Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
Author Message
johnbragg Online
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #1
Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
According to http://www.hsbaseballweb.com/scholarships_by_sport.htm, these are the scholarship limits by sport:

***
NCAA DIVISION I
***
Sport Men's Women's
Baseball
Softball 11.7 12
Basketball 13 15
Track & Field 12.6 18
Football 85 0
Golf 4.5 6
Gymnastics 6.3 12
Field Hockey 0 12
Ice Hockey 18 18
Lacrosse 12.6 12
Rowing 0 20
S****r 9.9 12
Swimming
Diving 9.9 8.1
Tennis 4.5 8
Volleyball 4.5 12
Water Polo 4.5 8
Wrestling 9.9 0

Add it up, and it's 380 scholarship-equivalents. So assume $2000 for each scholarship-equivalent, and it's $760,000.

Did I miss something, or make a catastrophically stupid error--or is this less of financial concern than it's made out to be?
05-31-2013 12:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #2
RE: Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
It might be slightly more than that. It might be $2,000 for each athlete receiving a partial scholarship as well as those receiving a full scholarship. There are no partials in football and basketball, but in many of those other sports there are.
05-31-2013 12:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
b0ndsj0ns Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,059
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 1016
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
Either way we aren't talking about the end of the world for most of FBS. I remember emailing Terry Holland about this when it was first proposed and while he wasn't a fan of it he made it clear ECU could easily afford to pay this stipend without much issue.
05-31-2013 12:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CommuterBob Offline
Head Tailgater
*

Posts: 5,840
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 173
I Root For: UCF, Ohio State
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
Exactly. It's not really the back-breaker that the press seems to be making it out to be. For goodness sakes, the Sun Belt actually approved the use of stipends before they were recinded.
05-31-2013 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
(05-31-2013 12:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It might be slightly more than that. It might be $2,000 for each athlete receiving a partial scholarship as well as those receiving a full scholarship. There are no partials in football and basketball, but in many of those other sports there are.

I think the bigger threat is that it starts at 2K a student and quickly escalates. Plug 5K per student in that formula and the costs are more significant.

The current stipend amounts to $166 dollars a month or a bit over $5 a day. Thats a pretty tight budget for even a student given that a movie is 8-12 bucks these days and decent dinner out is $25. A dinner date and a movie pretty much blows half a months stipend. At 5k, the stipend is around $400 a month. Still not not rolling in the dough, but at least halfway comparable to the typical student with a part time job. A quick escalation to the 5K number would not be surprising once the camels nose is under the tent.

Despite all that, it would still be less than 2 million--I think most current FBS schools would pay the stipend rather than skulk back to some FCS/FBS-lite division.
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2013 12:48 PM by Attackcoog.)
05-31-2013 12:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
curtis0620 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,943
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 60
I Root For: Pitt
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
Any how many of these schools athletic departments are already in the RED? This will add to that. And what about smaller schools? Are they exempt?
05-31-2013 12:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


johnbragg Online
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
Quote:It might be slightly more than that. It might be $2,000 for each athlete receiving a partial scholarship as well as those receiving a full scholarship.

But would partial schollies get a full COA?

Quote:I think the bigger threat is that it starts at 2K a student and quickly escalates. Plug 5K per student in that formula and the costs are more significant.

More significant, but not game-changing. So it's $2M, not $700,000. That's manageable for the institutions who are committed to high-level athletics, in whatever sports they're committed to.

We've already agreed that the lower-FBS schools and the Big East are going to pay the tab. $2M is more than $700,000, but if you've made the commitment to FBS, you've made the commitment. You can also shave that by not giving COAs to men's nonrevenue sports. (I think that peer- and conference- pressure would mean that the power-conferences spend on COAs up to the max.)

Some non-FBS schools would pay COAs in some sports, and not pay in others. Title IX means that you have to pay COAs equally to mens' and women's sports, but I think that if the numbers were equal, you could pay COAs to the womens' BB and men's hockey teams, if that's your school's priority.

You could argue this creates a tiered system in all sports, not just football, but I think that already exists anyway, because of different funding levels on everything else. DePaul can afford to keep up with the weight rooms at U of Illinois, but Southern Illinois probably just can't.
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2013 01:10 PM by johnbragg.)
05-31-2013 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Online
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
(05-31-2013 12:56 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Any how many of these schools athletic departments are already in the RED? This will add to that. And what about smaller schools? Are they exempt?

"Exempt"? Sort of. The school doesn't HAVE to give out COA stipends.

It puts them at a disadvantage if they don't, of course. But the schools that wouldn't were already at a disadvantage. Was anyone really considering taking an offer for a UT-Chattanooga field hockey scholarship if she had an offer from UT? This maybe creates more separation between MTSU and UT-Chattanooga in non-revenue sports, though, if say the Sun Belt mandates COAs across-the-board.

