https://twitter.com/McMurphyESPN/status/...6798666752

Just watching what The Joneses do

Boise State also will.

Every conference will support the measures put by the P5. The issue is who is going to enact them?

That' seems like a pretty big step for MAC type programs. I guess how big of a step will depend of how much "cost of attendance" is agreed upon.

The last time I looked was a year or so ago, but at that time most of their budgets were in the $25-$28M range.

(10-28-2014 04:08 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  That' seems like a pretty big step for MAC type programs. I guess how big of a step will depend of how much "cost of attendance" is agreed upon.

The last time I looked was a year or so ago, but at that time most of their budgets were in the $25-$28M range.

OT, the total dollar amount for on average amounts to a couple million per school when factoring in all scholarship athletes. Not really a back breaking deal. The problem could be the other perks that the P5 would like to throw in there.

The MAC will match whatever the P5 do, just not in every sport. Just the revenue sports and the off-setting Title IX women's sports.

Put this way, Texas estimates it will cost $6 million total for $10,000 per "EVERY" athlete. The MAC can provide $10,000 to half as many athletes for $3 million. So the MAC football, basketball, volleyball and softball players will get the same as a Texas player but Texas track and field and golf athletes will also get $10K where the MAC pole-vaulter won't.

The $3 million will be covered by the new $1.5 million College Football Playoff money and TV deal. It will be a wash. New money in, new costs out, but not even noticed by today's budgets.

Most of the G5 conferences will do something similar. FCoA will be harder for FCS and basketball-only conferences who have smaller budgets and no new found money from CFP or TV.

(10-28-2014 06:07 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  The MAC will match whatever the P5 do, just not in every sport. Just the revenue sports and the off-setting Title IX women's sports.

Put this way, Texas estimates it will cost $6 million total for $10,000 per "EVERY" athlete. The MAC can provide $10,000 to half as many athletes for $3 million. So the MAC football, basketball, volleyball and softball players will get the same as a Texas player but Texas track and field and golf athletes will also get $10K where the MAC pole-vaulter won't.

The $3 million will be covered by the new $1.5 million College Football Playoff money and TV deal. It will be a wash. New money in, new costs out, but not even noticed by today's budgets.

Most of the G5 conferences will do something similar. FCoA will be harder for FCS and basketball-only conferences who have smaller budgets and no new found money from CFP or TV.

Yeah, SBC has already made the same promises ourselves. We wont be able to offer what the P5 does, but football and basketball players will certainly get cash.

this won't effect the MAC's ability to get 4 and 5 star recruits because they never get those, but where this is going to hurt is with the 3 star recruits that the MAC occasionally gets over P5 schools. As a 3 star recruit what do you, take $2,500 from a MAC school or $10,000 from a P5 school? Now its no longer about playing time or right fit but now its only about economics. Fortunately for the P5 they negotiated an extra $900m over the 12 years of the playoff contract which will help them outspend the G5 with ease.

(10-28-2014 06:07 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  The MAC will match whatever the P5 do, just not in every sport. Just the revenue sports and the off-setting Title IX women's sports.

Put this way, Texas estimates it will cost $6 million total for $10,000 per "EVERY" athlete. The MAC can provide $10,000 to half as many athletes for $3 million. So the MAC football, basketball, volleyball and softball players will get the same as a Texas player but Texas track and field and golf athletes will also get $10K where the MAC pole-vaulter won't.

The $3 million will be covered by the new $1.5 million College Football Playoff money and TV deal. It will be a wash. New money in, new costs out, but not even noticed by today's budgets.

Most of the G5 conferences will do something similar. FCoA will be harder for FCS and basketball-only conferences who have smaller budgets and no new found money from CFP or TV.

Good luck with that.

Que the lawsuits from the members of the men's soccer team. Pay some but not all student athletes and it's going to be litigationpalooza. And it probably should be.

(10-29-2014 05:26 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 06:07 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  The MAC will match whatever the P5 do, just not in every sport. Just the revenue sports and the off-setting Title IX women's sports.

