That's what the cost of the optional stipend would be for a Division I school that offered every head count sport except FBS football.

That is the economic crisis they voted to over-ride and it is an expenditure they didn't even have to make, because it was optional.

OK you need to keep with the Joneses in basketball. Offering the stipend in men's and women's basketball (but not tennis, gymnastics, or volleyball) would cost $50,000.

So in reality, a group of schools felt they could not come up with an extra $50,000 per year AND realistically are less concerned about the P5 spending it than they are the G5 and upper non-FBS leagues spending it because they aren't going to out-recruit the P5 and know it but can fight for recruits with those others and didn't want them to have a $50,000 a year advantage.

I've no love for the P5 but that over-ride vote more than anything else illustrates what has gone wrong in the NCAA. You have a group of schools unable or unwilling to make a change that most programs would consider a small expenditure because it is too expensive.

(07-22-2013 03:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  That's what the cost of the optional stipend would be for a Division I school that offered every head count sport except FBS football.

That is the economic crisis they voted to over-ride and it is an expenditure they didn't even have to make, because it was optional.

OK you need to keep with the Joneses in basketball. Offering the stipend in men's and women's basketball (but not tennis, gymnastics, or volleyball) would cost $50,000.

So in reality, a group of schools felt they could not come up with an extra $50,000 per year AND realistically are less concerned about the P5 spending it than they are the G5 and upper non-FBS leagues spending it because they aren't going to out-recruit the P5 and know it but can fight for recruits with those others and didn't want them to have a $50,000 a year advantage.

I've no love for the P5 but that over-ride vote more than anything else illustrates what has gone wrong in the NCAA. You have a group of schools unable or unwilling to make a change that most programs would consider a small expenditure because it is too expensive.

$120k? That's chump change

(07-22-2013 03:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  That's what the cost of the optional stipend would be for a Division I school that offered every head count sport except FBS football.

I've no love for the P5 but that over-ride vote more than anything else illustrates what has gone wrong in the NCAA. You have a group of schools unable or unwilling to make a change that most programs would consider a small expenditure because it is too expensive.

There are some (a lot) of schools that won't be able to pay the stipends. But part of the resistance was also that the move hadn't been fully thought out. What about Title IX? What about nonrevenue sports? Stipends for partial scholarships or not?

Details that all have to be taken care of, that as best I can tell weren't.

The thought was. Let's deal with head count now because equivalency is harder to think about.

The Title IX issue is a football issue. Unless you are FBS there are more head count sports slots for women.

It's a $3,000 stipend times the total number of student athletes. You can't get away with just paying the football and basketball teams. You have to pay everyone. It's more like $2-3 million a year. And that assumes $3K a year instead of $3K a semester.

The stipend is just the foot in the door. Just like the us broke the soviet union the p5 is trying to break the g5. Spend more than they can spend until they are broke. Without any hope ever of being able to compete. Playing the p5 will soon be like playing the NFL.

What kid is going to ark St if they can go to western michigan and get paid triple.

Some of the votes against the stipend are votes against the idea of a stipend in principal and not $$$ per se.

And there are votes against the can of worms that a stipend can open for other P5 $$$ down the line....its the overall direction that is most worrisome.

(07-22-2013 04:41 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  It's a $3,000 stipend times the total number of student athletes. You can't get away with just paying the football and basketball teams. You have to pay everyone. It's more like $2-3 million a year. And that assumes $3K a year instead of $3K a semester.

A school could "get away with" paying stipends to an equal number of men and women athletes. The school could have some sports with stipends and some without.

That's a much lower hurdle for D-I schools without varsity football; they could "fully fund" only men's and women's hoops if they really want to, as the OP suggests. Schools with football would additionally have to "fully fund" their FB scholarships and an equal number of women's scholarships.

The fools are pushing a stipend as an excuse to break away. However, doing this will open up Pandora's box of pay for play which would quickly evolve to "what is fair pay for services rendered?" ? At Alabama that could be millions for a star player.

The stipend that was over-ridden was $2000 and only available in head count sports.

