(12-12-2013 02:01 PM)GFlash68 Wrote:  When and if stipends are employed, the day of the presidents being the CEO of the university is over. There is virtually no support for stipends amongst the presidents nationally. In fact, I will predict that stipends to athletes will not pass on any level due to public perception, and more importantly, legal issues. With the make up of the courts today, I do not see mens' FB and mens' BB getting stipends at the exclusion of all other sports. This would of course include the band, dancing girls, cheerleaders; etc. Title IX will play heavily in this decision. Yes, there are about a dozen programs that could support stipends to their entire athletic participants number, but that will be at the expense of the athletic donations to the libraries and academic activities. Even the money saturated programs in the B1G and SEC will find opposition from the "have not" members of their own conference. The stipend issue, IMO, is a ploy by the P5 to get the G5 to separate voluntarily from fear, and to quiet the "pay us athletes" crowd for the time being.

Another simple question should be ask. If a university adopts "pay to play", are the payroll receivers employes? If they are, then the entire relationship between the former "students" and school now changes and will have the issues of insurance, social security, unions, unemployment, and a whole stinking mess of other dealings. Do university administrators really want to tread here? Beyond the AD's, I doubt it.

Very good post. You make a lot of good points.

(12-13-2013 02:42 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 02:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 12:26 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 10:49 AM)CMUprof Wrote:  So what do the big schools hope to gain by this? It's not like the non P5 schools out-recruit the big schools. A stipend isn't going to change that (or whatever else they want). They will still need us to fill up their schedules and get them their 7th or 8th home game.

Because I think BIE is slightly off. With stipends, Purdue will start recruiting better, and will rarely lose to NIU (BG, Ball St, etc)

You're assuming NIU wont implement stipends... For football and hoops I think the middies will put stipends in for the revenue sports and any title IX needed to offset that.

So to this point, the bigger question is what MAC teams won't pony up for a stipend, if any. The P5 seems content gradually raising the cost to doing business and if a program becomes a casualty of the system they won't shed a tear or slow the train down.

I have to assume most will pony up. It will mean that a lot of programs will go under but right now there is little point to having division one college athletics without hoops.

I for one think if there is a significant rise in the cost to doing business, MAC programs will be right in the cross-hairs. Other G5 programs are slowly increasing the gap in the pay scale relative to the MAC which puts this league in the uneviable bottom.
[/quote]

UB has went from an 18 million dollar budget to about a 27 million dollar budget since 2007. And we are not really a special case..

(12-13-2013 02:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 12:26 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 10:49 AM)CMUprof Wrote:  So what do the big schools hope to gain by this? It's not like the non P5 schools out-recruit the big schools. A stipend isn't going to change that (or whatever else they want). They will still need us to fill up their schedules and get them their 7th or 8th home game.

Because I think BIE is slightly off. With stipends, Purdue will start recruiting better, and will rarely lose to NIU (BG, Ball St, etc)

You're assuming NIU wont implement stipends... For football and hoops I think the middies will put stipends in for the revenue sports and any title IX needed to offset that.

Just like the coaching arms race, I'm not sure the G5 can keep up with that, especially over the long haul. I still believe that the Ohio Board of Regents picks MAC admins who help keep ZSU at the top. If this is true (even partially true) in Ohio and other states, then it won't take long for them to shut down or salary-cap stipends at G5 institutions.

Even in the short term, there are lots of "fair" ways to favor the P5 schools. For example, tie the stipend to the cost of enrollment. So, if stipend is 10% cost of enrollment, and UofI costs more than NIU, who gets to offer more? That can be embellished even further if it's tied to average conference member rates, as N'western, U$C, Stanfraud, Vandy, Duke, all drive costs way up.

Anyway, I don't think it takes much imagination to see the G5 members pushed to a subordinate level rather quickly. And I don't even think the P5 members would deny it.

They can also increase the amount of the stipend to whatever they want, once it's in place.

(12-13-2013 12:09 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 10:49 AM)CMUprof Wrote:  So what do the big schools hope to gain by this? It's not like the non P5 schools out-recruit the big schools. A stipend isn't going to change that (or whatever else they want). They will still need us to fill up their schedules and get them their 7th or 8th home game.

Not to mention that only a hand full of FBS G5 schools opposed the stipend the last time around.. Make no mistake for Football and hoops schools will find the money..

