Interestings, now we are seeing what many of us have long said---this is not a P5 vs G5 issue. There is not even full agreement within the P5 on issues where everyone thinks the P5 are in lock-step---for instance---full cost of attendance.


Discussions about how to calculate the full cost of attendance are still in the relatively early stages, however, and there could be significant disagreements among the five conferences about which components should be included.

Burke, for instance, said there's merit in a central office assigning values to certain incidental expenses a college athlete might encounter and coming up with a standard number that can be adjusted a few percentage points based on cost of living differences between, for instance, athletes who attend school in Los Angeles or Manhattan, Kan. Georgia Tech athletics director Mike Bobinski, on the other hand, said the ACC is working on a need-based proposal to put forward for the other conferences to consider.

The difference between those two approaches highlights perhaps the biggest misperception about autonomy. Though it has been framed largely as a divide between the haves and have-nots in college athletics, there are enough financial differences among the 65 power conference schools to make the details sticky in almost any reform proposal, even if there is wide philosophical agreement.

"There are probably 20 schools for whom this is like, no big deal, bring it on, whatever number you come up with we can handle it," Bobinski said. "The other 45, there is no wiggle room on an annual basis and were going to have to be creative, and raise additional revenues to help fund this, but we're not going to be left behind. If it's right, then we can do it."




http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../13674765/

This cost of attendance plan in college football is simply P-5s' version of "Survivor". We won't know for another 5 to 7 years who the survivors actually are. So, let's speculate. Around 2021, we will see no more than 100 Division 1 universities that are willing and able to pay the piper. Assuming the Big 12 does not implode and actually becomes 12 schools; then you'll have 67 p-5s in the "pay for play" game along with approx. 30 more schools. I predict that the 30 will come out of the G-5 and will include: All remaining AAC schools (9 with 2 already gone to Big 12), most MWC schools (8) , most of CUSA (8), three Sun Belt (3), and Independents BYU and Army, as the final (2).

(08-06-2014 03:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  "There are probably 20 schools for whom this is like, no big deal, bring it on, whatever number you come up with we can handle it," Bobinski said. "The other 45, there is no wiggle room on an annual basis and were going to have to be creative, and raise additional revenues to help fund this, but we're not going to be left behind. If it's right, then we can do it."
[/i]

Sorry, Mr. Georgia Tech AD, I'm calling BS on you.

Your annual athletic department revenue, as reported to the federal government, is $63.6 million. The difference between real "full cost of attendance" and your half-azzed version of it is probably a couple hundred thousand a year per school. Even if it's as high as $600,000 a year, that's less than one percent of your annual revenue/budget. Your head FB coach makes about $2.6 million a year; each of his coordinators probably makes $600,000 or so. You're crying poverty over what amounts to a rounding error in your football budget. I'm not buying it.

(08-06-2014 04:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  "There are probably 20 schools for whom this is like, no big deal, bring it on, whatever number you come up with we can handle it," Bobinski said. "The other 45, there is no wiggle room on an annual basis and were going to have to be creative, and raise additional revenues to help fund this, but we're not going to be left behind. If it's right, then we can do it."
[/i]

Sorry, Mr. Georgia Tech AD, I'm calling BS on you.

Your annual athletic department revenue, as reported to the federal government, is $63.6 million. The difference between real "full cost of attendance" and your half-azzed version of it is probably a couple hundred thousand a year per school. Even if it's as high as $600,000 a year, that's less than one percent of your annual revenue/budget. Your head FB coach makes about $2.6 million a year; each of his coordinators probably makes $600,000 or so. You're crying poverty over what amounts to a rounding error in your football budget. I'm not buying it.

You're right Wedge. But I do think the initial wrangling is an effort to keep some schools in who know they probably need to opt out. I've expected all along for their to be a few casualties in this process. Somewhere between 1 to 5 schools may not make the cut depending upon what is agreed upon. There are marginal schools in the P5 just as assuredly as their are deserving schools in the G5. So this is a big we'll see over the next few months and into early next year.

(08-06-2014 04:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  "There are probably 20 schools for whom this is like, no big deal, bring it on, whatever number you come up with we can handle it," Bobinski said. "The other 45, there is no wiggle room on an annual basis and were going to have to be creative, and raise additional revenues to help fund this, but we're not going to be left behind. If it's right, then we can do it."
[/i]

Sorry, Mr. Georgia Tech AD, I'm calling BS on you.

Your annual athletic department revenue, as reported to the federal government, is $63.6 million. The difference between real "full cost of attendance" and your half-azzed version of it is probably a couple hundred thousand a year per school. Even if it's as high as $600,000 a year, that's less than one percent of your annual revenue/budget. Your head FB coach makes about $2.6 million a year; each of his coordinators probably makes $600,000 or so. You're crying poverty over what amounts to a rounding error in your football budget. I'm not buying it.

