we were talking about months ago.

Additionally, it seems clear that more often than not, Bowlsby is the smartest man in the room. He does not speak off the cuff. He prepares. He has things like data and precedent in his pocket. He worked at the mid-major level and also serves on the USOC’s board of directors, both important distinctions when the conversation includes dropping Olympic sports.

He’s also been spitting that line about cheating for a while now, and he told our Derek Redd the same thing last month when we did that series on reform. The idea that “enforcement is broken” is not new. It’s not. It’s easy to combat or attempt to dispel, but it’s not new. We’ve heard about this for years.

So the idea that budgets might bulge or burst while further accommodating these coming student-athlete welfare initiatives, that’s logical, right? And if that’s logical, and if we have merely a modicum of knowledge of expense vs. revenue, we can anticipate a pinch in the future, correct?

So why then is what Bowlsby predicts so obtuse? It really isn’t, and allow his compatriot in Morgantown to explain.