This is correct - the MAC commissioner even said as much - basically that the MAC schools do not directly oppose the stipend. If the stipend goes through, the Purdue's and Indiana's won't begin to gain a recruiting advantage over NIU and BG, etc., because the MAC schools will be on board.

I think that in the end, the MAC is just hoping to leverage the overall argument to get a compromise centered on stipends based on some sort of need calculation - but in general, the MAC will not allow this potential change to shake them down to a lower division if at all possible.

(12-13-2013 06:39 PM)TAW92 Wrote:  This is correct - the MAC commissioner even said as much - basically that the MAC schools do not directly oppose the stipend. If the stipend goes through, the Purdue's and Indiana's won't begin to gain a recruiting advantage over NIU and BG, etc., because the MAC schools will be on board.

Yes ~ for the cost of around $1m, MAC schools are going to pay the stipend. Rather than fight the stipend, they are going to swap political support inside the NCAA in return for being allowed inside the new FBS-as-a-division. And as already argued above, its not all on one side for the P5 ~ there is substantial legal and political cover in having the Go5 in their division. For instance, here in Ohio, OSU on one side and UC, OhioU, MiamiU, KentState, Akron, Toledo, Bowling Green & Youngstown on the other is one thing, OSU, UC, OhioU, MiamiU, KentState, Akron, Toledo and Bowling Green on one side and Youngstown on the other is a quite different political landscape.

The challenge of the stipend is not to the FBS mid-majors, its to the non-FB-subdivision BBall mid-majors. If the new FBS-as-a-division has mandatory stipends across the board, in self-defense the rest-of-D1 will have to move to optional stipends to allow BBall mid-majors outside of FBS to defend themselves.

(12-12-2013 02:01 PM)GFlash68 Wrote:  When and if stipends are employed, the day of the presidents being the CEO of the university is over. There is virtually no support for stipends amongst the presidents nationally. In fact, I will predict that stipends to athletes will not pass on any level due to public perception, and more importantly, legal issues. With the make up of the courts today, I do not see mens' FB and mens' BB getting stipends at the exclusion of all other sports. This would of course include the band, dancing girls, cheerleaders; etc. Title IX will play heavily in this decision. Yes, there are about a dozen programs that could support stipends to their entire athletic participants number, but that will be at the expense of the athletic donations to the libraries and academic activities. Even the money saturated programs in the B1G and SEC will find opposition from the "have not" members of their own conference. The stipend issue, IMO, is a ploy by the P5 to get the G5 to separate voluntarily from fear, and to quiet the "pay us athletes" crowd for the time being.

Another simple question should be ask. If a university adopts "pay to play", are the payroll receivers employes? If they are, then the entire relationship between the former "students" and school now changes and will have the issues of insurance, social security, unions, unemployment, and a whole stinking mess of other dealings. Do university administrators really want to tread here? Beyond the AD's, I doubt it.

Very, very well put.

Would seem the P5 would remember that one of the biggest draws for March Madness
has always been the possibility of the smaller or less well known school upsetting one
of the granite basketball powers.

(12-17-2013 05:47 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Would seem the P5 would remember that one of the biggest draws for March Madness
has always been the possibility of the smaller or less well known school upsetting one
of the granite basketball powers.

You would think they'd remember that, but they don't, that much is apparent. Lawsuits are the only thing they'd have a concern about.

(12-13-2013 12:26 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 10:49 AM)CMUprof Wrote:  So what do the big schools hope to gain by this? It's not like the non P5 schools out-recruit the big schools. A stipend isn't going to change that (or whatever else they want). They will still need us to fill up their schedules and get them their 7th or 8th home game.

Because I think BIE is slightly off. With stipends, Purdue will start recruiting better, and will rarely lose to NIU (BG, Ball St, etc)

Sure, they'll still play the G5 schools to get their home games, AND they'll get their win tally to make the alumni happy.

This is win-win for them all the way around.

I admit I don't see the reason for jumping from FCS to FBS, since it seems as though the G5 and FCS will re-merge in short order.

I don't think this is driven by schools like Purdue, Indiana, etc. It's the big schools that can get the players they want anyway.

(12-17-2013 03:21 PM)CMUprof Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 12:26 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 10:49 AM)CMUprof Wrote:  So what do the big schools hope to gain by this? It's not like the non P5 schools out-recruit the big schools. A stipend isn't going to change that (or whatever else they want). They will still need us to fill up their schedules and get them their 7th or 8th home game.

