This alone isn't going to 'break' anybody. It will force G5 schools however to throw good money after bad in the hope of 'keeping up.' The 'keeping up debate' has already been decided in favor of the P5. Huge TV and other money flowing into the P5 schools - the lock out of any opportunity for an outside school to play for the national championship - the new transfer rule allowing the best players to transfer without a delay - and money to players for use of their images will only widen the already cavernous gap between the P5 and G5 conferences.

(01-19-2015 09:52 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  I guess there will need to be a 'salary cap' so a conference cannot gain an advantage over another by offering more money.

There will be a quick lesson what cost of living is to the players. A $5,000 stipend in Palo Alto, CA vs a $2500 stipend in Corvallis, OR. The uneducated HS players think they may get a better deal, but only to find out how it costs between 2 different places. It'll be up to the coaches to educate them.

(01-18-2015 08:41 AM)VirginiaPirate Wrote:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col.../21921073/


As under the current system, that could mean cash into some athletes pockets. Currently, for instance, an athlete living off-campus can get a housing stipend based on the school's dormitory costs; if the athlete's actual living arrangement costs less, they can keep the difference, said ACC senior associate commissioner for internal affairs Brad Hostetter.

Ignoring if it's right or wrong, this little tidbit could end up being a gamechanger for UH. With the incredible talent in the Houston area, we could get a lot more kids to stay here if they're going to be able to live at home and get some cash out of the deal.

(01-18-2015 12:33 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So players will be going to schools that give them the best financial package? Regular students have been doing that for years. But will this start a bidding war for football players?

If we start seeing situations like Florida offering a player $3,000 in expense money, but Alabama offers $5,000, so the player goes to Alabama ... then college football as we know it is dead.

Do you think the Alabama players are going to be happy with a $5K payment? It seems like that will be a hell of a pay cut from what they currently get.

Maybe the Ivy League has the right idea. Offer no athletic scholarships, but enable coaches to assist prospective players in obtaining financial assistance through legitimate channels, assuming those prospects meet the school's entrance requirements academically. If prospects aren't academically qualified, they shouldn't be in school, period. Why stuff a roster with dummies whose only interest in college is a ticket to the NFL or the NBA?

If every school in every conference adhered to such a policy, the playing field would be level for all. And, because everything is relative, I submit that the level of competition would remain high.

Don't think a non-scholarship program can be competitive? Who eliminated us from the Big Dance last year?

(01-19-2015 08:29 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  The key for P5 schools was to initially get this measure passed...as now they can easily increase it each and every year.

NOTE: Remember how Ohio State got travel expenses for family members approved for the National Championship Game?

In a year or two, it will be approved for all PLAYOFF GAMES.

After that, it will be approved for ALL ACCESS BOWLS....and it will STOP THERE...because P5 schools will have either all of those slots...or all but one.

Won't stop there. They will eventually include CCG's and regular-season games, too. And "Parent's Weekend" and other campus-events. Etc., etc., etc.

(01-19-2015 02:50 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 08:29 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  The key for P5 schools was to initially get this measure passed...as now they can easily increase it each and every year.

NOTE: Remember how Ohio State got travel expenses for family members approved for the National Championship Game?

In a year or two, it will be approved for all PLAYOFF GAMES.

After that, it will be approved for ALL ACCESS BOWLS....and it will STOP THERE...because P5 schools will have either all of those slots...or all but one.

Won't stop there. They will eventually include CCG's and regular-season games, too. And "Parent's Weekend" and other campus-events. Etc., etc., etc.

This will absolutely open the flood gates to bags of cash (not that it isn't already going on but this will make it that much worse). You can't cover all the accounting.

(01-19-2015 02:58 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  This will absolutely open the flood gates to bags of cash (not that it isn't already going on but this will make it that much worse). You can't cover all the accounting.

Yes.

The Cam Newton scenario will become the rule instead of the exception.

(01-19-2015 08:29 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 01:22 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Aresco speaks:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2015-01...llion-vote

Leagues and schools not in that autonomous group also have the option of joining the new legislation, and most already are planning to offer the cost-of-attendance scholarships.

“There is a public perception that this is some kind of mini Armageddon, and it is not,” American Athletic Conference Commissioner Mike Aresco said in an interview.

Oliver Luck, who spent four and a half years as athletic director at West Virginia University before taking an executive position at the NCAA last week, said that despite the obvious resource gap, many will keep pace with the autonomous schools.

“My sense is that more will opt in than will opt out, at least initially,” Luck said. “I don’t know if there’s really going to be that much more separation than there inherently is today.”

Just like those in the Middle East that are trying to "break" US Companies fracking for oil (forcing the price to plunge), P5 schools will do the opposite...$5,000 cost of attendance will soon be $10,000 then $15,000 then $20,000 etc...eventually breaking G5 schools that don't have $25 Million - $40 Million annual TV deals.

The key for P5 schools was to initially get this measure passed...as now they can easily increase it each and every year.

NOTE: Remember how Ohio State got travel expenses for family members approved for the National Championship Game?

In a year or two, it will be approved for all PLAYOFF GAMES.

After that, it will be approved for ALL ACCESS BOWLS....and it will STOP THERE...because P5 schools will have either all of those slots...or all but one.

P5 schools are now using the "since we are in the P5...we have a shot at the playoffs...and your family can travel to the game(s) for FREE" line.