Put this way, Texas estimates it will cost $6 million total for $10,000 per "EVERY" athlete. The MAC can provide $10,000 to half as many athletes for $3 million. So the MAC football, basketball, volleyball and softball players will get the same as a Texas player but Texas track and field and golf athletes will also get $10K where the MAC pole-vaulter won't.

The $3 million will be covered by the new $1.5 million College Football Playoff money and TV deal. It will be a wash. New money in, new costs out, but not even noticed by today's budgets.

Most of the G5 conferences will do something similar. FCoA will be harder for FCS and basketball-only conferences who have smaller budgets and no new found money from CFP or TV.

Good luck with that.

Que the lawsuits from the members of the men's soccer team. Pay some but not all student athletes and it's going to be litigationpalooza. And it probably should be.

This is a non-issue. If the track and field runner complains and threatens a law suit as you suggest then schools will just cut that sport all together. Either way, the revenue sports will get the full benefits that any P5 schools give and the others won't. Texas can give $10,000 extra to their pole-vaulter, MAC schools will give $10,000 to their football and basketball players and if MAC pole-vaulters require $10,000 then we'll just cut the sport. MAC schools on average offer 18-19 sports when D1 only requires 15. MAC offers more sports than the Big 12 and SEC. We have sports to chop of we need but our revenue sports will match everything and anything the P5 put on the table. MAC and AAC have been most vocal and adamant about across the board conference-wide matching of all benefits.

(10-29-2014 07:56 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 05:26 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 06:07 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  The MAC will match whatever the P5 do, just not in every sport. Just the revenue sports and the off-setting Title IX women's sports.

Put this way, Texas estimates it will cost $6 million total for $10,000 per "EVERY" athlete. The MAC can provide $10,000 to half as many athletes for $3 million. So the MAC football, basketball, volleyball and softball players will get the same as a Texas player but Texas track and field and golf athletes will also get $10K where the MAC pole-vaulter won't.

The $3 million will be covered by the new $1.5 million College Football Playoff money and TV deal. It will be a wash. New money in, new costs out, but not even noticed by today's budgets.

Most of the G5 conferences will do something similar. FCoA will be harder for FCS and basketball-only conferences who have smaller budgets and no new found money from CFP or TV.

Good luck with that.

Que the lawsuits from the members of the men's soccer team. Pay some but not all student athletes and it's going to be litigationpalooza. And it probably should be.

This is a non-issue. If the track and field runner complains and threatens a law suit as you suggest then schools will just cut that sport all together. Either way, the revenue sports will get the full benefits that any P5 schools give and the others won't. Texas can give $10,000 extra to their pole-vaulter, MAC schools will give $10,000 to their football and basketball players and if MAC pole-vaulters require $10,000 then we'll just cut the sport. MAC schools on average offer 18-19 sports when D1 only requires 15. MAC offers more sports than the Big 12 and SEC. We have sports to chop of we need but our revenue sports will match everything and anything the P5 put on the table. MAC and AAC have been most vocal and adamant about across the board conference-wide matching of all benefits.

....and the federal gov't will cut your funding for not adhering to Title IX.

(10-29-2014 09:03 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 07:56 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 05:26 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 06:07 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  The MAC will match whatever the P5 do, just not in every sport. Just the revenue sports and the off-setting Title IX women's sports.

Put this way, Texas estimates it will cost $6 million total for $10,000 per "EVERY" athlete. The MAC can provide $10,000 to half as many athletes for $3 million. So the MAC football, basketball, volleyball and softball players will get the same as a Texas player but Texas track and field and golf athletes will also get $10K where the MAC pole-vaulter won't.

The $3 million will be covered by the new $1.5 million College Football Playoff money and TV deal. It will be a wash. New money in, new costs out, but not even noticed by today's budgets.