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks its nuts.

Even at the highest end of $5k across 300 FTE's that's $1.5 million a year and realistically we are probably talking a third of that, if the cost is $500,000 to $750,000 the G5 can swing it with the CFP increase over BCS and the P5 are taking home much more.

It's like a business owner thinking about giving an employee a dollar an hour raise when the employee comes in and demands 75 cents an hour and acts like it was a sacrifice to agree to 60 cents.

(08-06-2014 04:11 PM)BlueRaiderBoy Wrote:  This cost of attendance plan in college football is simply P-5s' version of "Survivor". We won't know for another 5 to 7 years who the survivors actually are. So, let's speculate. Around 2021, we will see no more than 100 Division 1 universities that are willing and able to pay the piper. Assuming the Big 12 does not implode and actually becomes 12 schools; then you'll have 67 p-5s in the "pay for play" game along with approx. 30 more schools. I predict that the 30 will come out of the G-5 and will include: All remaining AAC schools (9 with 2 already gone to Big 12), most MWC schools (8) , most of CUSA (8), three Sun Belt (3), and Independents BYU and Army, as the final (2).

I agree with much of what you say. I think it will all come down to money. The current playoff deal is for 12 years, so there is time for G5 conferences to make the needed changes. I think the G5 programs that can grow their athletic budget over say $50 million by 2026 will be able to survive. I think G5 programs will have to be careful with their finances, and develop new means of generating revenue. I also think P5 autonomy will end much of the facilities arms race within the G5 conferences. They might need that money down the road to meet requirements for continuing at the FBS level. At the media day, Banowsky said C-USA will implement cost of attendance for our conference. I also believe C-USA will have enough programs committed to playing at the highest level to keep the conference at the FBS level. I don't know if all of the other G5s would be able to do that.

(08-06-2014 04:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 04:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  "There are probably 20 schools for whom this is like, no big deal, bring it on, whatever number you come up with we can handle it," Bobinski said. "The other 45, there is no wiggle room on an annual basis and were going to have to be creative, and raise additional revenues to help fund this, but we're not going to be left behind. If it's right, then we can do it."
[/i]

Sorry, Mr. Georgia Tech AD, I'm calling BS on you.

Your annual athletic department revenue, as reported to the federal government, is $63.6 million. The difference between real "full cost of attendance" and your half-azzed version of it is probably a couple hundred thousand a year per school. Even if it's as high as $600,000 a year, that's less than one percent of your annual revenue/budget. Your head FB coach makes about $2.6 million a year; each of his coordinators probably makes $600,000 or so. You're crying poverty over what amounts to a rounding error in your football budget. I'm not buying it.

You're right Wedge. But I do think the initial wrangling is an effort to keep some schools in who know they probably need to opt out. I've expected all along for their to be a few casualties in this process. Somewhere between 1 to 5 schools may not make the cut depending upon what is agreed upon. There are marginal schools in the P5 just as assuredly as their are deserving schools in the G5. So this is a big we'll see over the next few months and into early next year.

I have learned to never under-estimate the capacity of an AD to over-spend. I'm sure there are some who have already spent next June's distribution.

I think very highly of Hugh Freeze, respect what he's done at OM but he is now making double what they hired him for before the 2012 season based on 13 wins over two season. Rebels basically doubled his pay to get him around league median for accomplishing about what should have been expected. I don't begrudge him the dough, he's a pretty nice guy and the kids love him but he isn't performing at double the level that should have been expected, but it's not his job to refuse a raise.

What most people don't understand is college athletics costs what it costs because that's what schools are willing to pay.

If the P5 schools were to declare that starting July 1, 2020 they would adopt the same scholarship limits as Division II or Division III there would not be major shift.

If Saban retired and Alabama announced they would only pay $1 million a year to the new coach the pool of candidates would not shrink dramatically, after all when that day comes some of the names that will be associated will be people who really aren't after the job and simply want the raise and extension that their name being associated would bring.

Even at current scholarship limits you could run any SEC or Big 10 program on Boise State's budget if that were what you wanted to do (at least you could once you pay off current debts and contracts).

If the P5 WANTED to run on low expenses they could. Texas could plow $125 million a year into the endowment or the general operating budget of the athletic side if they wanted to and the other schools agreed to similarly control expenses.

Right now there is no real incentive or compelling reason for schools to cap their athletic spending at $40 million or $20 million but it could be done with little to no impact on what the fan sees.

