Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
Author Message
TerryD Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,884
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 898
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Grayson Highlands
Post: #21
RE: The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
(01-18-2015 12:18 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(01-17-2015 09:27 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(01-17-2015 07:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
Quote:In another significant change, the schools and the reps narrowly approved legislation that will prevent schools and coaches from choosing not to renew an athlete's scholarship for athletic reasons. Under the system that has been in place, most athletic scholarships are subject to annual renewal.

But most of the attention coming into the convention and on Saturday was placed on the cost-of-attendance vote.

This was also passed at the same meeting. It isn't as big of a deal towards realignment but this is a very big deal for treating these students properly.



My understanding from another board is that the SEC voted against this proposal.

All I could find about the SEC in that piece was this.

Quote:The autonomy schools and athlete representatives on Saturday voted against a proposal from the SEC that would have required schools to regularly file a report to the NCAA about any unusual expenses they may be covering for any athlete.

Seems quite opposite from what you are seeing elsewhere. Perhaps you should link otherwise it sounds like you are in some conversations with folks talking about something else entirely or they are idiots. Considering you are from Louisiana....well I spent some time there and it would not surprise me at all if it was simply the latter and they got confused with what they read in that piece.

The SEC put forward a proposal and it was voted down. If these SEC folks you talk to are trying to claim something entirely different, then that would be funny.


"Among the initiatives that were approved were schools being required to make up the difference for the full cost of attendance that an athletic scholarship doesn’t cover as well as four-year guaranteed scholarship (with some stipulations).

The former proposal passed by a vote of 79-1, with the lone dissenter being a school from the ACC. The latter, which guarantees that scholarships can’t be reduced or canceled for athletics reasons, was not nearly as unanimous as both the Big 12 and SEC both voted against it. The multi-year scholarships will replace the current model, which had been a one-year scholarship renewable on a yearly basis."


http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-approved/
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2015 10:00 AM by TerryD.)
01-18-2015 09:59 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #22
RE: The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
(01-17-2015 04:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  OK, who was the guy who voted no?

In the article:
The single "No" vote on COA was Boston College, according to a record of the electronic voting provided by the NCAA. BC released a statement late Saturday that said, in part, the school "is concerned with continuing to pass legislation that increases expenses when the vast majority of schools are already institutionally subsidized. The consequence of such legislation could ultimately hurt student-athletes if/when programs are cut. This legislation further segregates student-athletes from the general student population by increasing aid without need-based consideration. Legislation already exists for student-athletes in need through Pell grants and the student-assistance fund."
01-18-2015 10:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #23
RE: The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
(01-17-2015 10:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-17-2015 09:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-17-2015 04:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  OK, who was the guy who voted no?

Boston College.

In a way, I can understand this. I believe BC has more scholarship athletes than any school in the ACC, and one the most in the NCAA. This is going to cost them a pile of money.

Here's a question I haven't heard addressed. If schools are going to pay cash for costs above room, board, etc., are they going to pay the same amount to athletes on partial scholarship as the ones getting a full ride? The same question would apply to the amounts schools are about to pay for the use of an athlete's image. How can you prorate that? If you have one baseball player on full scholarship and another on a partial scholarship, and they both play in the same game on TV, how do you justify paying one of them more than the other? How about the scholarship football player who sits on the bench the entire season? Or the walk-on who actually plays? Or the field hockey player or volleyball player whose team is never on TV?

This is going to get complicated.
The fact that the initial proposal was only for full scholarship athletes was the reason Texas voted against it a couple years ago. There is something that says they "can" do it for all sports. I'm betting the P5 does it for all sports.

I also thought this was interesting (and troublesome given school's history on cheating):
The key, Hostetter said, is that each school must determine athletes' cost of attendance under the same policies it uses to determine the cost of attendance for all its students. That has raised concerns in the higher-education world about pressure that could be brought to bear on schools' financial aid officers, who also have the authority under U.S. Department of Education guidelines to use what is termed "professional judgment" to adjust students' cost of attendance on a case-by-case basis, although such variances must be documented.

The autonomy schools and athlete representatives on Saturday voted against a proposal from the SEC that would have required schools to regularly file a report to the NCAA about any unusual expenses they may be covering for any athlete.
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2015 10:33 AM by bullet.)
01-18-2015 10:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #24
RE: The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
(01-18-2015 09:59 AM)TerryD Wrote:  
(01-18-2015 12:18 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(01-17-2015 09:27 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(01-17-2015 07:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
Quote:In another significant change, the schools and the reps narrowly approved legislation that will prevent schools and coaches from choosing not to renew an athlete's scholarship for athletic reasons. Under the system that has been in place, most athletic scholarships are subject to annual renewal.

