|
Post by vballarfan on Feb 4, 2015 12:38:16 GMT -5
I don't agree that COA stipends should be need based, in fact - depending on how you define need- many already get need based Pell grants and other financial aid to cover the current gap to full COA. To me this is about the rich schools wanting to get richer and shut out the other conferences that get any revenue from TV and such as well as avert the risk of the growing noise of athletes asking for their piece of the pie. How does Auburn come out with COA number of $6,000 and Nebraska $3000 ish? that is the flaw in this - as soon as anyone loses a recruit to Auburn - it will be an arms race on this number just like coaching salaries have been. The fact most schools appear to be including non-revenue sports tells me either they feel they must do that to Title 9 rules or maybe they just feel its the right thing to do - I suspect title 9 or other risks of being exclusive. where we live - other than power 5 schools - most programs are funded by the Student fees so if another million is going to be needed- I think there could be a backlash there. What I am interested to see is how this affects volleyball recruiting. Will $3-$5,000 swing recruits to the top 80-100 schools that do this - are these not the same schools that typically would sign the top third of the talent anyway? Deeper is will kids that the big programs missed on be willing to transfer from Lower D1 just to get the money? Lots of questions, but one thing hasn't changed - the big schools already had the prestige in recruiting so nothing new there.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Feb 4, 2015 12:44:09 GMT -5
I also forgot to mention that if this is being done for all sports or just certain sports, depending on the conference/school, every team member should receive this benefit including walk-ons. As long as we are throwing more money at the athletes lets include all team members. If you get 0% of a scholarship you would get 0% of the stipend. I guess they could mail out checks for $0 to the walk-ons but that seems like a waste of paper.
|
|
|
Post by elevationvb on Feb 4, 2015 13:26:29 GMT -5
I agree this will impact the small conferences the worst, but so will TV revenues. In 10-15 years, I really cannot see having 320 Div 1 BB schools or 120 Div 1 Football schools (and maybe not 320 Div 1 VB schools either). Some school's budgets will force others out. But for now, the cost of this to the school is not that much. $1M over 24,000 students (if they do not tighten budgets elsewhere (lol), it could potentially raise tuition $40... That is not even 20% of a good football coach these days. Texas is giving $5,000, that is generous. Don't they offer stipend money also (for weekend meals and stuff)? Edit. oops, just saw Auburn at $6,000 plus $1500 to hang out in the summer (let the bidding begin - cannot wait for SMU, how much is a Trans Am with T-Tops these days?) SMU is so irrelevant that the NCAA would probably not even follow up if there were reports of wrong doings in athletic dept.
I know I am going to regret saying this and get pummeled for this statement, but it would be more cost effective for schools, and keep cost of attendance down for the non-athlete to just leave the new expenses in the hands of the boosters like in the 70's and 80's. Athletes get their scholarships and any of the extras are provided by the boosters, but there should be transparency and a cap (similar to a cost of living adjustment pending on the location). I know everyone will say that it will become like the wild west again and the rich will always get the best players, etc., but it is already like that today in the athletic arms race. The rich get richer and all the money goes to facilities, and athletic extras for recruiting so just let the boosters donate to a special fund for each sport and that gets distributed to the athletes as a monthly stipend. This way the boosters can donate as much as they want, be recognized, and feed their egos, and the schools do not have to start cutting budgets elsewhere to find money for this new expense.
The power conference schools with big alumni will always have an advantage, but they have had an advantage for the last 25 years. With the transparency and cap you can still have governance and tweak as needed.
OK, pummel away!
The NCAA is currently investigating SMU's basketball and golf programs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 13:35:13 GMT -5
SMU is so irrelevant that the NCAA would probably not even follow up if there were reports of wrong doings in athletic dept.
I know I am going to regret saying this and get pummeled for this statement, but it would be more cost effective for schools, and keep cost of attendance down for the non-athlete to just leave the new expenses in the hands of the boosters like in the 70's and 80's. Athletes get their scholarships and any of the extras are provided by the boosters, but there should be transparency and a cap (similar to a cost of living adjustment pending on the location). I know everyone will say that it will become like the wild west again and the rich will always get the best players, etc., but it is already like that today in the athletic arms race. The rich get richer and all the money goes to facilities, and athletic extras for recruiting so just let the boosters donate to a special fund for each sport and that gets distributed to the athletes as a monthly stipend. This way the boosters can donate as much as they want, be recognized, and feed their egos, and the schools do not have to start cutting budgets elsewhere to find money for this new expense.
The power conference schools with big alumni will always have an advantage, but they have had an advantage for the last 25 years. With the transparency and cap you can still have governance and tweak as needed.
OK, pummel away!
The NCAA is currently investigating SMU's basketball and golf programs.
I do not think vbprisoner understood the SMU / Gold Trans Am with T-tops reference (perhaps I am too old or watch too much College Football) and how we are coming full circle back to the 80s but doing with the NCAA's approval. This is step one. Flying and lodging parents will be step two. 10 years from now, the big schools will have created a gap that cannot be crossed. A barrier to entry in order to compete.
|
|
|
Post by elevationvb on Feb 4, 2015 14:03:07 GMT -5
The NCAA is currently investigating SMU's basketball and golf programs.
I do not think vbprisoner understood the SMU / Gold Trans Am with T-tops reference (perhaps I am too old or watch too much College Football) and how we are coming full circle back to the 80s but doing with the NCAA's approval. This is step one. Flying and lodging parents will be step two. 10 years from now, the big schools will have created a gap that cannot be crossed. A barrier to entry in order to compete.
|
|
|
Post by vbprisoner on Feb 4, 2015 15:22:50 GMT -5
The NCAA is currently investigating SMU's basketball and golf programs.