(08-06-2014 05:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 04:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  "There are probably 20 schools for whom this is like, no big deal, bring it on, whatever number you come up with we can handle it," Bobinski said. "The other 45, there is no wiggle room on an annual basis and were going to have to be creative, and raise additional revenues to help fund this, but we're not going to be left behind. If it's right, then we can do it."
[/i]

Sorry, Mr. Georgia Tech AD, I'm calling BS on you.

Your annual athletic department revenue, as reported to the federal government, is $63.6 million. The difference between real "full cost of attendance" and your half-azzed version of it is probably a couple hundred thousand a year per school. Even if it's as high as $600,000 a year, that's less than one percent of your annual revenue/budget. Your head FB coach makes about $2.6 million a year; each of his coordinators probably makes $600,000 or so. You're crying poverty over what amounts to a rounding error in your football budget. I'm not buying it.

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks its nuts.

Even at the highest end of $5k across 300 FTE's that's $1.5 million a year and realistically we are probably talking a third of that, if the cost is $500,000 to $750,000 the G5 can swing it with the CFP increase over BCS and the P5 are taking home much more.

It's like a business owner thinking about giving an employee a dollar an hour raise when the employee comes in and demands 75 cents an hour and acts like it was a sacrifice to agree to 60 cents.

And the "full cost of attendance" is a pretty well developed concept. Schools use it to help determine the amounts of certain academic scholarships.

That should be the criteria, not another athletic special figure and not through some additional NCAA bureaucracy which micromanages every little detail. That suggestion is the antitheses of the whole autonomy plan.

(08-06-2014 05:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 05:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 04:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  "There are probably 20 schools for whom this is like, no big deal, bring it on, whatever number you come up with we can handle it," Bobinski said. "The other 45, there is no wiggle room on an annual basis and were going to have to be creative, and raise additional revenues to help fund this, but we're not going to be left behind. If it's right, then we can do it."
[/i]

Sorry, Mr. Georgia Tech AD, I'm calling BS on you.

Your annual athletic department revenue, as reported to the federal government, is $63.6 million. The difference between real "full cost of attendance" and your half-azzed version of it is probably a couple hundred thousand a year per school. Even if it's as high as $600,000 a year, that's less than one percent of your annual revenue/budget. Your head FB coach makes about $2.6 million a year; each of his coordinators probably makes $600,000 or so. You're crying poverty over what amounts to a rounding error in your football budget. I'm not buying it.

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks its nuts.

Even at the highest end of $5k across 300 FTE's that's $1.5 million a year and realistically we are probably talking a third of that, if the cost is $500,000 to $750,000 the G5 can swing it with the CFP increase over BCS and the P5 are taking home much more.

It's like a business owner thinking about giving an employee a dollar an hour raise when the employee comes in and demands 75 cents an hour and acts like it was a sacrifice to agree to 60 cents.

And the "full cost of attendance" is a pretty well developed concept. Schools use it to help determine the amounts of certain academic scholarships.

That should be the criteria, not another athletic special figure and not through some additional NCAA bureaucracy which micromanages every little detail. That suggestion is the antitheses of the whole autonomy plan.

I don't think full cost of attendance as currently developed will be the standard. Coaches in places with a low cost will be whining because some school in an expensive place is offering kids more cash even though it is equal spending power.

Since the stipends are not mandatory why would anyone drop down. The lowest FBS budget is thirteen million and highest 186 million. The Bottom Schools still benefit from being in FBS. Occasionally have a big upset and make bowl games . I doubt that would change.

(08-06-2014 06:58 PM)MJG Wrote:  Since the stipends are not mandatory why would anyone drop down. The lowest FBS budget is thirteen million and highest 186 million. The Bottom Schools still benefit from being in FBS. Occasionally have a big upset and make bowl games . I doubt that would change.

Because conferences may make them mandatory.

(08-06-2014 06:58 PM)MJG Wrote:  Since the stipends are not mandatory why would anyone drop down. The lowest FBS budget is thirteen million and highest 186 million. The Bottom Schools still benefit from being in FBS. Occasionally have a big upset and make bowl games . I doubt that would change.

1-11 every year and minimal attendance changes the equation. If you aren't doing it and others at your level are, you drop to the bottom consistently.

An excuse is always needed for the next step. IF two thirds of P5 is going to have some issues with full cost of attendance all of a sudden, well guess what is needed? More money! Now guess where that is going to come from?

(08-06-2014 03:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  "There are probably 20 schools for whom this is like, no big deal, bring it on, whatever number you come up with we can handle it," Bobinski said. "The other 45, there is no wiggle room on an annual basis and were going to have to be creative, and raise additional revenues to help fund this, but we're not going to be left behind. If it's right, then we can do it."