But most of the attention coming into the convention and on Saturday was placed on the cost-of-attendance vote.

This was also passed at the same meeting. It isn't as big of a deal towards realignment but this is a very big deal for treating these students properly.



My understanding from another board is that the SEC voted against this proposal.

All I could find about the SEC in that piece was this.

Quote:The autonomy schools and athlete representatives on Saturday voted against a proposal from the SEC that would have required schools to regularly file a report to the NCAA about any unusual expenses they may be covering for any athlete.

Seems quite opposite from what you are seeing elsewhere. Perhaps you should link otherwise it sounds like you are in some conversations with folks talking about something else entirely or they are idiots. Considering you are from Louisiana....well I spent some time there and it would not surprise me at all if it was simply the latter and they got confused with what they read in that piece.

The SEC put forward a proposal and it was voted down. If these SEC folks you talk to are trying to claim something entirely different, then that would be funny.


"Among the initiatives that were approved were schools being required to make up the difference for the full cost of attendance that an athletic scholarship doesn’t cover as well as four-year guaranteed scholarship (with some stipulations).

The former proposal passed by a vote of 79-1, with the lone dissenter being a school from the ACC. The latter, which guarantees that scholarships can’t be reduced or canceled for athletics reasons, was not nearly as unanimous as both the Big 12 and SEC both voted against it. The multi-year scholarships will replace the current model, which had been a one-year scholarship renewable on a yearly basis."


http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-approved/

Ahh, thank you for that. It is not surprising to me at all that the SEC voted against it. They are well known to over sign and then "cut" those that don't make the grade. That can create some hardship for those that get cut. They end up in lesser programs. Now they are the ones that made the choice to go to such a school but we hold these Institutions to a higher degree of responsibility than we do kids that are barely considered adults. So now the SEC will have to pay the cost of cutting kids from their football program.

It is more surprising to me though that the Big 12 did the same. Perhaps they have been flying under the radar, doing the same thing.


It is going to be interesting to see how this plays out. If they never pass rules stating a cap number for Full CoA then we will enter a full on arms race in recruiting and the SEC is going to hate that. They will have to pay out a ton to keep all of the southern recruits in the South. Northern Schools will each be trying to poach a couple top recruits from down there. When you add it up, that is a lot of recruits. I am sure the SEC thinks it can maintain it's hold on the recruiting there but they know that it now is going to become a lot more expensive to do.
01-18-2015 10:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #25
RE: The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
(01-18-2015 10:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-17-2015 10:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-17-2015 09:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-17-2015 04:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  OK, who was the guy who voted no?

Boston College.

In a way, I can understand this. I believe BC has more scholarship athletes than any school in the ACC, and one the most in the NCAA. This is going to cost them a pile of money.

Here's a question I haven't heard addressed. If schools are going to pay cash for costs above room, board, etc., are they going to pay the same amount to athletes on partial scholarship as the ones getting a full ride? The same question would apply to the amounts schools are about to pay for the use of an athlete's image. How can you prorate that? If you have one baseball player on full scholarship and another on a partial scholarship, and they both play in the same game on TV, how do you justify paying one of them more than the other? How about the scholarship football player who sits on the bench the entire season? Or the walk-on who actually plays? Or the field hockey player or volleyball player whose team is never on TV?

This is going to get complicated.
The fact that the initial proposal was only for full scholarship athletes was the reason Texas voted against it a couple years ago. There is something that says they "can" do it for all sports. I'm betting the P5 does it for all sports.

I also thought this was interesting (and troublesome given school's history on cheating):
The key, Hostetter said, is that each school must determine athletes' cost of attendance under the same policies it uses to determine the cost of attendance for all its students. That has raised concerns in the higher-education world about pressure that could be brought to bear on schools' financial aid officers, who also have the authority under U.S. Department of Education guidelines to use what is termed "professional judgment" to adjust students' cost of attendance on a case-by-case basis, although such variances must be documented.

The autonomy schools and athlete representatives on Saturday voted against a proposal from the SEC that would have required schools to regularly file a report to the NCAA about any unusual expenses they may be covering for any athlete.