Most of the G5 conferences will do something similar. FCoA will be harder for FCS and basketball-only conferences who have smaller budgets and no new found money from CFP or TV.

Good luck with that.

Que the lawsuits from the members of the men's soccer team. Pay some but not all student athletes and it's going to be litigationpalooza. And it probably should be.

This is a non-issue. If the track and field runner complains and threatens a law suit as you suggest then schools will just cut that sport all together. Either way, the revenue sports will get the full benefits that any P5 schools give and the others won't. Texas can give $10,000 extra to their pole-vaulter, MAC schools will give $10,000 to their football and basketball players and if MAC pole-vaulters require $10,000 then we'll just cut the sport. MAC schools on average offer 18-19 sports when D1 only requires 15. MAC offers more sports than the Big 12 and SEC. We have sports to chop of we need but our revenue sports will match everything and anything the P5 put on the table. MAC and AAC have been most vocal and adamant about across the board conference-wide matching of all benefits.

....and the federal gov't will cut your funding for not adhering to Title IX.

Haha, nope. As long as a school cuts equal men's and women's sports scholarships and everything balances in the end then there is no issue. If a school who is already compliant than cuts both men's and women's swimming or both men's and women's track and field or cross-country than there is no issue. MAC carries extra sports like this that is not required.

(10-29-2014 09:15 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 09:03 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 07:56 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 05:26 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 06:07 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  The MAC will match whatever the P5 do, just not in every sport. Just the revenue sports and the off-setting Title IX women's sports.

Put this way, Texas estimates it will cost $6 million total for $10,000 per "EVERY" athlete. The MAC can provide $10,000 to half as many athletes for $3 million. So the MAC football, basketball, volleyball and softball players will get the same as a Texas player but Texas track and field and golf athletes will also get $10K where the MAC pole-vaulter won't.

The $3 million will be covered by the new $1.5 million College Football Playoff money and TV deal. It will be a wash. New money in, new costs out, but not even noticed by today's budgets.

Most of the G5 conferences will do something similar. FCoA will be harder for FCS and basketball-only conferences who have smaller budgets and no new found money from CFP or TV.

Good luck with that.

Que the lawsuits from the members of the men's soccer team. Pay some but not all student athletes and it's going to be litigationpalooza. And it probably should be.

This is a non-issue. If the track and field runner complains and threatens a law suit as you suggest then schools will just cut that sport all together. Either way, the revenue sports will get the full benefits that any P5 schools give and the others won't. Texas can give $10,000 extra to their pole-vaulter, MAC schools will give $10,000 to their football and basketball players and if MAC pole-vaulters require $10,000 then we'll just cut the sport. MAC schools on average offer 18-19 sports when D1 only requires 15. MAC offers more sports than the Big 12 and SEC. We have sports to chop of we need but our revenue sports will match everything and anything the P5 put on the table. MAC and AAC have been most vocal and adamant about across the board conference-wide matching of all benefits.

....and the federal gov't will cut your funding for not adhering to Title IX.

Haha, nope. As long as a school cuts equal men's and women's sports scholarships and everything balances in the end then there is no issue. If a school who is already compliant than cuts both men's and women's swimming or both men's and women's track and field or cross-country than there is no issue. MAC carries extra sports like this that is not required.

Ya, you missed the point. So how do you account for the 100 men now receiving an extra $10k a year. Just dump another $1mm into women's schollies? Seems reasonable when I am sure you are already losing money.

So in your argument you just start cutting sports left and right, wonderful.

The point for me is that all these schools are crying about losing money and then turn around and spend a few million more per year. It shows that its all smoke and mirrors. Read the recent Pierce piece on grantland if you want some real talk.

(10-29-2014 09:18 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 09:15 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 09:03 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 07:56 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 05:26 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Good luck with that.

Que the lawsuits from the members of the men's soccer team. Pay some but not all student athletes and it's going to be litigationpalooza. And it probably should be.

