Let's say that schools are given the choice between increasing stipends and increasing schollies and thus staying with "the top schools" or not choosing to do so and then having to "move down". Which schools choose to make the investment and which schools do not?

AAC:

There were rumors (I think from Greg Swaim) that Tulsa had concerns about the investments.

I'm willing to bet that the Naval Academy chooses to not participate.

MWC:

There were rumors that New Mexico had concerns about the investments; once again, I believe that is was Greg Swaim who said this.

Air Force will make the same choice the Navy does.

What about the other G5 conferences? Thoughts?

(12-12-2013 02:54 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  Let's say that schools are given the choice between increasing stipends and increasing schollies and thus staying with "the top schools" or not choosing to do so and then having to "move down". Which schools choose to make the investment and which schools do not?

AAC:

There were rumors (I think from Greg Swaim) that Tulsa had concerns about the investments.

I'm willing to bet that the Naval Academy chooses to not participate.

MWC:

There were rumors that New Mexico had concerns about the investments; once again, I believe that is was Greg Swaim who said this.

Air Force will make the same choice the Navy does.

What about the other G5 conferences? Thoughts?

Unless I am mistaken, Midshipmen already receive a stipend as a part of their appointment. No stipend is going to change who goes the Naval, Air Force, or Military Academy, unless that stipend crosses into the 5 figures.

C-USA admins were for it as of last August in the amount of $2,000 per athlete per year. I have a feeling the Ohio State may have a different figure in mind. I don't think there is opposition to the idea from the G5 in general.

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/08/athletes...a-proposal

If I had to guess it would be whoever decides they want to play by the new rules. I think a lot of G5 schools will decide they can't afford it and we'll see a restructuring of the G5 leagues.

The sabre rattling is kind of scary but I'm still holding on to the hope that there is not a full break away based on being in the "right place at the right time" and TV revenues. There has to be some sort of criteria to meet to continue on as an INDIVIDUAL university and not an entire existing conference. Thus my comment on restructuring the G5.

The school that most in the MAC would have the most doubts about a substantial upgrade in their scholarship spending would be EMU, given the amount of their existing contributions they already have to devote to block purchases of football tickets. NIU & OhioU would seem to be up for it. I know that Kent State is already fundraising for scholarship endowments, which is an obvious step to being ready to take on stipends. I'd assume that Akron would go for it, in any event for the increased leverage in BBall recruiting in Cleveland and elsewhere in the Great Lakes even if not for the FB, where I believe they'd be reluctant to abandon the opportunity to leverage their recent stadium improvements.

I wouldn't know about the balance of MAC schools, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was only one or two schools who'd have to think very hard about it.

Indeed, if the stipends are allowed in the new division and not in the balance of Division 1, there would be an argument for UMass to all-sports in the MAC for the sake of the BBall recruiting leverage, but given the number of conferences that would see their leading schools stressed by such a role, and given that the New Big East would face similar challenges, I would not be surprised for the balance of Division 1 to go to optional stipends instead.

If I am not mistaken, most of the issues, including stipends, is not that the top P5 schools want to require everyone to adhere to every rule. Rather, they just want the freedom for schools to choose to participate in certain areas. For example, Delany wants what amounts to an academic redshirt for athletes that do not meet the minimum academic requirements of an institution but could qualify with one year of leveling courses. This does not mean that every school has to let in such students, but they can do so if they wish. Those students cannot play until they are fully academically eligible; again, an academic redshirt.

The same for stipends. Each school must determine if they want or need to offer a stipend. Stanford may determine that they do not need to offer a stipend because just getting into Stanford with full tuition beats the heck out of going to going to UNLV on full tuition plus $4,000.

Will Alabama, Ohio State, Florida, Texas, and UCLA do absolutely whatever is necessary within these new frameworks to field championships teams? Yep. Will Stanford, Vandy, Northwestern, Duke, Washington State, Purdue, or Wake Forest? Probably not, and that is OK. Every school will find their line.

The original SBC approved it. I am not sure what App State, Georgia Southern, and Georgia State think, but the rest would do it.

(12-12-2013 03:52 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The school that most in the MAC would have the most doubts about a substantial upgrade in their scholarship spending would be EMU, given the amount of their existing contributions they already have to devote to block purchases of football tickets. NIU & OhioU would seem to be up for it. I know that Kent State is already fundraising for scholarship endowments, which is an obvious step to being ready to take on stipends. I'd assume that Akron would go for it, in any event for the increased leverage in BBall recruiting in Cleveland and elsewhere in the Great Lakes even if not for the FB, where I believe they'd be reluctant to abandon the opportunity to leverage their recent stadium improvements.

I wouldn't know about the balance of MAC schools, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was only one or two schools who'd have to think very hard about it.

Indeed, if the stipends are allowed in the new division and not in the balance of Division 1, there would be an argument for UMass to all-sports in the MAC for the sake of the BBall recruiting leverage, but given the number of conferences that would see their leading schools stressed by such a role, and given that the New Big East would face similar challenges, I would not be surprised for the balance of Division 1 to go to optional stipends instead.

If previous history is any indication on the whole the MAC schools will do whatever they need to do in order to stay at the highest level. Last time it mostly required making their stadiums larger than needed. If it is possible to make it work they will likely do it. Too many schools are putting too much money into these programs just to go to a lower division without trying all they can to stay.

If this were the 90s you might have seen some MAC schools debate going down but since then the y have made too many investments into football.