We all know what that means. An Arm's Race that is money influenced in regards to recruiting. If they don't have to tell all about what money goes where then it is going to get very ugly. The SEC will get the worst of it because of how many of their recruits are going to start getting heavily recruited by schools not in the Deep South. The SEC will have to massively increase it's pay outs in order to keep some of these guys. This measure will cost them more than any other conference, which is why they put forward that proposal. It is very telling and not so surprising to see the other schools and conferences didn't go along with that SEC proposal.
01-18-2015 10:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chess Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,815
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 219
I Root For: ECU & Nebraska
Location: Chicago Metro
Post: #26
RE: The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
My initial thoughts- How soon will Alabama pay Southern Miss to take a player that not working out but was guaranteed a scholarship or wants more playing time? Will a school allow a player to fail academically, on purpose, to get out of a guaranteed scholarship? Do schools like Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, etc... (Schools with high academic standards, vast networks, deep pockets, etc...) finally get a recruiting edge over less prestigious state schools?
01-18-2015 11:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #27
RE: The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
(01-17-2015 05:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Quotes below from the USA Today article:

Quote:redefines an athletic scholarship so that it can cover not only the traditional tuition, room, board, books and fees, but also the incidental costs of attending college.

In my understanding this means something like below.

2014-15:
costs (tuition, room, board, books, fees): $10,000
scholarship: $10,000
Refund: $0

2015-16 (incidental cost of living expenses determined to be $3,000):
costs (tuition, room, board, books, fees): $11,000
scholarship: $11,000 + $3,000
Refund: $3,000

The athlete now has $3,000 cash in his checking account that he can do with as he or she pleases.


Unless they're going to make an attempt to control that somehow, which I haven't seen anything on that yet. That could be something like giving them a monthly check rather than a lump sum refund. Or perhaps it would go on a special credit card that can only authorize certain purchases.

Quote:The change occurred under new governance setup that allows the Atlantic Coast, Big 12, Big Ten, Pacific-12 and Southeastern conferences greater autonomy in rules making. The vote by the 65 schools and 15 athlete representatives -- three from each of the five conferences – allows, but does not require, all Division I schools to award these so-called cost-of-attendance scholarships in all sports.

What this means for the two schools I cheer for:

Minnesota - being a wealthy B1G school and having what I assume to be one of the higher COL being in a large, urban center, they may now be able to offer recruits one of the highest COL dollar amounts among the B1G. Recruiting advantage? If Wisconsin and Iowa can only offer $2,000 and Minnesota can offer $5,000 ... that's money on the table.

NDSU - I'm not certain if they will offer the COL. There's also a chance that the MVFC and Summit conferences could dictate that their respective members may not institute the COL, if not all members can afford it.

Won't impact NDSU football at all. The proposal only applies to headcount sports. FCS football is an equivalency sport. It would apply to men's and women's basketball, women's volleyball and gymnastics depending on which of those sports NDSU offers.
01-18-2015 11:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #28
RE: The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
(01-18-2015 11:45 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-17-2015 05:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Quotes below from the USA Today article:

Quote:redefines an athletic scholarship so that it can cover not only the traditional tuition, room, board, books and fees, but also the incidental costs of attending college.

In my understanding this means something like below.

2014-15:
costs (tuition, room, board, books, fees): $10,000
scholarship: $10,000
Refund: $0

2015-16 (incidental cost of living expenses determined to be $3,000):
costs (tuition, room, board, books, fees): $11,000
scholarship: $11,000 + $3,000
Refund: $3,000

The athlete now has $3,000 cash in his checking account that he can do with as he or she pleases.


Unless they're going to make an attempt to control that somehow, which I haven't seen anything on that yet. That could be something like giving them a monthly check rather than a lump sum refund. Or perhaps it would go on a special credit card that can only authorize certain purchases.

Quote:The change occurred under new governance setup that allows the Atlantic Coast, Big 12, Big Ten, Pacific-12 and Southeastern conferences greater autonomy in rules making. The vote by the 65 schools and 15 athlete representatives -- three from each of the five conferences – allows, but does not require, all Division I schools to award these so-called cost-of-attendance scholarships in all sports.

What this means for the two schools I cheer for:

Minnesota - being a wealthy B1G school and having what I assume to be one of the higher COL being in a large, urban center, they may now be able to offer recruits one of the highest COL dollar amounts among the B1G. Recruiting advantage? If Wisconsin and Iowa can only offer $2,000 and Minnesota can offer $5,000 ... that's money on the table.

NDSU - I'm not certain if they will offer the COL. There's also a chance that the MVFC and Summit conferences could dictate that their respective members may not institute the COL, if not all members can afford it.

Won't impact NDSU football at all. The proposal only applies to headcount sports. FCS football is an equivalency sport. It would apply to men's and women's basketball, women's volleyball and gymnastics depending on which of those sports NDSU offers.