Er, CUSA, I think, not Sun Belt.
05-31-2013 01:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CommuterBob Offline
Head Tailgater
*

Posts: 5,840
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 173
I Root For: UCF, Ohio State
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
(05-31-2013 12:56 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Any how many of these schools athletic departments are already in the RED? This will add to that. And what about smaller schools? Are they exempt?

Define "in the red" because it can vary widely as to what that really means from school to school. Most schools operate their athletic department with very fuzzy accounting practices as much of the time the revenue from merchandise and media being shared between the university in general and the athletic department. Most schools also charge a fee to their students to help fund athletics and/or get some form of subsidy from the univeristy's general funds. If you want to llok at schools whose athletic departments truly stand on their own, you're down to about 7 schools.
05-31-2013 01:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #10
RE: Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
(05-31-2013 01:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  We've already agreed that the lower-FBS schools and the Big East are going to pay the tab.

I'm not sure that everyone will pay, but I am sure that it will be easier for D-I schools with no football team than for FBS schools that would have 170 more scholarship athletes (85 FB scholarships plus 85 women's scholarships to balance) but don't generate big revenue from football.

For "stipends" and other changes that the big boys want, the schools that would feel the most pain are the lowest-revenue FBS programs. Those that don't have much of a donor base, or a season-ticket base, and actual paid home attendance under 20,000/game (even if the numbers reported to the NCAA claim much larger attendance). Anyone in that boat ought to be fighting these proposed "reforms" because, IMO, the idea behind these proposals is to give those schools a very strong incentive to stop playing FBS football.
05-31-2013 01:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
VA49er Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 29,000
Joined: Dec 2004
Reputation: 952
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
Would the stipend be the exact thing at every school, regardless of conference affiliation?
05-31-2013 01:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


johnbragg Online
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
(05-31-2013 01:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-31-2013 01:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  We've already agreed that the lower-FBS schools and the Big East are going to pay the tab.

OK. The Sun Belt had voted to pay the tab. I figure that meant everyone in FBS would. Furthermore, if you _don't_ pay, at least for football, basketball, and enough women's sports to balance those, then you mark yourself even more as a second-class FBS program, which undermines the point of being FBS.

Quote:I'm not sure that everyone will pay, but I am sure that it will be easier for D-I schools with no football team than for FBS schools that would have 170 more scholarship athletes (85 FB scholarships plus 85 women's scholarships to balance) but don't generate big revenue from football.

Yes. It will be a lot easier for VCU to fund, say, 30 cost-of-attendance scholarships in men's and women's basketball than it will be for ODU to fund 200. (Mens' BB, womens' BB, football, 85 random womens' sports).

Quote:For "stipends" and other changes that the big boys want, the schools that would feel the most pain are the lowest-revenue FBS programs. Those that don't have much of a donor base, or a season-ticket base, and actual paid home attendance under 20,000/game (even if the numbers reported to the NCAA claim much larger attendance). Anyone in that boat ought to be fighting these proposed "reforms" because, IMO, the idea behind these proposals is to give those schools a very strong incentive to stop playing FBS football.

Or, to be cruel, the ones who aren't really Division I-A football programs. They will have to choice to keep paying and keep pretending, or stop.

This will be essentially a deal or an adjustment between the power-conferences and the large body of low-revenue, nonfootball and FCS schools, with lower-FBS (and the Big East) caught in the middle, adapting to a situation they don't have a ton of voice in shaping.
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2013 01:52 PM by johnbragg.)
05-31-2013 01:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,240
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #13
RE: Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
Even $760,000 seems like a lot if it's every year, and since it will inevitably escalate. Basically, it's a way to pay the players so the richer schools can separate themselves further. Not to start out with, but this gets their foot in the door. I mean, even Purdue said they needed to have 7 home games a year or the math doesn't work, and they get decent attendance. I'm not surprised ECU could pay it without too much difficulty but they're one of the exceptions among GO5 schools.
05-31-2013 01:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,240
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #14
RE: Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
(05-31-2013 01:52 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(05-31-2013 01:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-31-2013 01:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  We've already agreed that the lower-FBS schools and the Big East are going to pay the tab.

OK. The Sun Belt had voted to pay the tab. I figure that meant everyone in FBS would. Furthermore, if you _don't_ pay, at least for football, basketball, and enough women's sports to balance those, then you mark yourself even more as a second-class FBS program, which undermines the point of being FBS.

Quote:I'm not sure that everyone will pay, but I am sure that it will be easier for D-I schools with no football team than for FBS schools that would have 170 more scholarship athletes (85 FB scholarships plus 85 women's scholarships to balance) but don't generate big revenue from football.