Even if you extended it to equivalency it wouldn't be per athlete but per grant equivalency.

The bare minimum to be FBS is 200 FTE's. Even then that's $400,000 if you award them all.

For a non-football you are looking at more like $230,000

400,000 to start however the door is open like taxes it will go up and up until fewer and fewer can afford it squeezing out more and more schools until the number at the top is small. And the pie slices are larger.

(07-22-2013 05:53 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  The fools are pushing a stipend as an excuse to break away. However, doing this will open up Pandora's box of pay for play which would quickly evolve to "what is fair pay for services rendered?" ? At Alabama that could be millions for a star player.

The average Graduate Assistant stipend is around 18,000 so to give perspective what they are offering student athletes right now is not much.

There will be a serious balk at the idea of paying student athletes more than the graduate assistant rate.

(07-22-2013 03:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  That's what the cost of the optional stipend would be for a Division I school that offered every head count sport except FBS football.

That is the economic crisis they voted to over-ride and it is an expenditure they didn't even have to make, because it was optional.

OK you need to keep with the Joneses in basketball. Offering the stipend in men's and women's basketball (but not tennis, gymnastics, or volleyball) would cost $50,000.

So in reality, a group of schools felt they could not come up with an extra $50,000 per year AND realistically are less concerned about the P5 spending it than they are the G5 and upper non-FBS leagues spending it because they aren't going to out-recruit the P5 and know it but can fight for recruits with those others and didn't want them to have a $50,000 a year advantage.

I've no love for the P5 but that over-ride vote more than anything else illustrates what has gone wrong in the NCAA. You have a group of schools unable or unwilling to make a change that most programs would consider a small expenditure because it is too expensive.

first off they are talking $300 a game times 12 times 84. 750k, plus what they give BB, and that is assuming the courts let them stop there. And yes there will be legal action. So probably nearly 1 mil per year. There are schools out there making it on 7 to 15 mil. Sorry but 1 mil will be a program buster for them.

Just an out of the box thought - if the colleges delegated the stipend payments through each booster organization for every sport, could that be an end around Title IX requirements?

(07-22-2013 07:40 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 03:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  That's what the cost of the optional stipend would be for a Division I school that offered every head count sport except FBS football.

That is the economic crisis they voted to over-ride and it is an expenditure they didn't even have to make, because it was optional.

OK you need to keep with the Joneses in basketball. Offering the stipend in men's and women's basketball (but not tennis, gymnastics, or volleyball) would cost $50,000.

So in reality, a group of schools felt they could not come up with an extra $50,000 per year AND realistically are less concerned about the P5 spending it than they are the G5 and upper non-FBS leagues spending it because they aren't going to out-recruit the P5 and know it but can fight for recruits with those others and didn't want them to have a $50,000 a year advantage.

I've no love for the P5 but that over-ride vote more than anything else illustrates what has gone wrong in the NCAA. You have a group of schools unable or unwilling to make a change that most programs would consider a small expenditure because it is too expensive.

first off they are talking $300 a game times 12 times 84. 750k, plus what they give BB, and that is assuming the courts let them stop there. And yes there will be legal action. So probably nearly 1 mil per year. There are schools out there making it on 7 to 15 mil. Sorry but 1 mil will be a program buster for them.

$300 per game???

Link?

$2000 was the over-ridden proposal. $2500 and $3000 per year have been thrown around but I've never seen a per contest proposal.

[quote There are schools out there making it on 7 to 15 mil. Sorry but 1 mil will be a program buster for them.
[/quote]
Those programs are already busted, though. Fordham isn't going to be LESS competitive with St John's because St John's is paying stipends and Fordham isn't. Or Fordham will just pay the stipends in mens' and womens' basketball, $2000 x 24 = $48,000.

Schools that can't pay the stipends won't pay the stipends. But they won't shut down their programs.

We have schools (grandfathered in) who offer no scholarships yet are reasonably competitive. There are schools out there not awarding all the allowed aid now in other sports since Division I requires only offering 50% of the aid limit (for those not grandfathered in).