USA Today article says it can, if they choose, be applied to all sports.
01-18-2015 11:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #29
RE: The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
(01-17-2015 06:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  I suspect that conferences will decide on a single amount that is the same for all schools to prevent one from having a recruiting advantage over the others. The fact is that cost of living differences are less than the differences between individual athletes' incidental spending.

For example, one of the biggest items in that hypothetical basket of goods is travel home on semester breaks. If one Alabama athlete lives in Texas and another lives in Tuscaloosa, their costs are not going to be the same. And chances are that the hot female athlete is likely to spend less on dates than the third string right tackle.

All those "full cost of attendance" quotes are just estimates and averages. At the end of the day, I think the entire P5 will agree on a single amount.

That would be the easiest way to do it. But conferences might be the starting point and may be as far as the "cooperation" goes, to that effect.

I don't think that, for example, SEC schools will want to tie themselves to what B1G schools think is appropriate. Especially if the SEC schools can and want to spend more.
01-18-2015 03:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Offline
The Black Knight of The Deplorables

Posts: 9,618
Joined: Oct 2013
I Root For: Army, SFU
Location: Michie Stadium 1945
Post: #30
RE: The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
I am sure that most student athletics will use the incidental cost stipend with full responsibility.

Ah heck, most will waste it on booze, drugs and women.
01-18-2015 07:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Offline
The Black Knight of The Deplorables

Posts: 9,618
Joined: Oct 2013
I Root For: Army, SFU
Location: Michie Stadium 1945
Post: #31
RE: The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
(01-18-2015 10:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-17-2015 04:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  OK, who was the guy who voted no?

In the article:
The single "No" vote on COA was Boston College, according to a record of the electronic voting provided by the NCAA. BC released a statement late Saturday that said, in part, the school "is concerned with continuing to pass legislation that increases expenses when the vast majority of schools are already institutionally subsidized. The consequence of such legislation could ultimately hurt student-athletes if/when programs are cut. This legislation further segregates student-athletes from the general student population by increasing aid without need-based consideration. Legislation already exists for student-athletes in need through Pell grants and the student-assistance fund."

So BC is trying to start the 10th Crusade?

(There are many minor Crusades, but there are nine recognized major Crusades)
01-18-2015 07:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,337
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #32
RE: The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
(01-18-2015 03:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(01-17-2015 06:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  I suspect that conferences will decide on a single amount that is the same for all schools to prevent one from having a recruiting advantage over the others. The fact is that cost of living differences are less than the differences between individual athletes' incidental spending.

For example, one of the biggest items in that hypothetical basket of goods is travel home on semester breaks. If one Alabama athlete lives in Texas and another lives in Tuscaloosa, their costs are not going to be the same. And chances are that the hot female athlete is likely to spend less on dates than the third string right tackle.

All those "full cost of attendance" quotes are just estimates and averages. At the end of the day, I think the entire P5 will agree on a single amount.

That would be the easiest way to do it. But conferences might be the starting point and may be as far as the "cooperation" goes, to that effect.

I don't think that, for example, SEC schools will want to tie themselves to what B1G schools think is appropriate. Especially if the SEC schools can and want to spend more.

I take it from your post that you think the SEC schools would gain an advantage by spending more. If I'm not mistaken, HeinousOne seems to think the SEC would be at a disadvantage because northern schools would spend more, thus attracting more recruits from the deep south. Seems to me, you can't both be right.
01-19-2015 02:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #33
RE: The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
(01-17-2015 10:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  In a way, I can understand this. I believe BC has more scholarship athletes than any school in the ACC, and one the most in the NCAA. This is going to cost them a pile of money.

Here's a question I haven't heard addressed. If schools are going to pay cash for costs above room, board, etc., are they going to pay the same amount to athletes on partial scholarship as the ones getting a full ride? The same question would apply to the amounts schools are about to pay for the use of an athlete's image. How can you prorate that? If you have one baseball player on full scholarship and another on a partial scholarship, and they both play in the same game on TV, how do you justify paying one of them more than the other? How about the scholarship football player who sits on the bench the entire season? Or the walk-on who actually plays? Or the field hockey player or volleyball player whose team is never on TV?

This is going to get complicated.

I'm going to ignore the part of your post that is essentially asking "how do you decide which athletes should have a scholarship and how much should they get?"


In regards to the question of "will this apply to partial scholarships?", I'm going to speculate (pull a guess out of my you know what).

