CSNbbs

FORT WASHINGTON, Md.— In landmark action for major-college sports, schools and athlete representatives from the NCAA's five wealthiest conferences on Saturday voted 79-1 to to expand what Division I schools can provide under an athletic scholarship.

The vote, taken during the NCAA's annual convention, 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. That means a scholarship will now be able to pay for items including transportation and miscellaneous personal expenses.

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.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col.../21921073/

OK, who was the guy who voted no?

(01-17-2015 04:49 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]OK, who was the guy who voted no?

Wish we knew...

The 79 vote represents the P5 and the G5 vote was collectively equal to 1.


I kid! I kid!

(01-17-2015 04:49 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]OK, who was the guy who voted no?

Me! MUWHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

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.

(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.

My guess is that the differences in "incidental" costs will not be much of a factor. These costs are largely the same costs everywhere---they just vary in price due to cost of living differences which change from place to place. So, even though you may get a larger check at one school than another----they essentially buy about the same basket of goods and services in whatever place the kid ends up. In other words, the amount stuff the stipend money allows the student to buy while at school will be equal---even though the dollar amounts are different.

(01-17-2015 05:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]My guess is that the differences in "incidental" costs will not be much of a factor. These costs are largely the same costs everywhere---they just vary in price due to cost of living differences which change from place to place. So, even though you may get a larger check a one school than another----they essentially buy about the same basket of goods and services in whatever place the kid ends up. In other words, the amount stuff the stipend money allows the student to buy while at school will be equal---even though the dollar amounts are different.

I see what you're saying. You have a good point.

Still, it's going to be tough for Baylor to spin it that they can "only" give $2,000 while Texas gives $5,000.

Right now those "incidental costs" have little regulation (probably because up to now it didn't matter).

But I fully expect that in the next 5 years we'll see legislation that regulates how much the incidental costs can amount to.

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.

(01-17-2015 04:49 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]OK, who was the guy who voted no?

Boston College

A major step forward. It is very important to continue watching this topic. Will further rulings come out that better define what can actually be paid out? Will there be limiters? Will there not be limiters? If there won't be then the recruiting game has been thrown for a full loop.

Will the Major Conference schools all continue to act as one or will individuality win out the day somehow? As long as there remains a 1 vote for 1 school system, then I cant see this ending up as a free for all.

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.

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.

Someone already understands just how big of a deal it could end up being if there isn't a hard cap on the amount of money that can be given. Suddenly it isn't such a stretch to see schools out of the South literally being able to reach deep and start buying some of those guys out of there.

Folks cannot deny that the SEC proposing that just goes to show how important this topic is. It isn't over yet either.

(01-17-2015 07:41 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-17-2015 04:49 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]OK, who was the guy who voted no?

Boston College

My guess is Stanford.

(01-17-2015 04:49 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]OK, who was the guy who voted no?

Boston College.

(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.

(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.

(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.

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

(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.