The New Governance Fallout has already began... UMass talking about how to cover the increased costs of "full cost of attendance" scholarships. Instead of adding additional expenses to their football budget to pay for stipends, they may just cut down 3 scholarships instead. Lots of interesting things in that article about the A10, enhanced scholarship costs, etc... worth the read.


it’s conceivable we could do that with football. To make up the difference of $75,000, which is essentially three full scholarships, so instead of 85 (scholarships) we may do 82 at the full-cost of attendance.”

http://www.gazettenet.com/home/13059547-...aa-changes

IS D1 football allowed to give partial scholarships like baseball and swimming etc?

UMass and some other schools may try this, but I can see the NCAA or P5 put there foot down and say all 85 must be funded.

Maybe somebody can do some research if in FBS you must have 85 schollies. Otherwise, this is where the schools need to decide if staying FBS is feasable. FCS allows 0 to 63 so within the next few years we may see some drops to FCS.

(08-08-2014 04:26 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Maybe somebody can do some research if in FBS you must have 85 schollies. Otherwise, this is where the schools need to decide if staying FBS is feasable. FCS allows 0 to 63 so within the next few years we may see some drops to FCS.

You are only required to have 77 scholarships (90% of 85).

FCS may give partial scholarships, FBS may not.

Drop football, UMass.

The A-10 is working.

(08-08-2014 04:36 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  FCS may give partial scholarships, FBS may not.

And, if I'm not mistaken, they are still limited to a total of 85 players on scholarship. So, for example, you could have 41 full scholarships and 44 with half scholarships.

(08-08-2014 04:26 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Maybe somebody can do some research if in FBS you must have 85 schollies.

FBS teams need to "provide an average of at least 90 percent of the permissible maximum number of overall football grants-in-aid per year over a rolling two-year period." [Bylaw 20.9.7.4-(a)] http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/AMA/Division%20I...8%2010.pdf

The rule works out to giving 155 (90% of 170) over a two-year period.

So giving 82 FB scholarships each year is permissible. A team could go as low as 77 one year and 78 the next. Or even as low as 70 for one year, as long as they had 85 on scholarship both the year before and the year after the year with 70.

(08-08-2014 04:16 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  IS D1 football allowed to give partial scholarships like baseball and swimming etc?

UMass and some other schools may try this, but I can see the NCAA or P5 put there foot down and say all 85 must be funded.

I think that you can award partial scholarships, but they count as full scholarships for cap limits (i.e. you can have 85 half scholarships, 85 full scholarships, but not 170 half scholarships [85*2=170]). I also think that any kind of scholarship (including academic ones) that's awarded to a football player (or an athlete in general) counts against the cap. I'm not sure what the Title IX implications are, though. I would imagine that half scholarships count half.

(08-08-2014 04:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 04:26 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Maybe somebody can do some research if in FBS you must have 85 schollies.

FBS teams need to "provide an average of at least 90 percent of the permissible maximum number of overall football grants-in-aid per year over a rolling two-year period." [Bylaw 20.9.7.4-(a)] http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/AMA/Division%20I...8%2010.pdf

The rule works out to giving 155 (90% of 170) over a two-year period.

So giving 82 FB scholarships each year is permissible. A team could go as low as 77 one year and 78 the next. Or even as low as 70 for one year, as long as they had 85 on scholarship both the year before and the year after the year with 70.

Thanks Wedge.

(08-08-2014 04:44 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 04:36 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  FCS may give partial scholarships, FBS may not.

And, if I'm not mistaken, they are still limited to a total of 85 players on scholarship. So, for example, you could have 41 full scholarships and 44 with half scholarships.

You are correct. Your example is also correct in that it comes to the equivalent of 63 full scholarships, the FCS limit.

(08-08-2014 04:44 PM)LouPower Wrote:  Drop football, UMass.

The A-10 is working.

This is one of those double-edged swords. If UMass wanted to put football at the front of its athletic department, it would have taken the MAC invitation.

I like them in the A-10, and it shows they are committed to the highest conference available to them. It's very different than, say, Boise State, who was trying to shove its ollies off on anyone who would take them.

This is not a football-centered program...but it could nearly shutter them athletically if don't act with more wherewithal. Heck, if Charlotte could downgrade itself in hoops when it was all it really had, why can't UMass?

(08-08-2014 06:40 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 04:44 PM)LouPower Wrote:  Drop football, UMass.

The A-10 is working.

This is one of those double-edged swords. If UMass wanted to put football at the front of its athletic department, it would have taken the MAC invitation.

I like them in the A-10, and it shows they are committed to the highest conference available to them. It's very different than, say, Boise State, who was trying to shove its ollies off on anyone who would take them.

This is not a football-centered program...but it could nearly shutter them athletically if don't act with more wherewithal. Heck, if Charlotte could downgrade itself in hoops when it was all it really had, why can't UMass?