Think of it like this: at the end of the day, every student athlete has an bill due to the school that must be paid every semester, quarter, whatever. That bill covers: 1) tuition and fees that every student must pay, 2) meal plan, if they choose to have one*, 3) room, if they choose to live in university owned/operated housing, 4) misc. costs that can be charged to a student account (this is most likely things like parking/bus pass and book store charges, which aren't necessarily limited to books**)

* - in regards to food, the NCAA recently made it so that schools can spend an unlimited amount of money on as much food as they want to provide for players. At very large programs, it may be that there is a private dining hall just for athletes which will provide every ounce of food. Or perhaps all food for athlete will be special catered. At smaller schools, this may mean that the school will pay for every athlete to have an unlimited pass to the school's dining hall(s). Or maybe a combination.

But the point is that it makes me wonder if food is going to be treated separately from scholarships. In other words, if they're just going to say that a school is responsible for providing every athlete on every roster with the amount of food and in the way that each school deems best and so feed will no longer count as part of a scholarship anymore.


** - take note that most school book stores pretty much allow you to charge anything in the store to a student account, rather than paying in cash or credit on the spot. So while books are universally understood to be "required" (though that's even debatable these days), are things like an iPod or a school hoodie required expenses?


So that said, the student (or his parents/guardians) have to pay that bill, one way or another.

Let's say that bill is $10k for a particular semester.

The previous understanding is that an athlete on "full scholarship" would get $10k while an athlete on "half scholarship" would get $5k, which pays for all or half of the semester bill, respectively.

Now however, the athlete on "full scholarship" would get $10k PLUS let's say $2.5k on top of that for "COL expenses". But the athlete on "half scholarship" would still only get $5k. Because that pays for half of the bill he owes to the school.


Why would that be true? Because, think about it. What's the actual difference between an athlete with a "half scholarship" ($5k) who receives no COL expenses and an athlete with a "quarter scholarship" ($2.5k) who then receives $2.5k COL expenses on top of his scholarship? They both owed $10k and they both received $5k in money as basically an athletic grant.

So the COL expenses money on top of a scholarship is really only relevant to an athlete whose scholarship is already taking care of his entire semester bill.

You could say that if the athlete on half had then received the COL expenses it would be as if he was really on a 3/4th scholarship. That's true, but my point is - why call that extra $2.5k "for COL expenses"? Why not just put him on actual 3/4th scholarship?



If that ends up being correct at the end of the day, then the school will in fact not be on the hook to provide the COL on top of every scholarship for every athlete on every roster.

They just have to be careful to balance the dollars between men and women!
(This post was last modified: 01-19-2015 02:45 PM by MplsBison.)
01-19-2015 02:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #34
RE: The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
(01-17-2015 11:42 PM)pkptigers07 Wrote:  They already get checks for room(if they live off campus) and board. Each school's financial aid office sets room and board cost average each year as part of the overall cost of attendance. Any meal plans or training table meals are deducted from each athlete's board amount and then they either refund the rest at the beginning of the semester or in multiple checks across the semester. With full cost of attendance scholarships, they'll just increase the amount paid out to the athletes by the amounts each schools financial aid office sets for the other components of cost of attendance.

Federal aid regulations prevent schools from providing aid above full cost of attendance and attendance costs can vary greatly from school to school so it's unlikely you'll see the NCAA set an across the board number for the remaining cost of attendance components. Similar concerns over the miscellaneous expense allowance that was passed by the board a few years baxk are what led it to ultimately be recinded through the overide process

In regards to food, see my previous post. I don't know this for a fact at all, but I think (eventually) food will just be removed from the equation. For example, even if you're a true (unrecruited) walk-on and you make the roster without any scholarship, all of your food will be provided by the school at no cost to you (or your scholarship). Again, that's just my wild guess.


In regards to room, my understanding is that a "full" scholarship is based on the bill owed by the athlete to the school. In other words, if the bill includes the cost of living in school owned/operated housing then that cost would be included in the monetary value of a "full" scholarship. Likewise, that would determine the amount of a "half" scholarship.

But if the athlete chooses to live off campus, then the school wouldn't pay for that. Consider this example scenario: why would (or should) the school give money to an athlete for "room payments" if his rich parents are already paying the entire rent of a luxury apartment/condo? The money being given under the scholarship intended for rent would just be spend on who knows what.

So I'm not saying I'm right or you're wrong, but I just don't see how the school would be able to control that unless it draws a hard line in the sand to say "if you stay in campus housing, we'll pay it for you - but if you choose to go off campus then that's outside your scholarship".


