(07-25-2013 12:28 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  Point 3 sounds like they are going back to some form of allowing them to take in partial qualifiers.

I think this point is going to wind up being the most debated. If not it will make the biggest impact as high level talent with marginal academic ability will move straight into the upper tier instead of into conferences with greater leniency in admissions. It will help to level the playing field of the PAC and Big 10 with the Big 12 and SEC and it will rob talent from lower level conferences, thus creating a greater gap than presently exists.

So 85 scholarships and 20 in waiting?

I like the idea of not allowing Freshmen to play in their first year.

I also agree that an additional $1M is not going to be an issue for many schools... including ECU. We would still show a profit each year. I just hope that if we choose to go down this route, we do not raise student fees or tuition to pay for it.

I don't know about other states but there is no way the Cal States could get away with the full scholarship only stipend. The Cal Now settlement would specifically deny it.

http://www.glennsacks.com/california_mens_college.htm

As far as I understand it, the ruling does not pertain to the UC's or private schools yet. But like others have said the stipend will have to be proportional for equiv sports at the very least eventually.

I'm not opposed to the stipend in theory, but I am very concerned it will have Title9 like unintended consequences for non revenue sports, at the P5 schools as well as everyone else. I'm afraid the end result will be less kids getting to play college sports.

Sorry, but I'm going to completely disagree with #4..

Quote: essentially a look at paying athletes a stipend in addition to their scholarship "up to the cost of education."

Does anyone remember how Alabama took scholarships from non-primary sports and used those players to load up on their fb squad? So they pay baseball player a stipend "up to the cost of education", instead of a scholarship... and then he becomes a walk-on on the FB squad?

Hell no.. I could see that one getting abused to no end...

And again, I have issues with athletes getting stipends and non-athletes not... Again, get rid of the athletes can't work rule and let them work (under scrutiny of course).

(07-26-2013 06:46 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Sorry, but I'm going to completely disagree with #4..

Quote: essentially a look at paying athletes a stipend in addition to their scholarship "up to the cost of education."

Does anyone remember how Alabama took scholarships from non-primary sports and used those players to load up on their fb squad? So they pay baseball player a stipend "up to the cost of education", instead of a scholarship... and then he becomes a walk-on on the FB squad?

Hell no.. I could see that one getting abused to no end...

And again, I have issues with athletes getting stipends and non-athletes not... Again, get rid of the athletes can't work rule and let them work (under scrutiny of course).

Already addressed in the Division I Manual.

If a student-athlete receives aid in any sport and participates in football the scholarship counts against football. So the hurdler receiving a quarter counts as 1 against the 85 limit (and potentially the 25 newcomer limit) when he puts the pads on.

If a student-athlete receives aid in any sport (other than football) and participates in basketball he counts against the 13 limit in basketball.

The work rule isn't that big of an issue. When are they going to work? August 1 to January something is mostly out. Scratch one month in the Spring. Then at most serious football schools the players are taking summer classes, lifting, training, playing 7 on 7, watching film.

(07-25-2013 03:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 02:32 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 02:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 01:12 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Just curious... do any of you from a P5 conference see any of your members NOT being in favor of a stipend? We must assume that it will extend to all athletes in all sports under scholarship. JRSec has mentioned that there may be a ripple in the ACC about this issue, especially from some of the private schools.

for the b10 i see NW being in favor of a stipend. they are very successful in womens LAX and wouldnt mind the recruiting advantage the stipend gives them.

in the acc
syracuse- strong womens lax/bb and has womens hockey.

if a private school is strong in womens sports, i dont see them blocking it

I have not heard any official position from Dr. Gross, but I can't imagine that Syracuse would oppose it. We have 290 +/- scholarship equivalent athletes at a $50,000 annual price tag each. A $3,000 stipend for each scholarship would add less than $1 million annually to the athletic budget. If a school can't find this money, they shouldn't be playing D1 sports.

A compromise might be to provide the stipend to Men's Basketball and Football, plus an equivalent number of women athletes, including basketball.

I totally agree.

The stipend should not be tied to the percentage of the scholarship you receive.

And scholarships should be expanded to include the FULL COST OF ATTENDANCE.

I still think schools need to be careful about allowing this. They're adding to fixed costs assuming they'll always have the revenue they have now. And a $2,000 or $3,000 stipend sets a precedent - and that number could increase significantly.

As for NIU, if they can't afford to immediately upgrade the stadium, or pay a decent team to come to Huskie stadium, then they can't afford to pay the stipend.

Now I'm hearing $4000 is the number they'd start with so that would be a million or more.