George Schroeder ?@GeorgeSchroeder 18m18 minutes ago
Historic moment: Power Five athletes will be paid beyond the traditional scholarship up to federally determined actual cost of attendance.



have not yet seen if this has been confirmed

(01-17-2015 05:11 PM)THRILL Wrote:  George Schroeder ?@GeorgeSchroeder 18m18 minutes ago
Historic moment: Power Five athletes will be paid beyond the traditional scholarship up to federally determined actual cost of attendance.



have not yet seen if this has been confirmed

Wow this is not good for the non-P5 teams. Thank goodness Rice still has a great education to promote during the recruiting process.

(01-17-2015 05:11 PM)THRILL Wrote:  George Schroeder ?@GeorgeSchroeder 18m18 minutes ago
Historic moment: Power Five athletes will be paid beyond the traditional scholarship up to federally determined actual cost of attendance.



have not yet seen if this has been confirmed

I just got an ESPN confirmation of this on my iPhone. Ugh.

The vote per ESPN was 79-1. Wonder who cast the dissenting vote.

Horrible. Hard to say right now how far this will spread exactly, but I sincerely hope Rice never takes part. Saying that athletes in particular deserve to receive more than other kinds of merit scholarships sends the wrong message, saying that a full scholarship is not adequate compensation for playing a sport is just loony (and athletes who don't see it that way have no business being in *college* athletics).

(01-17-2015 08:13 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The vote per ESPN was 79-1. Wonder who cast the dissenting vote.

Boston College

Rice may have been there in the past, circa 1960. I remember our football players going out on some regular basis to collect their "laundry money" of $20.

(01-17-2015 08:15 PM)Philoso-Owl Wrote:  Horrible. Hard to say right now how far this will spread exactly, but I sincerely hope Rice never takes part. Saying that athletes in particular deserve to receive more than other kinds of merit scholarships sends the wrong message, saying that a full scholarship is not adequate compensation for playing a sport is just loony (and athletes who don't see it that way have no business being in *college* athletics).

In my experience, even a fractional scholarship can make a difference in non-athletic context. My guess is that full-scholarship athletes (particularly at Rice) are already getting more than the vast, vast majority of nonathletes.

As far as I know, there's no cap on non-athletic scholarships. I don't see any "message" difference in removing the cap on athletic scholarships.

This already happens to extent... Student-athletes who live off campus get their monthly housing stipend, but if one has roommates they won't come close to using the whole amount, so one can pocket the rest..

(01-17-2015 05:41 PM)OwlMom15 Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 05:11 PM)THRILL Wrote:  George Schroeder ?@GeorgeSchroeder 18m18 minutes ago
Historic moment: Power Five athletes will be paid beyond the traditional scholarship up to federally determined actual cost of attendance.



have not yet seen if this has been confirmed

Wow this is not good for the non-P5 teams. Thank goodness Rice still has a great education to promote during the recruiting process.

My concern is that the recruiting process just opened up to a four year period beyond high school graduation. We've already seen what great things that has done to college basketball.

Given the increasingly enormous TV contracts and skyrocketing coaching salaries, I suppose this was inevitable. The money washing around is too much to maintain any semblance of fairness. Only ten years ago, it seemed any program paying a head football coach more than $2M was a big, lavish spender, while now that seems to be the opening base pay for an unproven head coach in the P5.

I don't think these changes will hurt Rice as much as it will hurt the rest of the G5, so Rice might see an advantage in this. The Rice athletic scholarship is already so much more valuable than the full scholarships at UH, UCF, Memphis, UTSA, etc. Even when competing with the lower rung of the P5, a Rice scholarship is still more valuable than a Kansas or Purdue scholarship with a top-off.

(01-17-2015 08:13 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The vote per ESPN was 79-1. Wonder who cast the dissenting vote.

Here's what I don't get: of those 79, only ten or so earn a profit on athletics. So why would the other 69 or so vote for a measure that will only increase their costs? What possible advantage does it get them?

(01-17-2015 05:11 PM)THRILL Wrote:  George Schroeder ?@GeorgeSchroeder 18m18 minutes ago
Historic moment: Power Five athletes will be paid beyond the traditional scholarship up to federally determined actual cost of attendance.



have not yet seen if this has been confirmed

ummm ... isn't this old news ? Patterson @ UT started the conversation months ago with an opening bid of $ 5K per UT athlete.

I can understand the concern that athletes on scholarships should not receive more money than the average student. But you also need to keep in mind that the student athlete cannot work due to their rigorous schedule (class, practice, meetings, strength training etc.) The regular student can work to help offset the cost. It is not apples to apples as far as available time is concerned. I really don't know what the answer is to be honest.

(01-18-2015 10:04 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 08:13 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The vote per ESPN was 79-1. Wonder who cast the dissenting vote.

Here's what I don't get: of those 79, only ten or so earn a profit on athletics. So why would the other 69 or so vote for a measure that will only increase their costs? What possible advantage does it get them?

George you are taking a one dimensional view of the situation. If you are just looking at profit from athletics, then you are right that 69 or so schools should have voted against paying players. However, many of those schools view their athletic programs as a way of bringing attention to their schools. A winning athletic program is an invaluable marketing tool and would attract more kids to look at attending the school. TCU is a good case study and so is Baylor. I assume those two schools voted for the measure.

From the little I've read on this, it seems like the G5 schools will soon decide if they want to adpot these measures themselves. They could adopt this by next fall. That will be interesting. I'd expect a much closer vote. Not sure G5 schools can afford it, but if they want to stay at the current level, and compete with P5 schools, it's a must.

Mack Rhoades said UH will match whatever is proposed, I think most non-bcs schools will meet the adjustments.

How much money per athlete are we talking about?

Does "student athlete" cover all sports including non-revenue generating?

(01-18-2015 12:43 PM)wheredidmypantsgo Wrote:  How much money per athlete are we talking about?

At Texas, they expect scholarship athletes to receive $4500-5000 per year. But "cost of attendance" can vary a lot by institution, and by unique situations for student-athletes.