Because I think BIE is slightly off. With stipends, Purdue will start recruiting better, and will rarely lose to NIU (BG, Ball St, etc)

Sure, they'll still play the G5 schools to get their home games, AND they'll get their win tally to make the alumni happy.

This is win-win for them all the way around.

I admit I don't see the reason for jumping from FCS to FBS, since it seems as though the G5 and FCS will re-merge in short order.

I don't think this is driven by schools like Purdue, Indiana, etc. It's the big schools that can get the players they want anyway.

And this is really the point. There are about a dozen programs would can sustain and do what Alabama just did in paying their coach over $7.5M. And, it is not just the head coach since the OC and DC probably make or will make over a million. We are now in the midst of an economic bubble where insanity is the rule. In the example above, if Purdue and Indiana are giving stipends, so will NIU and BSU. Therefore the relative game remains the same. If Purdue and Indiana lose a recruit to NIU, it is because the former is having poor seasons, probably due to inept coaching and recruiting, and NIU is on a crest of success with a coach who knows how to recruit the players not going to programs like ND. Purdue is chasing Ohio State, Michigan, and Mich. State. This is an impossible race. Purdue and Indiana will never, never be able to out spend OSU. So, what does Purdue gain by paying a coach from Kent State $2M per year. If they are lucky, they will eventually have a 7 win season and go to a secondary bowl. Now the height of stupidity, Purdue and Wake Forest could have had their new coaches for $1M less than they are paying. Think of this, if these coaches are successful in their new programs, they will be gone just as fast as they came. The stark lesson here is, if Mich. State can not keep Sabin from LSU, do you think they can keep Dantonio from Texas? As good as Mich. State is, they are not Texas, LSU, or OSU. This is another reason that I believe that stipends are a long shot. There are a lot more Purdues, Indianas, Dukes, Wake Forest, Utahs, of the world and they must soon see the big picture. Bubbles eventually burst.

(12-17-2013 04:15 PM)GFlash68 Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 03:21 PM)CMUprof Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 12:26 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 10:49 AM)CMUprof Wrote:  So what do the big schools hope to gain by this? It's not like the non P5 schools out-recruit the big schools. A stipend isn't going to change that (or whatever else they want). They will still need us to fill up their schedules and get them their 7th or 8th home game.

Because I think BIE is slightly off. With stipends, Purdue will start recruiting better, and will rarely lose to NIU (BG, Ball St, etc)

Sure, they'll still play the G5 schools to get their home games, AND they'll get their win tally to make the alumni happy.

This is win-win for them all the way around.

I admit I don't see the reason for jumping from FCS to FBS, since it seems as though the G5 and FCS will re-merge in short order.

I don't think this is driven by schools like Purdue, Indiana, etc. It's the big schools that can get the players they want anyway.

And this is really the point. There are about a dozen programs would can sustain and do what Alabama just did in paying their coach over $7.5M. And, it is not just the head coach since the OC and DC probably make or will make over a million. We are now in the midst of an economic bubble where insanity is the rule. In the example above, if Purdue and Indiana are giving stipends, so will NIU and BSU. Therefore the relative game remains the same. If Purdue and Indiana lose a recruit to NIU, it is because the former is having poor seasons, probably due to inept coaching and recruiting, and NIU is on a crest of success with a coach who knows how to recruit the players not going to programs like ND. Purdue is chasing Ohio State, Michigan, and Mich. State. This is an impossible race. Purdue and Indiana will never, never be able to out spend OSU. So, what does Purdue gain by paying a coach from Kent State $2M per year. If they are lucky, they will eventually have a 7 win season and go to a secondary bowl. Now the height of stupidity, Purdue and Wake Forest could have had their new coaches for $1M less than they are paying. Think of this, if these coaches are successful in their new programs, they will be gone just as fast as they came. The stark lesson here is, if Mich. State can not keep Sabin from LSU, do you think they can keep Dantonio from Texas? As good as Mich. State is, they are not Texas, LSU, or OSU. This is another reason that I believe that stipends are a long shot. There are a lot more Purdues, Indianas, Dukes, Wake Forest, Utahs, of the world and they must soon see the big picture. Bubbles eventually burst.