(12-12-2013 07:12 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 03:52 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The school that most in the MAC would have the most doubts about a substantial upgrade in their scholarship spending would be EMU, given the amount of their existing contributions they already have to devote to block purchases of football tickets. NIU & OhioU would seem to be up for it. I know that Kent State is already fundraising for scholarship endowments, which is an obvious step to being ready to take on stipends. I'd assume that Akron would go for it, in any event for the increased leverage in BBall recruiting in Cleveland and elsewhere in the Great Lakes even if not for the FB, where I believe they'd be reluctant to abandon the opportunity to leverage their recent stadium improvements.

I wouldn't know about the balance of MAC schools, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was only one or two schools who'd have to think very hard about it.

Indeed, if the stipends are allowed in the new division and not in the balance of Division 1, there would be an argument for UMass to all-sports in the MAC for the sake of the BBall recruiting leverage, but given the number of conferences that would see their leading schools stressed by such a role, and given that the New Big East would face similar challenges, I would not be surprised for the balance of Division 1 to go to optional stipends instead.

If previous history is any indication on the whole the MAC schools will do whatever they need to do in order to stay at the highest level. Last time it mostly required making their stadiums larger than needed. If it is possible to make it work they will likely do it. Too many schools are putting too much money into these programs just to go to a lower division without trying all they can to stay.

If this were the 90s you might have seen some MAC schools debate going down but since then the y have made too many investments into football.

You've got it.

(12-12-2013 03:05 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 02:54 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  Let's say that schools are given the choice between increasing stipends and increasing schollies and thus staying with "the top schools" or not choosing to do so and then having to "move down". Which schools choose to make the investment and which schools do not?

AAC:

There were rumors (I think from Greg Swaim) that Tulsa had concerns about the investments.

I'm willing to bet that the Naval Academy chooses to not participate.

MWC:

There were rumors that New Mexico had concerns about the investments; once again, I believe that is was Greg Swaim who said this.

Air Force will make the same choice the Navy does.

What about the other G5 conferences? Thoughts?

Unless I am mistaken, Midshipmen already receive a stipend as a part of their appointment. No stipend is going to change who goes the Naval, Air Force, or Military Academy, unless that stipend crosses into the 5 figures.

I think that you are correct; from what I remember, each cadet/airman/midshipmen recieves around $400 per month.

If they are required to pay more, what will they decide? If anything, special exemptions may be written-in for the academies.

These are interesting times we live in. Sheesh...

(12-12-2013 03:34 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  If I had to guess it would be whoever decides they want to play by the new rules. I think a lot of G5 schools will decide they can't afford it and we'll see a restructuring of the G5 leagues.

The sabre rattling is kind of scary but I'm still holding on to the hope that there is not a full break away based on being in the "right place at the right time" and TV revenues. There has to be some sort of criteria to meet to continue on as an INDIVIDUAL university and not an entire existing conference. Thus my comment on restructuring the G5.

It's not just the G5 who will have problems. It is the G5 today but the Washington States and Kansas States of the world will have problems tomorrow as will most of the ACC. They will respond by further cutting minor sports. This cycle will continue until college sports become club sports for the vast majority of schools and 40 or so will make up the semi pro league.

(12-12-2013 08:01 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 03:34 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  If I had to guess it would be whoever decides they want to play by the new rules. I think a lot of G5 schools will decide they can't afford it and we'll see a restructuring of the G5 leagues.

The sabre rattling is kind of scary but I'm still holding on to the hope that there is not a full break away based on being in the "right place at the right time" and TV revenues. There has to be some sort of criteria to meet to continue on as an INDIVIDUAL university and not an entire existing conference. Thus my comment on restructuring the G5.

It's not just the G5 who will have problems. It is the G5 today but the Washington States and Kansas States of the world will have problems tomorrow as will most of the ACC. They will respond by further cutting minor sports. This cycle will continue until college sports become club sports for the vast majority of schools and 40 or so will make up the semi pro league.

Most of the ACC schools have revenue >$60 million (I think Wake is the only school under that number). Typically there are less than 500 athletes. That equates to $1 million for 500 athletes. A significant amount but not one that is going to send those schools into a cutting frenzy.

K-State has revenue of $63 million. Washington States is around $43 million but they only sponsor 15 sports so their total stipend is going to be closer to $600k.

The military academies don't use scholarships. They do pay a stipend but that is paid to all students, not just athletes.

(12-12-2013 08:01 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 03:34 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  If I had to guess it would be whoever decides they want to play by the new rules. I think a lot of G5 schools will decide they can't afford it and we'll see a restructuring of the G5 leagues.

The sabre rattling is kind of scary but I'm still holding on to the hope that there is not a full break away based on being in the "right place at the right time" and TV revenues. There has to be some sort of criteria to meet to continue on as an INDIVIDUAL university and not an entire existing conference. Thus my comment on restructuring the G5.

It's not just the G5 who will have problems. It is the G5 today but the Washington States and Kansas States of the world will have problems tomorrow as will most of the ACC. They will respond by further cutting minor sports. This cycle will continue until college sports become club sports for the vast majority of schools and 40 or so will make up the semi pro league.

Purdue already said they need 7 home games. How is that going to work if they're playing all P5 schools, and I'm sure there are other schools in the same situation. What about the schools playing 8 home games? How much money are they giving up?

I believe the proposed stipends are only for athletes on scholarships. The military academies do not offer athletic scholarships. Technically, all their intercollegiate athletes are walk ons. The academies are recruiting future officers not athletes. The stipend will not apply to them. Besides, the cadets/midshipmen are paid 35% of the pay of a first year O-1 (second lieutenant/ensign).