http://www.mac-sports.com/news/2015/1/18...53038.aspx

Can someone explain what this means for NIU as well as the MAC and the NCAA as a whole? I'm having a tough time understanding why the MAC would be in favor of this.

Please, please, please save the ignorant comments until at least page 5 of this thread, I am asking a serious question.

I don't know the full story but I believe part of it is the fact that many student athletes do not have the financial ability to get to and from school so the schools will be able to provide for their transportation.

(01-18-2015 12:26 PM)StevenNIU Wrote:  I don't know the full story but I believe part of it is the fact that many student athletes do not have the financial ability to get to and from school so the schools will be able to provide for their transportation.

I think some of it is based on the premise that these kids study and go to class + practice and train which prohibits them from getting a part time job. So though they have a scholarship for tuition, books, and board, some may not have the resources for the other necessities outside the middle to upperclass families.

I thought it just was a reference to having to take off work early to see most NIU home football games

(01-18-2015 01:12 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  I thought it just was a reference to having to take off work early to see most NIU home football games

Basically it's admitting that the scholarship (and books) alone isn't enough. It's also a nudge towards sharing at least a tiny amount of the billions the schools make from athletes.

The MAC is supporting it because it looks good (it's hard to say you're about academics if you won't give your athletes the support they need to succeed) and also to keep up with the pack. The MAC probably doesn't want to look any more "small potatoes" than it does.

It's also not well defined, so people are worried: "The exact value of cost of attendance will vary from school to school. Currently, an athletic scholarship covers the cost of tuition, room and board, books and fees. The new scholarships will cover the cost of additional expenses, up to the full amount a traditional student might spend annually."

But the big schools got together (not the NCAA) and approved it. Some look at it as the first step towards the big conferences breaking away and they could be right. I think there's too much money for the bigger schools to not break away eventually.

Maybe it's just another method for the P5s to pay athletes on "top of the table" without incurring punitive NCAA sanctions for "under the table" cash payments?

(01-18-2015 03:16 PM)NIU_PSE Wrote:  Maybe it's just another method for the P5s to pay athletes on "top of the table" without incurring punitive NCAA sanctions for "under the table" cash payments?

That's the cynic's take. Personally, I'm fine with the players getting more money. They help make it, they should get more of it. They should be considered employees.

If that means there has to be a tiered system based on moneys, I'll live with it.

(01-18-2015 04:43 PM)The Frisky Biscuit Wrote:  

(01-18-2015 03:16 PM)NIU_PSE Wrote:  Maybe it's just another method for the P5s to pay athletes on "top of the table" without incurring punitive NCAA sanctions for "under the table" cash payments?

That's the cynic's take. Personally, I'm fine with the players getting more money. They help make it, they should get more of it. They should be considered employees.

If that means there has to be a tiered system based on moneys, I'll live with it.

I'm only ok with it if ALL students receive the same amount of money. There shouldn't be any sort of extra incentive to go to one school because of wage. It'll ruin the sport in my opinion.

(01-18-2015 05:41 PM)Enaiu Wrote:  

(01-18-2015 04:43 PM)The Frisky Biscuit Wrote:  

(01-18-2015 03:16 PM)NIU_PSE Wrote:  Maybe it's just another method for the P5s to pay athletes on "top of the table" without incurring punitive NCAA sanctions for "under the table" cash payments?

That's the cynic's take. Personally, I'm fine with the players getting more money. They help make it, they should get more of it. They should be considered employees.

If that means there has to be a tiered system based on moneys, I'll live with it.

I'm only ok with it if ALL students receive the same amount of money. There shouldn't be any sort of extra incentive to go to one school because of wage. It'll ruin the sport in my opinion.

It's going to happen. That's the wording of the rule, that it varies. It's not the same and that's probably for the best. The poorer schools don't have to pay it if they can't/don't want to and the schools that have more expensive needs can provide more. It's not a level playing field now and never will be.

(01-18-2015 07:23 PM)The Frisky Biscuit Wrote:  

(01-18-2015 05:41 PM)Enaiu Wrote:  

(01-18-2015 04:43 PM)The Frisky Biscuit Wrote:  

(01-18-2015 03:16 PM)NIU_PSE Wrote:  Maybe it's just another method for the P5s to pay athletes on "top of the table" without incurring punitive NCAA sanctions for "under the table" cash payments?

That's the cynic's take. Personally, I'm fine with the players getting more money. They help make it, they should get more of it. They should be considered employees.

If that means there has to be a tiered system based on moneys, I'll live with it.

I'm only ok with it if ALL students receive the same amount of money. There shouldn't be any sort of extra incentive to go to one school because of wage. It'll ruin the sport in my opinion.

It's going to happen. That's the wording of the rule, that it varies. It's not the same and that's probably for the best. The poorer schools don't have to pay it if they can't/don't want to and the schools that have more expensive needs can provide more. It's not a level playing field now and never will be.

All MAC schools, most likely with the exception of one or two, will pay for this by "taking" additional funds from their respective universities general fund, which is called "direct institutional support" because there is no way student fees are going to go up right now. There is only one or two schools in the MAC that creates enough revenue through donations and tickets sales for all sports that doesn't currently need or take a subsidy right now, ON TOP of the student athletic fees they receive. Basically almost all MAC schools cant afford to do it but will have to do it. I have seen the #'s time and again and most MAC school budgets look like UAB, when it comes to subsidy, which just shut down their football program.

An interesting aspect of this new set of rules is that programs cannot take away scholarships based on athletic performance.
Previously if a player had a full scholarship and did not perform up to expectations the school had the right to take away the scholarship.
Some programs did not do this but others did. Now they are going to have to pay the player whether or not the person is a good player or terrible.

The interesting question will be which athletes receive this pay. Will it be restricted only to football and maybe men's basketball? Or will all athletes (track, cross country, gymnastics, etc) receive the same payments. If they pay the football team and men's basketball team is this a Title IX violation? I think the courts will get involved if football (and/or basketball) is paid and no other sport is paid.

Appreciate the comments. I sounds like Cost of Attendance is the whole autonomy/pay players discussion, just under a different name. I had not heard it call Cost of Attendance before the vote on Saturday.

Thanks!