CSNbbs

At the end of October 2011, the Division I Board of Directors approved a plan to allow up to a $2,000 "stipend" for college athletes with full (not partial) scholarships. It was overridden at the NCAA's annual convention in December 2011 (since it was passed by committee, it only needed 75 "no" votes to table it).

Here is a link (starts on page 5 of the pdf) that lists the schools who signed on to override the veto. Two things to note.

#1. The overwhelming majority of the oppose votes were cast from small budget, basketball-only schools (think Horizon League, MEAC, etc type schools). If the new division proposal is really just an attempt to cull the ranks of Division 1, these types of schools might be the ones being targeted.

#2. The only FBS sponsoring schools to oppose the legislation at the time (2011) were: Boise St, Bowling Green St, ECU, Marshall, Miami (OH), Rice, Rutgers, and Wake Forest.

(07-24-2013 11:10 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote: [ -> ]At the end of October 2011, the Division I Board of Directors approved a plan to allow up to a $2,000 "stipend" for college athletes with full (not partial) scholarships. It was overridden at the NCAA's annual convention in December 2011 (since it was passed by committee, it only needed 75 "no" votes to table it).

Here is a link (starts on page 5 of the pdf) that lists the schools who signed on to override the veto. Two things to note.

#1. The overwhelming majority of the oppose votes were cast from small budget, basketball-only schools (think Horizon League, MEAC, etc type schools). If the new division proposal is really just an attempt to cull the ranks of Division 1, these types of schools might be the ones being targeted.

#2. The only FBS sponsoring schools to oppose the legislation at the time (2011) were: Boise St, Bowling Green St, ECU, Marshall, Miami (OH), Rice, Rutgers, and Wake Forest.

Charlotte did, as did Utah State, Youngstown State.

Also Wake Forrest voted against because of Title IX and ECU did have stated reason. But, I've heard our Chancellor talk about the Title IX issue of only giving the stipend to male athletes, not that we did agree with stipend, just not for male athletes only.

(07-24-2013 11:56 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote: [ -> ]Charlotte did, as did Utah State, Youngstown State.

I missed Utah State, but Charlotte and YSU didn't have FBS programs in 2011.

I'm surprised LaTech didn't vote against it since I know we can't afford to pay players

(07-25-2013 12:37 AM)techdawg88 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm surprised LaTech didn't vote against it since I know we can't afford to pay players

We can, heck I think you can to, it's only 500,000 more to cover all your sports, for Ohio St. That plays every sport under the sun it's only 1.2 million. We voted against only male athletes getting it that are on full scholarship. We agreed with Wake, it must conform to Title IX.

(07-25-2013 12:24 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2013 11:56 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote: [ -> ]Charlotte did, as did Utah State, Youngstown State.

I missed Utah State, but Charlotte and YSU didn't have FBS programs in 2011.

Charlotte already knew it was going to start FB and move up.

(07-25-2013 12:48 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-25-2013 12:37 AM)techdawg88 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm surprised LaTech didn't vote against it since I know we can't afford to pay players

We can, heck I think you can to, it's only 500,000 more to cover all your sports, for Ohio St. That plays every sport under the sun it's only 1.2 million. We voted against only male athletes getting it that are on full scholarship. We agreed with Wake, it must conform to Title IX.

it may not be that we can't afford to pay the players, but I'm still of the opinion that we shouldn't have to considering they're getting a free education

(07-25-2013 12:56 AM)techdawg88 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-25-2013 12:48 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-25-2013 12:37 AM)techdawg88 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm surprised LaTech didn't vote against it since I know we can't afford to pay players

We can, heck I think you can to, it's only 500,000 more to cover all your sports, for Ohio St. That plays every sport under the sun it's only 1.2 million. We voted against only male athletes getting it that are on full scholarship. We agreed with Wake, it must conform to Title IX.

it may not be that we can't afford to pay the players, but I'm still of the opinion that we shouldn't have to considering they're getting a free education

Agree 100%, but it's either pay up to run with the big dawgs or pick up your bone and go home.

BTW, sorry for figurative pun.

(07-25-2013 12:56 AM)techdawg88 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-25-2013 12:48 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-25-2013 12:37 AM)techdawg88 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm surprised LaTech didn't vote against it since I know we can't afford to pay players

We can, heck I think you can to, it's only 500,000 more to cover all your sports, for Ohio St. That plays every sport under the sun it's only 1.2 million. We voted against only male athletes getting it that are on full scholarship. We agreed with Wake, it must conform to Title IX.

it may not be that we can't afford to pay the players, but I'm still of the opinion that we shouldn't have to considering they're getting a free education

The view from the schools is that this "full cost of attendance." Basically the current scholarships are not offering enough for the student athletes to be living on and having the proper college experience. I don't know the figures, but I believe they've pointed to other scholarships (not athletic), that do take those figures into account and are more generous. It's a concern to the powers that be since it means more room for athletes getting in trouble.