Charlotte was a weird cultural fit in the A-10, whereas UMass is pretty dead center in the graph, even as a public school with big football ambitions. Unless the A-10 loses multiple schools to the Big East and replaces them with future bottom feeders, they clearly think they're better off finding a marriage of convenience with the Sun Belt or CUSA for football or trying to go it alone than putting all their sports in the MAC.

UMASS is holding out hope of getting an American or CUSA offer at some point. Geographically speaking they are a much better fit for the American and I think they will get a look when UConn and Cincy move on.

(08-08-2014 04:09 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  The New Governance Fallout has already began... UMass talking about how to cover the increased costs of "full cost of attendance" scholarships. Instead of adding additional expenses to their football budget to pay for stipends, they may just cut down 3 scholarships instead. Lots of interesting things in that article about the A10, enhanced scholarship costs, etc... worth the read.


it’s conceivable we could do that with football. To make up the difference of $75,000, which is essentially three full scholarships, so instead of 85 (scholarships) we may do 82 at the full-cost of attendance.”

http://www.gazettenet.com/home/13059547-...aa-changes

This is a lot like ArkState saying they move the Missouri game. It's posturing saying it's possible but very unlikely we go with 82 scholarships. That said, we will not be at 85 scholarships until next year as in the first year we did not have close to 25 recruits.

Expect a practice bubble for all sports being funded and built next year. The stadium capacity expanding with a horseshoe/end zone seating added will be dependent on a few sell outs at McGuirk this year.

(08-08-2014 08:35 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  UMASS is holding out hope of getting an American or CUSA offer at some point. Geographically speaking they are a much better fit for the American and I think they will get a look when UConn and Cincy move on.

They probably see CUSA as being about the same level as the MAC, but with even bigger geographic issues. As for the American, I think they'd have to be fairly far down the list, with their football being what it is. That's a big risk to be taking if they're serious about keeping football at FBS level.

I might have taken the MAC offer. The MAC isn't as good in basketball as the A-10, but I don't think they dominate year after year. But the cultural fit thing will keep them where they are, at least for the foreseeable future.

(08-08-2014 05:22 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 04:44 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 04:36 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  FCS may give partial scholarships, FBS may not.

And, if I'm not mistaken, they are still limited to a total of 85 players on scholarship. So, for example, you could have 41 full scholarships and 44 with half scholarships.

You are correct. Your example is also correct in that it comes to the equivalent of 63 full scholarships, the FCS limit.

I thought the rule required 82 full grants in aid in FBS without the ability to split them partially.

(08-08-2014 09:29 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 04:09 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  The New Governance Fallout has already began... UMass talking about how to cover the increased costs of "full cost of attendance" scholarships. Instead of adding additional expenses to their football budget to pay for stipends, they may just cut down 3 scholarships instead. Lots of interesting things in that article about the A10, enhanced scholarship costs, etc... worth the read.


it’s conceivable we could do that with football. To make up the difference of $75,000, which is essentially three full scholarships, so instead of 85 (scholarships) we may do 82 at the full-cost of attendance.”

http://www.gazettenet.com/home/13059547-...aa-changes

This is a lot like ArkState saying they move the Missouri game. It's posturing saying it's possible but very unlikely we go with 82 scholarships. That said, we will not be at 85 scholarships until next year as in the first year we did not have close to 25 recruits.

Expect a practice bubble for all sports being funded and built next year. The stadium capacity expanding with a horseshoe/end zone seating added will be dependent on a few sell outs at McGuirk this year.

UMass will NEVER get a major invite trying to half-ass things.

Drop FB now. You're not going to survive in the new climate anyway. Use McGuirk for Lax. Go A10 for everything else.

I think UMass needs to join a conference in football now or forget FBS altogether.

(08-08-2014 08:17 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 06:40 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 04:44 PM)LouPower Wrote:  Drop football, UMass.

The A-10 is working.

This is one of those double-edged swords. If UMass wanted to put football at the front of its athletic department, it would have taken the MAC invitation.

I like them in the A-10, and it shows they are committed to the highest conference available to them. It's very different than, say, Boise State, who was trying to shove its ollies off on anyone who would take them.

This is not a football-centered program...but it could nearly shutter them athletically if don't act with more wherewithal. Heck, if Charlotte could downgrade itself in hoops when it was all it really had, why can't UMass?

Charlotte was a weird cultural fit in the A-10, whereas UMass is pretty dead center in the graph, even as a public school with big football ambitions. Unless the A-10 loses multiple schools to the Big East and replaces them with future bottom feeders, they clearly think they're better off finding a marriage of convenience with the Sun Belt or CUSA for football or trying to go it alone than putting all their sports in the MAC.

I don't know if UNCC was that off from the A10. The A10 definitely valued the area, going right back for Davidson after losing Charlotte. And the A10 started going after more schools like Charlotte when they nabbed VCU and GMU.

FWIW, I doubt CUSA would tell the Minutemen to wait. CUSA would actually have something they never had: a flagship.