CPslograd
Special Teams
Posts: 517
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Fresno State
Location:
|
RE: Move to cost of attendance closer
(01-13-2014 08:33 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: (01-13-2014 07:53 PM)Steve1981 Wrote: (01-13-2014 06:50 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote: (01-13-2014 06:41 PM)uakronkid Wrote: (01-13-2014 06:31 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: Except that it will cost much, much more for the MAC or Sun Belt school to offer full-cost of attendance to its athletes than for an A-10 or MVC school. The MAC/Sun Belt schools have 85 more athletes than the A-10/MVC schools.
It's pretty convenient that the increase in payouts from the new FBS playoff system is more than enough to cover that expense, then.
And also considering over half the MVC schools and 1/3 of A10 schools not named UMass have their own costs for rides for FCS football, some of those schools have more sports than MAC/SBC, and many are privates without the same resources. Here in WNY, any stipend would crush a poor, bottom of the barrel budget school in St Bonaventure.
Believe the A10 will go with stipends. The A10 has 2 top 25 teams with a third receiving votes. Certain these three teams and others can afford stipends. #16 UMass, #24 St. Louis, and GW receiving votes.
GW can afford whatever stipend is required. And GW is committed to playing basketball at the highest level.
The question isn't if GW will agree to pay the stipend it's if the A10 will agree to pay the stipend.
|
|
01-13-2014 11:20 PM |
|
blunderbuss
Banned
Posts: 19,649
Joined: Apr 2011
I Root For: ECU & the CSA
Location: Buzz City, NC
|
RE: Move to cost of attendance closer
I don't think it will be an all conference thing. You'll see some sort of consolidation of the non-P5 "willing to pay" schools into conferences IMHO.
GWU is a perfect example. They've got money to burn essentially. I just don't see how they're locked out if they're willing to pay.
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2014 12:18 AM by blunderbuss.)
|
|
01-14-2014 12:17 AM |
|
arkstfan
Sorry folks
Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
|
RE: Move to cost of attendance closer
(01-13-2014 07:47 PM)stever20 Wrote: What this will do in basketball is sharpen the divide between the power schools and the also rans. We'll see a lot of consolidation I believe of those from really 4 conferences that are pretty good non football(BE,A10,MVC,WCC)- down to probably 2. What will be interesting to see is if the MAC, SBC, CUSA schools are willing to pay the stipends. If so, you'll have the P5, BE, A10, and then the G5. They will dominate the basketball going forward much more than before.
The Sun Belt was the first league to authorize the expenditure under the old legislation.
|
|
01-14-2014 12:33 AM |
|
arkstfan
Sorry folks
Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
|
RE: Move to cost of attendance closer
The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.
The cost is slightly more than half of the new revenue coming in from the CFP for the G5 if it applied to all sports and not just headcount sports.
For the non-G5 most will do it just for men's and women's hoops. A whopping $75,000 a year, one more sacrifice game in hoops.
|
|
01-14-2014 12:38 AM |
|
CPslograd
Special Teams
Posts: 517
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Fresno State
Location:
|
RE: Move to cost of attendance closer
(01-14-2014 12:38 AM)arkstfan Wrote: The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.
The cost is slightly more than half of the new revenue coming in from the CFP for the G5 if it applied to all sports and not just headcount sports.
For the non-G5 most will do it just for men's and women's hoops. A whopping $75,000 a year, one more sacrifice game in hoops.
How do you figure that? Has anyone talked about it being only able to do it for basketball and not all full scholarship sports? I haven't heard that proposed.
|
|
01-14-2014 07:05 PM |
|
HawaiiMongoose
All American
Posts: 4,718
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 446
I Root For: Hawaii
Location: Honolulu
|
RE: Move to cost of attendance closer
Schools with split conference affiliation will have an interesting problem. What if the MWC votes to implement the stipend and the Big West does not? Does Hawaii pay stipends to its football players but not its non-football athletes? Would that constitute a Title IX violation?
|
|
01-14-2014 07:31 PM |
|
LostInSpace
1st String
Posts: 1,101
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 48
I Root For:
Location:
|
RE: Move to cost of attendance closer
(01-14-2014 07:05 PM)CPslograd Wrote: (01-14-2014 12:38 AM)arkstfan Wrote: The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.
The cost is slightly more than half of the new revenue coming in from the CFP for the G5 if it applied to all sports and not just headcount sports.
For the non-G5 most will do it just for men's and women's hoops. A whopping $75,000 a year, one more sacrifice game in hoops.
How do you figure that? Has anyone talked about it being only able to do it for basketball and not all full scholarship sports? I haven't heard that proposed.
Arkstfan is correct. The A10 voted unanimously in favor of full cost of attendance for men's and women's basketball two years ago. They also voted unanimously to allow members to cover full cost of attendance in other conference-sponsored sports at each member's discretion. How this fits with whatever rules are enacted remains to be seen.
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2014 07:52 PM by LostInSpace.)
|
|
01-14-2014 07:51 PM |
|
CPslograd
Special Teams
Posts: 517
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Fresno State
Location:
|
RE: Move to cost of attendance closer
(01-14-2014 07:31 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: Schools with split conference affiliation will have an interesting problem. What if the MWC votes to implement the stipend and the Big West does not? Does Hawaii pay stipends to its football players but not its non-football athletes? Would that constitute a Title IX violation?
I was wondering about that.
It's complicated as hell because of Title9, Headcount/Eq sports, and conference affiliation. It sounds simple an reasonable to give basketball and football players a couple grand a year when some of the schools are making so much on TV, but implementing it in the context of the NCAA is crazy tricky.
That was big blemish on Emmert's reign to me. Not that he was for the stipend, because I think reasonable people can disagree on that. But fastracking it and letting it come up for a vote, without fleshing out the ramifications and implementation of it, was incredibly stupid. He screwed up.
|
|
01-14-2014 07:54 PM |
|