http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/...out_sports

Mike Slive was interviewed about the athlete stipend issue and had this informative nugget to say:

Quote:"When there are certain things that many of us would like to come into play, it's our hope that those things can all occur in the current system," Slive said today during an Associated Press Sports Editors meeting at the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame. "Obviously, if things like that don't get accomplished, then it may be appropriate to talk about some alternative or division or something like that. But that's not our desire. That's not our goal and that's not something we're trying to get to."

Is he drawing a line in the sand? Do this or FBS (or maybe even only the P5) split away?

(04-29-2013 04:14 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/...out_sports

Mike Slive was interviewed about the athlete stipend issue and had this informative nugget to say:

Quote:"When there are certain things that many of us would like to come into play, it's our hope that those things can all occur in the current system," Slive said today during an Associated Press Sports Editors meeting at the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame. "Obviously, if things like that don't get accomplished, then it may be appropriate to talk about some alternative or division or something like that. But that's not our desire. That's not our goal and that's not something we're trying to get to."

Is he drawing a line in the sand? Do this or FBS (or maybe even only the P5) split away?

the problem is several schools within the P5 don't support the stipend either(atleast the current proposal)

(04-29-2013 04:14 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/...out_sports

Mike Slive was interviewed about the athlete stipend issue and had this informative nugget to say:

Quote:"When there are certain things that many of us would like to come into play, it's our hope that those things can all occur in the current system," Slive said today during an Associated Press Sports Editors meeting at the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame. "Obviously, if things like that don't get accomplished, then it may be appropriate to talk about some alternative or division or something like that. But that's not our desire. That's not our goal and that's not something we're trying to get to."

Is he drawing a line in the sand? Do this or FBS (or maybe even only the P5) split away?

I think the new rule should be passed. Many of these kids are recruited from poor neighborhoods and circumstances. All of the sudden they are shoved into the limelight and cannot even afford decent clothes or a movie, or a few bucks to take their girlfriend on a date. I think this causes many of the problems we see. Shoplifting, selling autographs, etc. Give them an allowance and then if they screw up lower the boom on them. We don't have to pay them a lot, but a maintenance allowance would be appropriate.

(04-29-2013 04:14 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/...out_sports

Mike Slive was interviewed about the athlete stipend issue and had this informative nugget to say:

Quote:"When there are certain things that many of us would like to come into play, it's our hope that those things can all occur in the current system," Slive said today during an Associated Press Sports Editors meeting at the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame. "Obviously, if things like that don't get accomplished, then it may be appropriate to talk about some alternative or division or something like that. But that's not our desire. That's not our goal and that's not something we're trying to get to."

Is he drawing a line in the sand? Do this or FBS (or maybe even only the P5) split away?

Whoa! That was not a little nugget, imo. That was a test balloon with a bomb in the basket.

I think it's a bad idea long term. It just raises the costs for everyone. The schools will be even more money-hungry, and will need E$PN and other networds even more, and will sacrifice more (ethics, etc) to get that money. Tickets will go up to pay for it. Schools like Texas can afford it, but what about many other schools even in the P5?

(04-29-2013 04:58 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think it's a bad idea long term. It just raises the costs for everyone. The schools will be even more money-hungry, and will need E$PN and other networds even more, and will sacrifice more (ethics, etc) to get that money. Tickets will go up to pay for it. Schools like Texas can afford it, but what about many other schools even in the P5?

All they are doing is making the rules similar to what they do for kids on academic scholarships.

They'll end up killing this goose.

If the Big5 issue a large enough stipend, how will that effect the huge number of FB and BB players currently mooching off of the Pell Grant program with barely any interest in Academics ??

(04-29-2013 05:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 04:58 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think it's a bad idea long term. It just raises the costs for everyone. The schools will be even more money-hungry, and will need E$PN and other networds even more, and will sacrifice more (ethics, etc) to get that money. Tickets will go up to pay for it. Schools like Texas can afford it, but what about many other schools even in the P5?

All they are doing is making the rules similar to what they do for kids on academic scholarships.

So kids on academic scholarships get money for just whatever they want?

(04-29-2013 05:03 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  They'll end up killing this goose.

They seem to be trying very hard to do that. It's like the real estate bubble - it builds up a little at a time, and then POP!

Just wait until they find out they have to give the same amount to the women's teams too. Hello Title 9.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

Player stipends would absolutely crush nearly every program not in the P5 and even many schools in P5 conferences would have a tough time keeping up. I don't necessarily disagree with the principle of players getting some sort of additional stipend but the ramifications would be devastating for the majority of athletic programs in the NCAA.

When it was discussed before, the SBC passed and supported it very quickly. I don't think it is a game changer as much as he would like.

If they want a higher stipend, then the group of 5 just keep raising rates for $$ games...it gets passed along to the customer (BCS).