There's a lot more than 65 schools that will end up paying cost of attendance.

The AAC has already announced that they will adopt whatever rules the P5 pass. The MAC and Big East have indicated probably they will too, and I'd be shocked if BYU and the MWC let themselves be left behind.

The P5 has most of the power in the Autonomy group. Most, but not all. And on top of that most proposals require a supermajority to pass. If only 1/3 of the P5 wants to put the breaks on a proposal, the rest of the conferences can vote with them and can effectively block it.

(08-06-2014 07:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 06:58 PM)MJG Wrote:  Since the stipends are not mandatory why would anyone drop down. The lowest FBS budget is thirteen million and highest 186 million. The Bottom Schools still benefit from being in FBS. Occasionally have a big upset and make bowl games . I doubt that would change.

Because conferences may make them mandatory.

There would just be some moving around within G5 conferences. For instance, the MW will probably allow stipends---but not make them mandatory. I suspect they will not be the only G5 that takes that route.

(08-06-2014 07:35 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 03:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  "There are probably 20 schools for whom this is like, no big deal, bring it on, whatever number you come up with we can handle it," Bobinski said. "The other 45, there is no wiggle room on an annual basis and were going to have to be creative, and raise additional revenues to help fund this, but we're not going to be left behind. If it's right, then we can do it."

There's a lot more than 65 schools that will end up paying cost of attendance.

The AAC has already announced that they will adopt whatever rules the P5 pass. The MAC and Big East have indicated probably they will too, and I'd be shocked if BYU and the MWC let themselves be left behind.

The P5 has most of the power in the Autonomy group. Most, but not all. And on top of that most proposals require a supermajority to pass. If only 1/3 of the P5 wants to put the breaks on a proposal, the rest of the conferences can vote with them and can effectively block it.

Sun Belt already amended their rules to permit members to offer stipends if the NCAA approves. Was the first conference to do so.

(08-06-2014 08:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 07:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-06-2014 06:58 PM)MJG Wrote:  Since the stipends are not mandatory why would anyone drop down. The lowest FBS budget is thirteen million and highest 186 million. The Bottom Schools still benefit from being in FBS. Occasionally have a big upset and make bowl games . I doubt that would change.

Because conferences may make them mandatory.

There would just be some moving around within G5 conferences. For instance, the MW will probably allow stipends---but not make them mandatory. I suspect they will not be the only G5 that takes that route.

That is kinda what I was thinking.
The whole discussion seems to have a disconnect.
The MAC and Sun Belt are all for it and MWC seems worried.
The G5 schools believe the playoff money covers it.
The P5 schools who get over ten million more per year in play off money are worried.

The way I see it that ten million gap along with conference network gap is huge. Adding twenty million to the current revenue gap. That will lead to Purdue and WSU type schools with seven or eight home games. The G5 role will mostly be for extra home games.
How the P5 can be worried about cost is puzzling.
That talk is for one of two reasons
1. A smoke screen trying to keep costs down.
2. The escalating costs they see down the line.

This "$20 million gap" between schools like Wake Forest and Houston only applies to sports. People keep forgetting that sports is only a minor part of a university's budget. Many bigger G5 schools have billion-dollar budgets.

I think what you'll end up seeing is that bigger G5 schools will continue to spend similar to smaller P5 schools on sports. They'll just subsidize the athletic department from the rest of their budget, chalk it up as an advertising expense, and call it a day.

However, this will only make sense for the bigger G5 schools. I have a hard time seeing a school like Tulsa (with the smallest enrollment in D-1A) justifying a $10 million subsidy to their athletic department.

The trend I see in the P5 is that with the larger conferences come more competition.

That means less shot at a conference championship for a school like Wake Forest or Utah. The ability to get into the playoff for a school like Wake or Utah completely depends on winning that conference championship because they just don't have the respect otherwise without it.

Being lost in a 14 school P5 where you don't play a traditional schedule anymore is going to have negative ramifications on home attendance. That is where those 20 million dollar per school TV deals are going to come in, to offset the loss of home revenue. The P5 is going to become like MLB where half filled stadiums are common place.

If you are finishing below #5 in a conference, you didn't have a very good season. Only 20 schools in a P5 on any given year will finish #5 in their conference. That makes for a lot of low finishes for a lot of schools. Time to take the TV money and play a G5 home-home because nobody is coming to the stadium anyway.

It is amazing how little actual thought and research goes into the articles you see about this subject. I guess they just want to be controversial to drive up clicks. The extra revenue is already there and more will come. The extra revenue is why they are being sued and is the reason they are going to share a little with the athletes.

Geez.