Yes. It will be a lot easier for VCU to fund, say, 30 cost-of-attendance scholarships in men's and women's basketball than it will be for ODU to fund 200. (Mens' BB, womens' BB, football, 85 random womens' sports).

Quote:For "stipends" and other changes that the big boys want, the schools that would feel the most pain are the lowest-revenue FBS programs. Those that don't have much of a donor base, or a season-ticket base, and actual paid home attendance under 20,000/game (even if the numbers reported to the NCAA claim much larger attendance). Anyone in that boat ought to be fighting these proposed "reforms" because, IMO, the idea behind these proposals is to give those schools a very strong incentive to stop playing FBS football.

Or, to be cruel, the ones who aren't really Division I-A football programs. They will have to choice to keep paying and keep pretending, or stop.

This will be essentially a deal or an adjustment between the power-conferences and the large body of low-revenue, nonfootball and FCS schools, with lower-FBS (and the Big East) caught in the middle, adapting to a situation they don't have a ton of voice in shaping.

Sure, everything else is already tilted in favor of the P5, why not add this to it?
05-31-2013 01:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Online
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
Clay Travis ‏@ClayTravisBGID 1h
SEC's Slive coming out strong in favor of $4k yearly stipend for all scholarship athletes. All five big conferences support this.

So make that $750,000 $1,500,000. For now.
05-31-2013 02:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Online
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
(05-31-2013 01:46 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Would the stipend be the exact thing at every school, regardless of conference affiliation?

Usually the way these work is, the NCAA rule sets a cap. You can be under the cap if you want to. Just like there are FCS conferences that are non-scholarship, and FCS conferences with a 40-scholarship limit, etc.
05-31-2013 02:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


b0ndsj0ns Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,059
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 1016
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
(05-31-2013 02:33 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Clay Travis ‏@ClayTravisBGID 1h
SEC's Slive coming out strong in favor of $4k yearly stipend for all scholarship athletes. All five big conferences support this.

So make that $750,000 $1,500,000. For now.

That would be much tougher for schools in the Sun-Belt, MAC, and bottom of C-USA. Pretty much everyone in the AAC and MWC could pay that, and the top of C-USA financially could make it work as well.
05-31-2013 02:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Online
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
(05-31-2013 02:36 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  
(05-31-2013 02:33 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Clay Travis ‏@ClayTravisBGID 1h
SEC's Slive coming out strong in favor of $4k yearly stipend for all scholarship athletes. All five big conferences support this.

So make that $750,000 $1,500,000. For now.

That would be much tougher for schools in the Sun-Belt, MAC, and bottom of C-USA. Pretty much everyone in the AAC and MWC could pay that, and the top of C-USA financially could make it work as well.

ACtually, isn't it still less than the lower-FBS schools will be getting from the playoff fund?
05-31-2013 02:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,240
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #19
RE: Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
(05-31-2013 02:43 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(05-31-2013 02:36 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  
(05-31-2013 02:33 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Clay Travis ‏@ClayTravisBGID 1h
SEC's Slive coming out strong in favor of $4k yearly stipend for all scholarship athletes. All five big conferences support this.

So make that $750,000 $1,500,000. For now.

That would be much tougher for schools in the Sun-Belt, MAC, and bottom of C-USA. Pretty much everyone in the AAC and MWC could pay that, and the top of C-USA financially could make it work as well.

ACtually, isn't it still less than the lower-FBS schools will be getting from the playoff fund?

How much are they supposed to get from the playoff fund? I can't imagine it would be that much.
05-31-2013 02:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
b0ndsj0ns Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,059
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 1016
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Cost-of-Attendance stipends, scholarship numbers, and math
(05-31-2013 02:43 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(05-31-2013 02:36 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  
(05-31-2013 02:33 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Clay Travis ‏@ClayTravisBGID 1h
SEC's Slive coming out strong in favor of $4k yearly stipend for all scholarship athletes. All five big conferences support this.

So make that $750,000 $1,500,000. For now.

That would be much tougher for schools in the Sun-Belt, MAC, and bottom of C-USA. Pretty much everyone in the AAC and MWC could pay that, and the top of C-USA financially could make it work as well.

ACtually, isn't it still less than the lower-FBS schools will be getting from the playoff fund?

Might be, but that doesn't really change who would or wouldn't be able to absorb that financial hit. Everyone in the AAC has budgets that could make that work. I'm fairly certain the same would apply to the MWC. The top half of C-USA in terms of finances could probably do it as well. When you start getting down to those schools with 20 million or less budgets you have some real issues and they might not be able to do it.
05-31-2013 02:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.