Then the last point, you mention monthly checks. That would be a more preferable way to try "controlling" the money given to athletes for COL expenses, rather than as a lump sum refund. I hope they can work that out.
(This post was last modified: 01-19-2015 03:01 PM by MplsBison.)
01-19-2015 02:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #35
RE: The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
(01-18-2015 10:47 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(01-18-2015 09:59 AM)TerryD Wrote:  
(01-18-2015 12:18 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(01-17-2015 09:27 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(01-17-2015 07:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  This was also passed at the same meeting. It isn't as big of a deal towards realignment but this is a very big deal for treating these students properly.



My understanding from another board is that the SEC voted against this proposal.

All I could find about the SEC in that piece was this.

Quote:The autonomy schools and athlete representatives on Saturday voted against a proposal from the SEC that would have required schools to regularly file a report to the NCAA about any unusual expenses they may be covering for any athlete.

Seems quite opposite from what you are seeing elsewhere. Perhaps you should link otherwise it sounds like you are in some conversations with folks talking about something else entirely or they are idiots. Considering you are from Louisiana....well I spent some time there and it would not surprise me at all if it was simply the latter and they got confused with what they read in that piece.

The SEC put forward a proposal and it was voted down. If these SEC folks you talk to are trying to claim something entirely different, then that would be funny.


"Among the initiatives that were approved were schools being required to make up the difference for the full cost of attendance that an athletic scholarship doesn’t cover as well as four-year guaranteed scholarship (with some stipulations).

The former proposal passed by a vote of 79-1, with the lone dissenter being a school from the ACC. The latter, which guarantees that scholarships can’t be reduced or canceled for athletics reasons, was not nearly as unanimous as both the Big 12 and SEC both voted against it. The multi-year scholarships will replace the current model, which had been a one-year scholarship renewable on a yearly basis."


http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-approved/

Ahh, thank you for that. It is not surprising to me at all that the SEC voted against it. They are well known to over sign and then "cut" those that don't make the grade. That can create some hardship for those that get cut. They end up in lesser programs. Now they are the ones that made the choice to go to such a school but we hold these Institutions to a higher degree of responsibility than we do kids that are barely considered adults. So now the SEC will have to pay the cost of cutting kids from their football program.

It is more surprising to me though that the Big 12 did the same. Perhaps they have been flying under the radar, doing the same thing.


It is going to be interesting to see how this plays out. If they never pass rules stating a cap number for Full CoA then we will enter a full on arms race in recruiting and the SEC is going to hate that. They will have to pay out a ton to keep all of the southern recruits in the South. Northern Schools will each be trying to poach a couple top recruits from down there. When you add it up, that is a lot of recruits. I am sure the SEC thinks it can maintain it's hold on the recruiting there but they know that it now is going to become a lot more expensive to do.

The Southeastern US already loses players to schools outside of the footprint in the current configuration. I don't see this change resulting in a trickle turning into a flood. I might hurt some of the bottom tier SEC schools like Ole Miss and Kentucky, but top flight programs like 'Bama and UGA should be able to whether such a change. Also, the arms race will be blunted somewhat by the higher academic standards that exists for many of the programs in the BIG, PAC and ACC.
01-19-2015 03:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,337
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #36
RE: The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
(01-19-2015 02:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(01-17-2015 10:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  In a way, I can understand this. I believe BC has more scholarship athletes than any school in the ACC, and one the most in the NCAA. This is going to cost them a pile of money.

Here's a question I haven't heard addressed. If schools are going to pay cash for costs above room, board, etc., are they going to pay the same amount to athletes on partial scholarship as the ones getting a full ride? The same question would apply to the amounts schools are about to pay for the use of an athlete's image. How can you prorate that? If you have one baseball player on full scholarship and another on a partial scholarship, and they both play in the same game on TV, how do you justify paying one of them more than the other? How about the scholarship football player who sits on the bench the entire season? Or the walk-on who actually plays? Or the field hockey player or volleyball player whose team is never on TV?

This is going to get complicated.

I'm going to ignore the part of your post that is essentially asking "how do you decide which athletes should have a scholarship and how much should they get?"


In regards to the question of "will this apply to partial scholarships?", I'm going to speculate (pull a guess out of my you know what).

Think of it like this: at the end of the day, every student athlete has an bill due to the school that must be paid every semester, quarter, whatever. That bill covers: 1) tuition and fees that every student must pay, 2) meal plan, if they choose to have one*, 3) room, if they choose to live in university owned/operated housing, 4) misc. costs that can be charged to a student account (this is most likely things like parking/bus pass and book store charges, which aren't necessarily limited to books**)

* - in regards to food, the NCAA recently made it so that schools can spend an unlimited amount of money on as much food as they want to provide for players. At very large programs, it may be that there is a private dining hall just for athletes which will provide every ounce of food. Or perhaps all food for athlete will be special catered. At smaller schools, this may mean that the school will pay for every athlete to have an unlimited pass to the school's dining hall(s). Or maybe a combination.