This is a non-issue. If the track and field runner complains and threatens a law suit as you suggest then schools will just cut that sport all together. Either way, the revenue sports will get the full benefits that any P5 schools give and the others won't. Texas can give $10,000 extra to their pole-vaulter, MAC schools will give $10,000 to their football and basketball players and if MAC pole-vaulters require $10,000 then we'll just cut the sport. MAC schools on average offer 18-19 sports when D1 only requires 15. MAC offers more sports than the Big 12 and SEC. We have sports to chop of we need but our revenue sports will match everything and anything the P5 put on the table. MAC and AAC have been most vocal and adamant about across the board conference-wide matching of all benefits.

....and the federal gov't will cut your funding for not adhering to Title IX.

Haha, nope. As long as a school cuts equal men's and women's sports scholarships and everything balances in the end then there is no issue. If a school who is already compliant than cuts both men's and women's swimming or both men's and women's track and field or cross-country than there is no issue. MAC carries extra sports like this that is not required.

Ya, you missed the point. So how do you account for the 100 men now receiving an extra $10k a year. Just dump another $1mm into women's schollies? Seems reasonable when I am sure you are already losing money.

So in your argument you just start cutting sports left and right, wonderful.

First, I argue against the notion that the extra $10,000 must go to ALL athletes. It just has to go to both men and women. The name and likeness issues applies to the sports on TV that TV money covers not cross-country. UMass AD has already stated this and said the Atlantic 10 would do exactly this.

Either way this is overblown. Most FBS schools have around 300 total scholarships. 300 times $10,000 is still only $3 million. The new CFP money and new MAC TV deal almost exactly covers this $3 million. It is a wash.

The MAC is in better position than most of the G5 due to our tiny travel costs. Even though the Mountain West makes a miniscule amount more than the MAC in their TV deal, they have to fly everywhere and that travel costs and hotel costs are outrageous. The MAC schools can all take a 3 hour bus ride and then be home the same day.

The MAC is in a better financial position than the Mountain West, C-USA, and Sun Belt. We are also in better shape than any non-FBS conference because they won't get the CFP money to off-set the new Stipend and Full Costs. The Big East is the only exception.

Neill Ostrout ‏@NeillOstrout 3m3 minutes ago
Cronin pointed out that Pell Grant recipients won't get extra anyway, calls some of talk "propaganda."

Knowing how universities work, I've been saying this for a long time. The full cost of attendance figures are federally regulated and reported. Each school derives those figures for ALL students. if the money is NOT to be treated as income, then the full cost must be reported across the board by each school. The problem of course is that the poor and even some lower middle class students already receive grants to cover the full cost of attendance. Any money above this figure is then considered income and is not regarded as money for the full cost.

What the courts and the NCAA have succeeded in doing is taking money from regular students and giving it to middle class and rich athletes. Well done!

AND, to make matters worse, the conferences are on board with the sham because, as Cronin points out, it gives them a recruiting edge.

BTW, the Texas guy never said $10k.

(10-29-2014 10:04 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  Neill Ostrout ‏@NeillOstrout 3m3 minutes ago
Cronin pointed out that Pell Grant recipients won't get extra anyway, calls some of talk "propaganda."

Knowing how universities work, I've been saying this for a long time. The full cost of attendance figures are federally regulated and reported. Each school derives those figures for ALL students. if the money is NOT to be treated as income, then the full cost must be reported across the board by each school. The problem of course is that the poor and even some lower middle class students already receive grants to cover the full cost of attendance. Any money above this figure is then considered income and is not regarded as money for the full cost.

What the courts and the NCAA have succeeded in doing is taking money from regular students and giving it to middle class and rich athletes. Well done!

AND, to make matters worse, the conferences are on board with the sham because, as Cronin points out, it gives them a recruiting edge.

BTW, the Texas guy never said $10k.

It's gone too far and there's no turning back IMO as University's were never meant to function as a minor league professional sports league. Only in America I guess.