I do not think vbprisoner understood the SMU / Gold Trans Am with T-tops reference (perhaps I am too old or watch too much College Football) and how we are coming full circle back to the 80s but doing with the NCAA's approval. This is step one. Flying and lodging parents will be step two. 10 years from now, the big schools will have created a gap that cannot be crossed. A barrier to entry in order to compete. No, I know the background with Dickerson and the Trans Am. The NCAA giving them the death penalty is what has made them irrelevant since the early 90s in all sports. That is why they did not impose it on Miami several years ago or consider it for PSU.......it made SMU a leper and they have never been in a top conference since.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Feb 4, 2015 15:31:50 GMT -5
I do not think vbprisoner understood the SMU / Gold Trans Am with T-tops reference (perhaps I am too old or watch too much College Football) and how we are coming full circle back to the 80s but doing with the NCAA's approval. This is step one. Flying and lodging parents will be step two. 10 years from now, the big schools will have created a gap that cannot be crossed. A barrier to entry in order to compete. No, I know the background with Dickerson and the Trans Am. The NCAA giving them the death penalty is what has made them irrelevant since the early 90s in all sports. That is why they did not impose it on Miami several years ago or consider it for PSU.......it made SMU a leper and they have never been in a top conference since. There should be no comparisons made between SMU/Miami and PSU. Penn States situation had nothing to do with competitive advantage, cheating, or athletes for that matter. There's was far more serious but the NCAA had ZERO business being involved in sanctioning athletics. IMO.
|
|
|
Post by vbprisoner on Feb 4, 2015 15:39:55 GMT -5
No, I know the background with Dickerson and the Trans Am. The NCAA giving them the death penalty is what has made them irrelevant since the early 90s in all sports. That is why they did not impose it on Miami several years ago or consider it for PSU.......it made SMU a leper and they have never been in a top conference since. There should be no comparisons made between SMU/Miami and PSU. Penn States situation had nothing to do with competitive advantage, cheating, or athletes for that matter. There's was far more serious but the NCAA had ZERO business being involved in sanctioning athletics. IMO. I agree with you, but there was a brief time during the investigation there was talk in the media of the football program potentially shutting down for 2 years, but that died rather quickly because the current players at that time would have just been more victims of the tragedy.
I am not throwing stones at PSU just stating the NCAA will probably never levy the death penalty again and could have for Miami, and it was mentioned very briefly for football for PSU for the Sandusky issues.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Feb 4, 2015 17:55:34 GMT -5
Well this thread went sideways quickly.
To help those not following this thread, the Cost of Attendance stipends are now legal. Nobody will get the death penalty or any other penalty for paying their student athletes the amounts posted in the OP.
|
|
|
Post by owlsem on Feb 4, 2015 20:20:19 GMT -5
This is no win for the big schools. They have the big TV contracts and pay coaches millions. Why don't the athletes get a share? But when the athletes get a share it is ruining NCAA sports. There are other inequities between schools. Housing if you stay in a dorm you get housing paid but if you move off campus you get a stipend which may be more than the rent. I think the point about an arms race among schools for athletes is possible but I do hope it will be limited by two things. First by the need to to spread the wealth under title IX and second by the good business sense of the university administrators. It makes sense to be relevant in your conference but aren't revenues tied to conference relevance and TV ratings more than individual schools with the exception of Notre Dame and BYU?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 5, 2015 10:10:36 GMT -5
For the BCS schools they can pay pretty much all of their scholarship athletes for around 1,000,000 a year, which isnt all that much. The schools who don't have ATM football programs will have to take that hit, which is a big deal. I understand and like the idea, but I think it should be reserved for those in need. We have kids in our club who will be at a few of these schools in the next two years, who absolutely don't need that money, but they will get it. If you can easily afford COA, why get it? This should be need based IMO And the need-based portion has already been happening for years with Pell Grants. Athletes were able to receive a full athletic scholarship plus a Pell Grant if they qualified. The maximum amount is $5,730. So the people who really needed it were already getting the money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2015 10:22:12 GMT -5
T by the good business sense of the university administrators. This part of your comment made me laugh. You mean the people that escalate budgets (and costs) of education at four times the rate of inflation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2015 10:38:49 GMT -5
Summitt League NDSU $3500 for football, and M&W basketball SDSU – no plans at this time Where does Title IX fit into this? How is it permissible for NDSU to provide for two men's programs and only one women's?
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Feb 5, 2015 10:47:31 GMT -5
Summitt League NDSU $3500 for football, and M&W basketball SDSU – no plans at this time Where does Title IX fit into this? How is it permissible for NDSU to provide for two men's programs and only one women's? I thought the same thing. My guess is either they don't think title IX applies here for some reason (but then why do WBB?) or they know they want to do these sports and announced it for recruiting purposes, but there are more coming once they figure out how many women they need to pay a stipend for... which is along the lines of what I think Nebraska did... I can't imagine they only pay $350k in stipends when everybody else in the big 10 is paying department wide.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 5, 2015 11:57:44 GMT -5
Where does Title IX fit into this? How is it permissible for NDSU to provide for two men's programs and only one women's? I thought the same thing. My guess is either they don't think title IX applies here for some reason (but then why do WBB?) or they know they want to do these sports and announced it for recruiting purposes, but there are more coming once they figure out how many women they need to pay a stipend for... which is along the lines of what I think Nebraska did... I can't imagine they only pay $350k in stipends when everybody else in the big 10 is paying department wide. If football is paying for it completely out of football profits, do they need to add more sports for Title IX compliance? NDSU is probably the only FCS school to turn a profit on football.
|
|