But the point is that it makes me wonder if food is going to be treated separately from scholarships. In other words, if they're just going to say that a school is responsible for providing every athlete on every roster with the amount of food and in the way that each school deems best and so feed will no longer count as part of a scholarship anymore.


** - take note that most school book stores pretty much allow you to charge anything in the store to a student account, rather than paying in cash or credit on the spot. So while books are universally understood to be "required" (though that's even debatable these days), are things like an iPod or a school hoodie required expenses?


So that said, the student (or his parents/guardians) have to pay that bill, one way or another.

Let's say that bill is $10k for a particular semester.

The previous understanding is that an athlete on "full scholarship" would get $10k while an athlete on "half scholarship" would get $5k, which pays for all or half of the semester bill, respectively.

Now however, the athlete on "full scholarship" would get $10k PLUS let's say $2.5k on top of that for "COL expenses". But the athlete on "half scholarship" would still only get $5k. Because that pays for half of the bill he owes to the school.


Why would that be true? Because, think about it. What's the actual difference between an athlete with a "half scholarship" ($5k) who receives no COL expenses and an athlete with a "quarter scholarship" ($2.5k) who then receives $2.5k COL expenses on top of his scholarship? They both owed $10k and they both received $5k in money as basically an athletic grant.

So the COL expenses money on top of a scholarship is really only relevant to an athlete whose scholarship is already taking care of his entire semester bill.

You could say that if the athlete on half had then received the COL expenses it would be as if he was really on a 3/4th scholarship. That's true, but my point is - why call that extra $2.5k "for COL expenses"? Why not just put him on actual 3/4th scholarship? That's the point.



If that ends up being correct at the end of the day, then the school will in fact not be on the hook to provide the COL on top of every scholarship for every athlete on every roster.

They just have to be careful to balance the dollars between men and women!

One problem likely to surface quickly when schools/conferences try to implement this, is that FCOA expenses aren't uniform in any way. Unlike food, housing, books, etc., the kinds of things covered under full cost are unique to each student/athlete. They will be the result of choices. Some athletes will choose to travel home between semesters. Some won't, especially the ones who are practicing for a bowl game. Should the ones who choose not to incur that travel expense be "reimbursed" for a cost they didn't actually incur?

This would suggest that schools and the IRS would have to agree on exactly which types of expenses should be reimbursable under FCOA, and that each athlete should have to apply for that reimbursement (or cash advance) and document that they are entitled to receive it. This is similar to corporate travel expenses, moving expenses, et al.

In the corporate world, it became accepted by the IRS that trivial costs could be covered by a standard per diem to cut down on burdensome record keeping. Thus, it needn't matter whether you had the Surf 'n Turf or just a hot dog. Your employer can give you the same meal allowance regardless. But on the big ticket items, you can only be reimbursed for what you actually incurred.

I believe that something similar will happen with FCOA. If laundry is a covered expense, everybody will get a flat allowance, no matter how often (or well) you do it. But if it's travel home, I think you will have to document it, and there will be specific rules limiting what you can be reimbursed for. For example, I doubt a student would be allowed to fly first class, even if he is the star QB. Especially if he is the the star QB.

There is a lot of work ahead to fix the rules on this subject. Until those implementing rules are written it's pointless to speculate about who will gain an advantage.
(This post was last modified: 01-19-2015 03:08 PM by ken d.)
01-19-2015 03:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #37
RE: The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
(01-18-2015 11:11 AM)chess Wrote:  My initial thoughts- How soon will Alabama pay Southern Miss to take a player that not working out but was guaranteed a scholarship or wants more playing time? Will a school allow a player to fail academically, on purpose, to get out of a guaranteed scholarship? Do schools like Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, etc... (Schools with high academic standards, vast networks, deep pockets, etc...) finally get a recruiting edge over less prestigious state schools?

The things you're talking about are outright fraud. Hopefully no schools will be stupid enough to attempt them.


What I do see happening more because of the guaranteed scholarship is that coaches will ask players to voluntarily meet some criteria that allows the school to keep paying the scholarship but not have it count against the roster.

For example, say a player isn't going to contribute but shows no signs of transferring or quitting. The coach may ask the player to claim he is no longer mentally able to contribute to the team - or something like that.