All that's the schools' view. As for me, I'd be for a complete opening up. The schools decided this was a business and have treated it like one at every corner (getting their name out there and support huge athletic departments off one or two sports success, while constantly making changes to increase revenue). They need to accept that's the case all around and, while I don't think they should directly pay players, they should let the players take things from boosters (over the table and reported). I know this would be bad for the sport and really hate what this would do to college football, but I hate the double standard from the schools more.

Yep, as stated ECU leaders never had a problem with the stipend proposed in 2011. They were just intelligent enough to point out with their no vote, that it would never pass the sniff test on Title IV

Thank you for posting this. I think it does explain much about the current push of the P5. It also suggests that the PRIME motivation of the P5 is not to separate themselves from the AAC/MWC but, rather, to separate themselves from the C7, A10, MWAC, MAAC, etc. So there's hope yet.

(07-25-2013 04:39 AM)ShoreBuc Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, as stated ECU leaders never had a problem with the stipend proposed in 2011. They were just intelligent enough to point out with their no vote, that it would never pass the sniff test on Title IV

You're joking - right.

(07-24-2013 11:10 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote: [ -> ]At the end of October 2011, the Division I Board of Directors approved a plan to allow up to a $2,000 "stipend" for college athletes with full (not partial) scholarships. It was overridden at the NCAA's annual convention in December 2011 (since it was passed by committee, it only needed 75 "no" votes to table it).

Here is a link (starts on page 5 of the pdf) that lists the schools who signed on to override the veto. Two things to note.

#1. The overwhelming majority of the oppose votes were cast from small budget, basketball-only schools (think Horizon League, MEAC, etc type schools). If the new division proposal is really just an attempt to cull the ranks of Division 1, these types of schools might be the ones being targeted.

#2. The only FBS sponsoring schools to oppose the legislation at the time (2011) were: Boise St, Bowling Green St, ECU, Marshall, Miami (OH), Rice, Rutgers, and Wake Forest.

That list is not complete and was compiled prior to all of the override requests were received. Note that the total is only 109, yet it was reported that over 125 schools had filed override requests - enough to get the stipend immediately suspended - and needing a 5/8 majority vote of the full membership to permanently remove the legislation. So there are at least 16 more schools that submitted override requests. It has not been made public specifically which additional schools submitted override requests or specifically which schools voted (and they all voted one way or another) to overturn the legislation.

Interesting to note here though that the same P5 or soon to be P5 schools that are listed as filing override requests for the stipend also filed override requests against the multi-year scholarships - which did not get enough override requests to call for a vote and thus has been passed, although they have largely been underutilized by schools.

IIRC, this is not a new idea. In fact, in the '60s, and before Title IX, players were paid $25 a week laundry allowance, or something like that, which equates to maybe $150 a week now, as TigerJeb pointed out elsewhere. That would be well over the $2000 annual stipend being discussed now.

gawd ECU, can't play with the big dogs don't bother. Hope their no vote doesn't bring down the AAC in total.

(07-25-2013 04:39 AM)ShoreBuc Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, as stated ECU leaders never had a problem with the stipend proposed in 2011. They were just intelligent enough to point out with their no vote, that it would never pass the sniff test on Title IV

(07-25-2013 04:39 AM)ShoreBuc Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, as stated ECU leaders never had a problem with the stipend proposed in 2011. They were just intelligent enough to point out with their no vote, that it would never pass the sniff test on Title IV

What is title 4??

The stipend will be a small piece of the puzzle. In the end they will start new division, and at least at first that will be for football only and have nothing to do with BB schools. It will take them a while to work out title IX issues, but they will have some time while federal lawsuits are issued. My guess is they will find the worse attendance P5 school and use that as bench mark for attendance. They might even add a couple/few schollies on to make it even tougher on the have nots. They could even throw in a minimum revenue standard, and with that shut out almost everyone outside of the Power 5.

Bottom line is that title IX would not permit giving male football/basketball players a stipend without doing so for an equal number of female athletes, and at an equal amount of money, and everyone involved knows it.

(07-25-2013 08:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom line is that title IX would not permit giving male football/basketball players a stipend without doing so for an equal number of female athletes, and at an equal amount of money, and everyone involved knows it.

yup...and so the stipend, wouldn't be JUST for fb and men's hoops. Which makes me wonder of this is going to fly anyway. And if you are a football player making millions for your school are you happy with the $2,000 stipend which is the same amount that will be paid to the chick on the women's rowing team?