1) I see nothing on our radar that says NIU won't offer stipends if able.
2) The self-annointed AQ programs usually get the best of the draft anyway, and can only take so many players, so stipends or not, nothing changes. The only thing that changes is the few decent players an Illinois State might get via convenience of location, whatever, will now be pushed to go to NIU instead to collect the extra$.

Bring that sh*t on.

The (non) quality gap between the NIU's, BGSU's and Purdue's will not change with stipends.

(12-13-2013 03:58 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 02:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 12:26 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 10:49 AM)CMUprof Wrote:  So what do the big schools hope to gain by this? It's not like the non P5 schools out-recruit the big schools. A stipend isn't going to change that (or whatever else they want). They will still need us to fill up their schedules and get them their 7th or 8th home game.

Because I think BIE is slightly off. With stipends, Purdue will start recruiting better, and will rarely lose to NIU (BG, Ball St, etc)

You're assuming NIU wont implement stipends... For football and hoops I think the middies will put stipends in for the revenue sports and any title IX needed to offset that.

Just like the coaching arms race, I'm not sure the G5 can keep up with that, especially over the long haul. I still believe that the Ohio Board of Regents picks MAC admins who help keep ZSU at the top. If this is true (even partially true) in Ohio and other states, then it won't take long for them to shut down or salary-cap stipends at G5 institutions.

Even in the short term, there are lots of "fair" ways to favor the P5 schools. For example, tie the stipend to the cost of enrollment. So, if stipend is 10% cost of enrollment, and UofI costs more than NIU, who gets to offer more? That can be embellished even further if it's tied to average conference member rates, as N'western, U$C, Stanfraud, Vandy, Duke, all drive costs way up.

Anyway, I don't think it takes much imagination to see the G5 members pushed to a subordinate level rather quickly. And I don't even think the P5 members would deny it.

There is no "salary cap" for stipends. You have to understand what the P-5 wants and what they absolutely want NO PART OF. The stipend is not "pay". It simply is extra money to bridge the gap between the scholarship and the actual full cost of attendance. Like you say, that number will be different for every school. Some schools may not allow the stipend to bridge that full gap. It may only be a third of what would be required bridge the gap between the scholarship and the full cost of attendance. That will be up to each individual school and will likely be a function of what they can afford. What NO school can afford is for that number to creep over the cost of attendance because the penalty could be crippling.

There is a reason no school will want to even accidentally exceed that number. No school or conference wants to "pay" athletes. They want NOTHING to do with creating an employee-employer relationship. That opens the door for a whole slew of other legal issues that no university--P5 or G5 wants to ever have to deal with. Paying any stipend that exceeds the full cost of attendance could trigger that relationship. So, I'm guessing that schools will be very careful with tinkering with the upper edge of that number.

Thus, the stipends are effectively self limiting and will never become some free agent ever escalating bidding war that could be used to price the G5 out of the game. In not worried about that.

On the other hand, proposals to allow players access to player autograph income or liscensing deals with T-shirt and jersey manufacturers could become yet another huge difference between the P-5 and the G5. That said, this income would be dealt with by 3rd parties and governed by NCAA rules. The university would not be directly paying players or have any direct interest in the transaction. Instead, the school would simply be allowing players the right, as long as they followed certain yet to be determined NCAA rules, to make money off their autograph and likeness.

So, its not hard to see where an Alabama coach might could theoretically promise a kid he would make $200K in autograph/jersey revenue if he came to Alabama---where as a the same kid could never expect to get anywhere near that much playing at a G5 school.

While Ive admitted above that we could have a situation where the G5 fall even further behind in what we can offer vs what the P5 can offer---does it really change anything? For the most part, the G5 schools rarely win recruiting battles against P5 schools anyway. The G5 have always had to make due with athletes the P-5 passed over. The only thing I see affecting that math is increasing the scholarship limits. If the scholarship limits were raised from 85 to 95, that would effectively take the top 10 recruits off every G5 roster and place them on a P5 roster. Increasing the scholarship limits is the one issue we need to be worried about.

As long as the P5 do not split from the G5 or institute and increase in the scholarship limit---the G5 should be fine.

For what it's worth, I heard that almost every school in the MAC supports having a stipend for athletes. This was made apparent at the FBS meetings this summer. The problem is that the FBS couldn't come to an agreement on how it should be implemented. Expect that to change this summer.