http://www.ubbullrun.com/2014/10/28/7086...ce-measure

Cleveland, Ohio – With a strong commitment to sportsmanship, integrity and a student-first student-athlete experience, the Mid-American Conference (MAC) Council of Presidents affirms its commitment to the collegiate experience. The MAC will support the redefinition of an athletics grant-in-aid to include cost of attendance if autonomous legislation is enacted during the annual NCAA Convention in January, 2015.

The presidents of the MAC are committed to remaining a strong, vibrant and values-oriented NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision Conference, focused on the overall campus life experience of the individual student-athletes which includes academic success and graduation, social growth and teams competing at the highest competitive levels.

"The MAC is dedicated to supporting our student-athletes in the classroom, the community and on the playing field with the ultimate goal of graduating and having a great collegiate experience," said MAC Commissioner Jon Steinbrecher.

I wonder if there will be any class-action lawsuits by former athletes to collect back-pay or to claim salary was withheld for services provided?

Where's the money going to come from? Won't all athletes, not just football, have to be given this extra money? Better get a new, bigger TV contract.

(10-28-2014 07:00 PM)LongtimeFan Wrote:  Where's the money going to come from? Won't all athletes, not just football, have to be given this extra money? Better get a new, bigger TV contract.

I thought some posters were saying that's why the MAC worked a new deal - so they could afford this.

Good. Conference isn't hurting for money. They'll "find" it.

Will it be the same cost per student at each school or some formula.
The total cost any ideas it is three million at Texas .

I expect all the div 1 football conf will do this part. With the huge P5 tv deals they further hit the Gang. Gangs extra $$ from TV and than some will go to students leaving nothing or little to expand and improve while P just keeps on keeping on.

(10-29-2014 08:18 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I expect all the div 1 football conf will do this part. With the huge P5 tv deals they further hit the Gang. Gangs extra $$ from TV and than some will go to students leaving nothing or little to expand and improve while P just keeps on keeping on.

I wouldn't be surprised to see each G5 schools allocated say 500K from the college football playoffs for this purpose.

That is the 'gravy' money above and beyond what the G5 schools last year and years past (except when a G5 went to a BCS bowl game).

I just can't see a FB player at MSU get say 250 a month 'Cost of Attendance' money and a CMU player get say 50 bucks (or even zero) per month.

Not sure we'll do it, but our AD mentioned as a possibility reducing the number of scholarships down by 8. Assume on the womens side as will next close to that 500k

(10-29-2014 08:34 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Not sure we'll do it, but our AD mentioned as a possibility reducing the number of scholarships down by 8. Assume on the womens side as will next close to that 500k

Financially this is 'easy' to figure:

1). Get new income streams (e.g., football playoffs, MAC TV monies) and allocate a hunk of it for this purpose.

OR

2). Cut expenses by cutting sports or scholarships or both.

A couple years ago or say 2009, when things were bad, I would have bet sports would have been cut.

As an independent (after 2015), UMass obviously won't share in our MAC TV contract.

The MAC might afford $2,000 per athlete (all scholarship athletes). Texas is talking about $10,000.

(10-29-2014 10:22 AM)DetroitRocket Wrote:  The MAC might afford $2,000 per athlete (all scholarship athletes). Texas is talking about $10,000.

I saw some sports reporter on twitter mentioning $3000 per athlete for the MAC...but not 100% IIRC.

(10-29-2014 10:22 AM)DetroitRocket Wrote:  The MAC might afford $2,000 per athlete (all scholarship athletes). Texas is talking about $10,000.

This is scary.

If an athlete from modest means or poor has the choice between 10K, 5K, 2K or say 1K which schools have the recruiting advantage?

E.g., if Texas offered 10K and MSU 5K there is a big edge there to Texas.

(10-29-2014 10:52 AM)emu steve Wrote:  If an athlete from modest means or poor has the choice between 10K, 5K, 2K or say 1K which schools have the recruiting advantage?

Let's be honest here - the recruiting advantage already lies with the big schools.

Extra mullah won't push that many kids upwards that already were not already on that trajectory. And, we all have to remember that regardless of the monies offered, there are still only so many spots on a team. It's not like Texas can have 200 full ride football players.