From a recent Pierce piece:

"The system is overdue for collapse because it is a system based fundamentally on two basic, if incredibly opulent, absurdities: the absurdity of the mad, profit-whoring way we run higher education and the absurdity of believing that it is one of the functions of our institutions of higher education to be part of the multimillion-dollar sports-entertainment industry. The first absurdity leads inevitably to the second one, and the second one leads inevitably to the NCAA, an organization born of absurdity that has managed to create new levels of absurdity every second it has been in existence. It is, honestly, laughable."

Education was once about a non-profit pursuit to educate our citizens so they can leave and contribute to society. Now it is just big business and athletics are just part of the profit seeking model.

(10-29-2014 07:56 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 05:26 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 06:07 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  The MAC will match whatever the P5 do, just not in every sport. Just the revenue sports and the off-setting Title IX women's sports.

Put this way, Texas estimates it will cost $6 million total for $10,000 per "EVERY" athlete. The MAC can provide $10,000 to half as many athletes for $3 million. So the MAC football, basketball, volleyball and softball players will get the same as a Texas player but Texas track and field and golf athletes will also get $10K where the MAC pole-vaulter won't.

The $3 million will be covered by the new $1.5 million College Football Playoff money and TV deal. It will be a wash. New money in, new costs out, but not even noticed by today's budgets.

Most of the G5 conferences will do something similar. FCoA will be harder for FCS and basketball-only conferences who have smaller budgets and no new found money from CFP or TV.

Good luck with that.

Que the lawsuits from the members of the men's soccer team. Pay some but not all student athletes and it's going to be litigationpalooza. And it probably should be.

This is a non-issue. If the track and field runner complains and threatens a law suit as you suggest then schools will just cut that sport all together. Either way, the revenue sports will get the full benefits that any P5 schools give and the others won't. Texas can give $10,000 extra to their pole-vaulter, MAC schools will give $10,000 to their football and basketball players and if MAC pole-vaulters require $10,000 then we'll just cut the sport. MAC schools on average offer 18-19 sports when D1 only requires 15. MAC offers more sports than the Big 12 and SEC. We have sports to chop of we need but our revenue sports will match everything and anything the P5 put on the table. MAC and AAC have been most vocal and adamant about across the board conference-wide matching of all benefits.

We will just agree to disagree. You probably understand the legal issues presented better.

Texas' 10k number is misleading. It is not 10k additional per student, it is 10k included the current scholarship model. For example, if the current football scholarship is 5k a year at UT, they're bumping it 5k to 10 total, not 15k.

(10-29-2014 01:24 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  this won't effect the MAC's ability to get 4 and 5 star recruits because they never get those, but where this is going to hurt is with the 3 star recruits that the MAC occasionally gets over P5 schools. As a 3 star recruit what do you, take $2,500 from a MAC school or $10,000 from a P5 school? Now its no longer about playing time or right fit but now its only about economics. Fortunately for the P5 they negotiated an extra $900m over the 12 years of the playoff contract which will help them outspend the G5 with ease.

People need to really understand what is going on.

There are no $10k payouts.

Anything above the federally regulated COA is considered income. And schools are adamant that they won't do that.

I've been looking at school websites recently and I am amazed at how schools have raised their COAs from $2k (which seems apt to me, that's money for travel over 8 months and phone usage, small incidentals related to being away from home) to $4.5k. That's because of sports, but it applies to all students, and it weighs on financial aid packaging.

Anything above COA would be considered income.

Schools can't exceed the COA.

Even better, the kids who receive Pell Grants (lower middle class and poor students) receive absolutely no new money from these new rules. So, you don't simply multiply $4.5k x number of scholarship athletes. You have to subtract the number from those who already receive pell grants.

This is going to cause upheaval. For instance, at a time when we had the gov't sequester, I can tell you from being on a college campus that poor students were not receiving their pell grant money. If the rich and upper middle class students are receiving a $4.5k stipend while the poor kids have their pell grants withheld well into the semester, you're going to find wacky imbalances in this new system.