There has recently been talk of a rule change for the 2012-2013 athletic season to pay student-athletes an additional $2,000 dollars on top of their scholarships.

This has been a touchy subject for some time now, but it appears the ball might be rolling on this rule change.  Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, says he is in favor of paying student-athletes this additional sum of money.

Many coaches are on the same page as Scott, and are in favor for it as well, but some coaches are still a little leery.  There are many pros and cons as far as helping the conference recruit and help out its players, but some coaches believe that there are too many rules as is, so adding more could be detrimental.

Here's a transcript of a brief interview with Scott (Posted on the  Seattle Times Blog by Percy Allen):

(Thoughts on last week's rule changes.) "These things have been socialized for some time and people can quibble about whether you've gone too far or not far enough, but as far as the direction I think it was spot on. I personally am a big proponent of refocusing the academic standards.)

(At the high school level or with the junior college transfers?) "Really both. Entry level and staying eligible. If you're the Pac-12 conference and some of the most elite academic institutions in the world, we want as much of a level playing field as possible because we think our schools do things a certain way. ... We'd like to see these schools that we're competing against - on the field and on the court - held to some of the same standards. I'm all for that.

"Certainly the step for cost of attendance is a good start. Again people can talk about the amount and is it enough? But we crossed the Rubicon in agreeing that one size doesn't have to fit all. Just because every school in Division I might not be able to afford something, doesn't mean you should prevent the schools that want to do the right thing from doing the right thing. So I really like that direction."

(As a conference will you vote on that measure any time soon?) "I haven't decided exactly when and what form we'll do it, but our conference has been very supportive of that. Cleaning up the rule book and focusing on the big ticket stuff and deregulating some of the small things like texting ... that kind of stuff, I'm definitely in favor directionally. I like all the moves. I commend the presidents for taking this step. ... I'm hoping this will be the beginning of the journey and not the end of the journey. I like the direction that it's heading."

(Most teams don't offer full scholarships. So what happens to the $2K payment in those cases?) "Well these are for full scholarships with the idea being for someone that you want to give a full scholarship - where you've made that decision - I want to try to cover their full costs. For me this puts student-athletes on a level playing field with other students that may be on a full ride, but (also) going to work and have some spending money. Because a lot of those student-athletes can't. They're practicing all the time. They practice in the summer. But it is and it has to be limited."

(Your thoughts on schools having the option of giving multiple year scholarship instead of the one-year renewable.) "I like it. I like it in that I think it's the right thing to do for the student-athlete to not necessarily feel like they're being held hostage or at risk. But you got to be careful. I don't want the pendulum to swing completely the other way. You hear from some coaches that you want to make sure the student-athletes are taking it seriously and putting in the same commitment as other student-athletes and not slacking. I think it has to be a healthy balance, but I do think year to year was too far and this I think is a step in the right direction."

(Which cities are in the running for hosting the Pac-12 Tournament?) "I won't confirm all of them, but I will confirm Seattle is one of the bidders."

(What's the likelihood of the tournament moving?) "It's hard to say. LA is also bidding to keep it so I don't think I'll handicap it."

What are you thoughts on the possible new rule?