The problem, the issue, is if the revenue lean school can afford this payment. It seems that yes, schools will make this work.

********

I swear I should start a metrics based non-profit that for a small fee can show these kids the amount of playing time and the quality of experience one gets at each school. Would you rather be a one year WR starter at Illinois, or a three year WR starter at Northern Illinois.

Wait bad example, NIU is better than UI.

Would you rather be a scholarship athlete at La Tech with 3 years of starting experience, a varsity jacket, and $3,000 grand in your pocket per year or a walk-on pine rider at LSU until your senior year, when you make the traveling team out of pity from the coach?

I think a lot, no A LOT, of kids do not properly measure this when being recruited.

(10-29-2014 10:47 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 10:22 AM)DetroitRocket Wrote:  The MAC might afford $2,000 per athlete (all scholarship athletes). Texas is talking about $10,000.

I saw some sports reporter on twitter mentioning $3000 per athlete for the MAC...but not 100% IIRC.

And if UMass can't afford anything at all, I don't see how choosing to focus on basketball will be a good decision. The FBS conferences will be offering better scholarship deals.

(10-29-2014 12:52 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 10:47 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 10:22 AM)DetroitRocket Wrote:  The MAC might afford $2,000 per athlete (all scholarship athletes). Texas is talking about $10,000.

I saw some sports reporter on twitter mentioning $3000 per athlete for the MAC...but not 100% IIRC.

And if UMass can't afford anything at all, I don't see how choosing to focus on basketball will be a good decision. The FBS conferences will be offering better scholarship deals.

Provide me the source that says UMass can't afford it.

(10-29-2014 02:41 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 12:52 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 10:47 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 10:22 AM)DetroitRocket Wrote:  The MAC might afford $2,000 per athlete (all scholarship athletes). Texas is talking about $10,000.

I saw some sports reporter on twitter mentioning $3000 per athlete for the MAC...but not 100% IIRC.

And if UMass can't afford anything at all, I don't see how choosing to focus on basketball will be a good decision. The FBS conferences will be offering better scholarship deals.

Provide me the source that says UMass can't afford it.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-710001-post-113...id11304936

.

(10-29-2014 02:41 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 12:52 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 10:47 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 10:22 AM)DetroitRocket Wrote:  The MAC might afford $2,000 per athlete (all scholarship athletes). Texas is talking about $10,000.

I saw some sports reporter on twitter mentioning $3000 per athlete for the MAC...but not 100% IIRC.

And if UMass can't afford anything at all, I don't see how choosing to focus on basketball will be a good decision. The FBS conferences will be offering better scholarship deals.

Provide me the source that says UMass can't afford it.

The source is you, from earlier in this thread.

(10-29-2014 08:34 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Not sure we'll do it, but our AD mentioned as a possibility reducing the number of scholarships down by 8.

Saying something is an option is not say "UMass can't afford it".

It's not official, but fulling expect a practice bubble to be approved and completed next year, along with the Basketball Champion Center. We've completed new sky and press box and a new Football Performance Center. Money may not grow on trees, but it is simply an option that we could choose to do or not. My gut says we'll get to 85 scholarship next year and stay there. Transition is a process and has taken a while to get there with three different head coaches in 4 years.

My comment of reducing by 8 was as a possibility for other MAC teams and for the record our AD never said reducing scholarships by 8, just we could go with 77 scholarships as an option. For the last three years, we've been at 77 or less scholarships. Morris did zero recruiting. Don't think we every had a class of 25 scholarship players and used a number of them on post grad players. Molnar alienated the players and a number of those left the program.

(10-28-2014 07:00 PM)LongtimeFan Wrote:  Where's the money going to come from? Won't all athletes, not just football, have to be given this extra money? Better get a new, bigger TV contract.

The new TV contract and the extra $1m+ per school payout in the CFP money.

The thing about "full cost of attendance" is that its not just any number the athletics department cares to make up, there's already a cost of attendance figure that has been determined for things like federal assistance and for situations where someone wants to combine several partial scholarships. If full cost of attendance at UTexas is $10,000, its because regular tuition doesn't cover as much of the cost of education at UTexas as it does at other schools.