It cant go there. Anything in excess of the "full cost of attendance" would represent "payment" and would create a employee-employer relationship. An employee/employer relationship is EXACTLY what the P5 is trying to avoid. They wont go there.

(01-19-2015 09:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 08:29 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 01:22 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Aresco speaks:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2015-01...llion-vote

Leagues and schools not in that autonomous group also have the option of joining the new legislation, and most already are planning to offer the cost-of-attendance scholarships.

“There is a public perception that this is some kind of mini Armageddon, and it is not,” American Athletic Conference Commissioner Mike Aresco said in an interview.

Oliver Luck, who spent four and a half years as athletic director at West Virginia University before taking an executive position at the NCAA last week, said that despite the obvious resource gap, many will keep pace with the autonomous schools.

“My sense is that more will opt in than will opt out, at least initially,” Luck said. “I don’t know if there’s really going to be that much more separation than there inherently is today.”

Just like those in the Middle East that are trying to "break" US Companies fracking for oil (forcing the price to plunge), P5 schools will do the opposite...$5,000 cost of attendance will soon be $10,000 then $15,000 then $20,000 etc...eventually breaking G5 schools that don't have $25 Million - $40 Million annual TV deals.

The key for P5 schools was to initially get this measure passed...as now they can easily increase it each and every year.

NOTE: Remember how Ohio State got travel expenses for family members approved for the National Championship Game?

In a year or two, it will be approved for all PLAYOFF GAMES.

After that, it will be approved for ALL ACCESS BOWLS....and it will STOP THERE...because P5 schools will have either all of those slots...or all but one.

P5 schools are now using the "since we are in the P5...we have a shot at the playoffs...and your family can travel to the game(s) for FREE" line.

It cant go there. Anything in excess of the "full cost of attendance" would represent "payment" and would create a employee-employer relationship. An employee/employer relationship is EXACTLY what the P5 is trying to avoid. They wont go there.

That is 100% correct. When and IF it ever did come to that, I don't see how the government could allow them to remain tax exempt.

The American and CUSA have already voted and stated they will meet the new standards. Not sure about the Belt, Mac or MWC. Havent heard anything concrete from them.

(01-19-2015 09:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Anything in excess of the "full cost of attendance" would represent "payment" and would create a employee-employer relationship.

"Full cost of attendance" is a flexible, protean concept that will prove very… "open" to all sorts of unexpected and as-yet-unheard-of costs.

By statute, it's allowed to be adjusted every year by each school.

(01-20-2015 12:42 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 09:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Anything in excess of the "full cost of attendance" would represent "payment" and would create a employee-employer relationship.

"Full cost of attendance" is a flexible, protean concept that will prove very… "open" to all sorts of unexpected and as-yet-unheard-of costs.

Exactly! Who decides what the "full cost of attendance" is? In this America where you constantly hear congressmen claim "budget cuts" when in reality they just didn't increase the budget by as much as they were going to, whose to say what that means. Would anyone really be surprised to hear a legal argument, very quickly, that gas money to get to class is also a cost to attend school? Or that kids need to unwind to do well in school, citing some stupid study, so we need to pay for their vacations? Not that I agree, or that it makes any real sense, but when a smaller budget increase is routinely called a cut by our highest lawmakers, none of that seems too far fetched to me.

Every team in the AAC will pay according to their individual COAs - and they'll be adjusted annually.

Whether this makes any difference in recruiting remains to be seen.

I hate everything about this plan, but cheating is so rampant at this point I hardly think it's worth trying to preserve the current system.

(01-20-2015 11:03 AM)uccheese Wrote:  I hate everything about this plan, but cheating is so rampant at this point I hardly think it's worth trying to preserve the current system.

That's basically where I'm at on this issue, too.

(01-19-2015 01:48 PM)colohank Wrote:  Maybe the Ivy League has the right idea. Offer no athletic scholarships, but enable coaches to assist prospective players in obtaining financial assistance through legitimate channels, assuming those prospects meet the school's entrance requirements academically. If prospects aren't academically qualified, they shouldn't be in school, period. Why stuff a roster with dummies whose only interest in college is a ticket to the NFL or the NBA?

If every school in every conference adhered to such a policy, the playing field would be level for all. And, because everything is relative, I submit that the level of competition would remain high.

Don't think a non-scholarship program can be competitive? Who eliminated us from the Big Dance last year?

Just put a sign up in the gym, "Football tryouts start 8/15/15. Meet at the field house at 7am with a completed physical and proof of insurance. You must be a full time student (12 hrs) in good standing to try out."

That would take care of it.

So what are the costs at a minimum --- assuming only men's football and basketball are covered (and the required Title IX side)? It looks like the minimum number of athletes will be around 200. Anyone know what the typical additional costs will look like using these numbers? Around a 500K base?

(01-20-2015 12:30 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  So what are the costs at a minimum --- assuming only men's football and basketball are covered (and the required Title IX side)? It looks like the minimum number of athletes will be around 200. Anyone know what the typical additional costs will look like using these numbers? Around a 500K base?

I don't know the actual figure, but the short answer is "not enough to matter".

(01-20-2015 11:19 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 11:03 AM)uccheese Wrote:  I hate everything about this plan, but cheating is so rampant at this point I hardly think it's worth trying to preserve the current system.

That's basically where I'm at on this issue, too.

Concur. Interestingly enough, some recruit switched his commitment to auburn and posted a pic of himself holding a large stack of $20's.