He gets to keep the scholarship and the team gets to add another player.
01-19-2015 03:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #38
RE: The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
(01-19-2015 03:06 PM)ken d Wrote:  One problem likely to surface quickly when schools/conferences try to implement this, is that FCOA expenses aren't uniform in any way. Unlike food, housing, books, etc., the kinds of things covered under full cost are unique to each student/athlete. They will be the result of choices. Some athletes will choose to travel home between semesters. Some won't, especially the ones who are practicing for a bowl game. Should the ones who choose not to incur that travel expense be "reimbursed" for a cost they didn't actually incur?

This would suggest that schools and the IRS would have to agree on exactly which types of expenses should be reimbursable under FCOA, and that each athlete should have to apply for that reimbursement (or cash advance) and document that they are entitled to receive it. This is similar to corporate travel expenses, moving expenses, et al.

In the corporate world, it became accepted by the IRS that trivial costs could be covered by a standard per diem to cut down on burdensome record keeping. Thus, it needn't matter whether you had the Surf 'n Turf or just a hot dog. Your employer can give you the same meal allowance regardless. But on the big ticket items, you can only be reimbursed for what you actually incurred.

I believe that something similar will happen with FCOA. If laundry is a covered expense, everybody will get a flat allowance, no matter how often (or well) you do it. But if it's travel home, I think you will have to document it, and there will be specific rules limiting what you can be reimbursed for. For example, I doubt a student would be allowed to fly first class, even if he is the star QB. Especially if he is the the star QB.

There is a lot of work ahead to fix the rules on this subject. Until those implementing rules are written it's pointless to speculate about who will gain an advantage.

You make great points. And yes, it's going to be a lot of work trying to figure this out but more so the accounting.

It's completely ridiculous.

Ridiculous the ends that major college athletics is going to go towards trying to pretend they aren't paying players.


Just give them paychecks and let them pay their own bills. What a novel concept!
01-19-2015 03:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #39
RE: The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
(01-18-2015 11:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2015 11:45 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Won't impact NDSU football at all. The proposal only applies to headcount sports. FCS football is an equivalency sport. It would apply to men's and women's basketball, women's volleyball and gymnastics depending on which of those sports NDSU offers.

USA Today article says it can, if they choose, be applied to all sports.

That was my understanding as well. Headcount or equivalency does not matter.

Another thing to consider is that just because it's a headcount sport does not in any way prevent the school from offering less than a full scholarship. It still counts as a full headcount, but it's not a requirement.
01-19-2015 03:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,337
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #40
RE: The Age of Autonomy Officially Begins--Full Cost of Attendance Passes
(01-19-2015 03:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(01-19-2015 03:06 PM)ken d Wrote:  One problem likely to surface quickly when schools/conferences try to implement this, is that FCOA expenses aren't uniform in any way. Unlike food, housing, books, etc., the kinds of things covered under full cost are unique to each student/athlete. They will be the result of choices. Some athletes will choose to travel home between semesters. Some won't, especially the ones who are practicing for a bowl game. Should the ones who choose not to incur that travel expense be "reimbursed" for a cost they didn't actually incur?

This would suggest that schools and the IRS would have to agree on exactly which types of expenses should be reimbursable under FCOA, and that each athlete should have to apply for that reimbursement (or cash advance) and document that they are entitled to receive it. This is similar to corporate travel expenses, moving expenses, et al.

In the corporate world, it became accepted by the IRS that trivial costs could be covered by a standard per diem to cut down on burdensome record keeping. Thus, it needn't matter whether you had the Surf 'n Turf or just a hot dog. Your employer can give you the same meal allowance regardless. But on the big ticket items, you can only be reimbursed for what you actually incurred.

I believe that something similar will happen with FCOA. If laundry is a covered expense, everybody will get a flat allowance, no matter how often (or well) you do it. But if it's travel home, I think you will have to document it, and there will be specific rules limiting what you can be reimbursed for. For example, I doubt a student would be allowed to fly first class, even if he is the star QB. Especially if he is the the star QB.

There is a lot of work ahead to fix the rules on this subject. Until those implementing rules are written it's pointless to speculate about who will gain an advantage.

You make great points. And yes, it's going to be a lot of work trying to figure this out but more so the accounting.

It's completely ridiculous.

Ridiculous the ends that major college athletics is going to go towards trying to pretend they aren't paying players.


Just give them paychecks and let them pay their own bills. What a novel concept!

Exactly. And when you decide to give them a pay raise (which is what "full cost" is, and what "use of image" is) you can just be straight forward about it.
01-19-2015 03:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.