Slive almost always answers the question indirectly, so this is what can be learned about where Slive stands from his article answers:

1. He is in favor for as much money to athletes as can be allowed. This is yet another item that is based in principle as favorable to the athletes but would further separate the SEC and B1G from the other conferences. Those are the only two conferences I see being unanimously in favor of such a move. The Mississippi schools are the only ones that could have a problem with finding the money, but they will never speak out publicly. Slive will make sure all the schools speak with one voice on this issue.

2. Slive is still for a 9 game conference schedule. Just needs the AD's and coaches to come around. Been doing this dance for a while now.

3. The SEC wants to stop playing C-USA and the AAC in the Liberty and Compass bowls, respectively.

4. He's done the math, and only Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Virginia would be considered positive contributors in every category for SEC expansion. Since they are all now out of play, Slive would rather continue being the Prime Minister of the South than have to deal with the fallout of conference movement. I really do believe the SEC is done until someone else makes a first move.

5. Football - check. Baseball - check. Every other remaining sport except basketball - some double checks. They found the formula for football. Time for Slive to find out the formula for basketball. ESPN will make sure good out of conference match-ups become available for the SEC.

(04-29-2013 04:14 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/...out_sports

Mike Slive was interviewed about the athlete stipend issue and had this informative nugget to say:

Quote:"When there are certain things that many of us would like to come into play, it's our hope that those things can all occur in the current system," Slive said today during an Associated Press Sports Editors meeting at the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame. "Obviously, if things like that don't get accomplished, then it may be appropriate to talk about some alternative or division or something like that. But that's not our desire. That's not our goal and that's not something we're trying to get to."

Is he drawing a line in the sand? Do this or FBS (or maybe even only the P5) split away?

Big Boys have been trying to pare down D1 for a long time now. They woud love to drop the AAA teams out of D1 presidential council

(04-29-2013 05:41 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  Player stipends would absolutely crush nearly every program not in the P5 and even many schools in P5 conferences would have a tough time keeping up. I don't necessarily disagree with the principle of players getting some sort of additional stipend but the ramifications would be devastating for the majority of athletic programs in the NCAA.

NAH. MWC commish went on record supporting it

(04-29-2013 04:31 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 04:14 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/...out_sports

Mike Slive was interviewed about the athlete stipend issue and had this informative nugget to say:

Quote:"When there are certain things that many of us would like to come into play, it's our hope that those things can all occur in the current system," Slive said today during an Associated Press Sports Editors meeting at the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame. "Obviously, if things like that don't get accomplished, then it may be appropriate to talk about some alternative or division or something like that. But that's not our desire. That's not our goal and that's not something we're trying to get to."

Is he drawing a line in the sand? Do this or FBS (or maybe even only the P5) split away?

I think the new rule should be passed. Many of these kids are recruited from poor neighborhoods and circumstances. All of the sudden they are shoved into the limelight and cannot even afford decent clothes or a movie, or a few bucks to take their girlfriend on a date. I think this causes many of the problems we see. Shoplifting, selling autographs, etc. Give them an allowance and then if they screw up lower the boom on them. We don't have to pay them a lot, but a maintenance allowance would be appropriate.

Why not let them sell autographs. And pay them when you put a picture of them on your advertising.

Funny how these guys all of a sudden care about helping out the student-athletes. Its just a way to squeeze out the little conference under the cover of trying to look like nice guys. "Lets give them all $1 million in the new playoff system and then we'll raise the ante $1 million and take it all back" On average, 330 total scholarships at $3,000 stipend each equals roughly $1 million. Keep their budgets running paycheck to paycheck. What a greedy scam. If somehow the G of 5 could all easily afford it, then they wouldn't bring this proposal forward because they don't actually care about this full cost of attendance.

OK G of 5 you choose:

Option A - We will give you $1 million and then take it right back as we widen the gap of competition

OR

Option B - You refuse, we break away, but this gives us great cover because the only reason we broke away is because we're such great guys and only wanted to help the student athletes and you mean bad guys tried to stop us.

ridiculous the games they play all in the name of greed. Probably have an entire team of analysts studying over the G of 5 budgets and revenue streams to know exactly "how much" to help those poor student athletes already on full-rides.

I think the stipend issue is a little overblown. If it were "reasonable" it wouldn't bankrupt a school. I'd guess it'd be something like $500 a month. If you give that to "money-making" sports, then you'll see about $600,000 to $800,000 a year (depending on which sports you classify as money-makers). Expensive, yes, but not crippling for most programs. Some of these schools get tens of millions a year; they can probably spare this much.

(04-29-2013 07:18 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  Some of these schools get tens of millions a year; they can probably spare this much.

Thats exactly the point of this stipend, to separate the P5 conferences with $20 million TV contracts from the Gof5 conferences with $1 or $2 milllion TV contracts. For a P5 conference it is merely 5% of their TV contract, for everybody else it takes up more, all, or half of the entire revenue stream. They know that and this is the wedge to create the separate divisions under the cover of acting like good guys. That $2,000 to $3,000 number wasn't pull from thin air, it is a number they know will barely effect them in the P5, but will put extreme pressure on the G5 conference they want to separate from.

.