Will FCS public schools be able to up their schollies?

[chattownmocs]

Power 5 voted to allow schools to raise scholarship amounts to cover incidentals. Speculation is 4-5k per. Can fcs schools afford 3 or so million more to cover this? Or will the wealthier private schools gain a major advantage?
Edit: I guess this only applies to them? Or can all ncaa programs do it?

[NoDak 4 Ever]

Power 5 voted to allow schools to raise scholarship amounts to cover incidentals. Speculation is 4-5k per. Can fcs schools afford 3 or so million more to cover this? Or will the wealthier private schools gain a major advantage?
Edit: I guess this only applies to them? Or can all ncaa programs do it?

Only P5. This is the first step in the final break away from the rest of the NCAA.

[BisonFan02]

Can the P5 do that and not the G5? How is that supposed to work?

[FargoBison]

Can the P5 do that and not the G5? How is that supposed to work?


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/college/2015/01/17/ncaa-convention-cost-of-attendance-student-athletes-scholarships/21921073/

[OSBF]

Only P5. This is the first step in the final break away from the rest of the NCAA.

not the "first" step

been going on for years

this is just more in yer face obvious

[No_Skill]

Question. Can the 4-5k be given to walkons or does it have to be a scholarship player? Thats a big question IMO.

[rokamortis]

The article mentions that they can pick and choose who gets it (like some schools choosing to go with basketball only). I figured it was an all athletes or no athletes thing. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[OSBF]

The article mentions that they can pick and choose who gets it (like some schools choosing to go with basketball only). I figured it was an all athletes or no athletes thing. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Sounds like a Title IX lawsuit waiting to happen

[DFW HOYA]

Question. Can the 4-5k be given to walkons or does it have to be a scholarship player? Thats a big question IMO.

These are "cost of attendance scholarships", which presupposes a scholarship in place.

[rokamortis]

Sounds like a Title IX lawsuit waiting to happen

The article also states equal aid. So when I said basketball I meant men's and women's basketball. I don't think Title IX will be an issue - but perhaps the athletes who don't benefit could do a class action.

[Go...gate]

Only P5. This is the first step in the final break away from the rest of the NCAA.

There will be the P5 and the rest of us.....

[Nova09]

Only P5. This is the first step in the final break away from the rest of the NCAA.

This vote specifically was P5, but now that it has passed others can opt in. Likely to come down to conferences regulating what their members can do. Still to be determined how this affects the calculation of equivalencies, which is significant for FCS.

[clenz]

There will be the P5 and the rest of us.....
As many have said for a couple years now:

There is going to be a large split. The p5, along with some select few from the G5.
The G5 will likely try to force it's way in. When that fails they try to survive on their own.
Utlimately the left overs of the G5 will be mixed with the top of the FCS
The rest of the FCS will remain the FCS...lite

The only hold up will be how basketball is affected, if at all, or if the G5 goes to 16-20 team super conferences

[clenz]

I see something like this happening...scholarship limits and other assistance TBD.

D 1-A
ACC - 14 FB members
B1G - 14 FB members
B12 - 10 FB members
MWC - 11 FB members
P12 - 12 FB members
SEC - 14 members

Plus
UCONN - possibly picked off before split or drops FCS/all together and goes Big East
Cincinatti - likely picked off before split
ECU - possibly picked off before split
Houston - possibly picked off before split
Memphis - possibly picked off before split
UCF - possibly picked off before split
Army - wildcard
Navy - wildcard

For easy math let's say the P5 goes to 84 teams and 6 conferences - the P5 plus the MWC. That's 14 teams per conference, on average, which is what we would have if all the wild cards were taken plus one of SMU, Temple, Tulane, and Tulsa (left over AAC teams).

That means the G5 would be the
AAC - 3 football members
CUSA - 13 football members
MAC - 11 football members
Sun Belt - 9 football members

That's 36 members. Now, I would guess the AAC members would likely go CUSA and go 16 CUSA 11 MAC and 9 SBC and they'd try to run it that way. Depending how the playoff system runs with the P5 if there is only 36 "G3" members at that point they'll be shut out. I would assume the MVFC, Big Sky, CAA, and then maybe SoCon and/or Southland conferences would move.

This may take about 5-10 years to happen, but it is all too likely

[BisonFan02]

I see something like this happening...scholarship limits and other assistance TBD.

D 1-A
ACC - 14 FB members
B1G - 14 FB members
B12 - 10 FB members
MWC - 11 FB members
P12 - 12 FB members
SEC - 14 members

Plus
UCONN - possibly picked off before split or drops FCS/all together and goes Big East
Cincinatti - likely picked off before split
ECU - possibly picked off before split
Houston - possibly picked off before split
Memphis - possibly picked off before split
UCF - possibly picked off before split
Army - wildcard
Navy - wildcard

For easy math let's say the P5 goes to 84 teams and 6 conferences - the P5 plus the MWC. That's 14 teams per conference, on average, which is what we would have if all the wild cards were taken plus one of SMU, Temple, Tulane, and Tulsa (left over AAC teams).

That means the G5 would be the
AAC - 3 football members
CUSA - 13 football members
MAC - 11 football members
Sun Belt - 9 football members

That's 36 members. Now, I would guess the AAC members would likely go CUSA and go 16 CUSA 11 MAC and 9 SBC and they'd try to run it that way. Depending how the playoff system runs with the P5 if there is only 36 "G3" members at that point they'll be shut out. I would assume the MVFC, Big Sky, CAA, and then maybe SoCon and/or Southland conferences would move.

This may take about 5-10 years to happen, but it is all too likely

This. The NCAA football's version of the "Big Bang Theory"...where certain levels swell and finally blow up/reallocate....Move up just to move back down.

[walliver]

I doubt much will change with current FCS schools. Individual schools and conferences will have to decide whether or not to pay "full cost of attendance" to basketball players. I suspect the A-10 will, an this will cause most other conferences to tag along. I wonder what the Ivies will do.

I suspect FCS football will not participate. Teams with the cash to do this would be more likely to spend this on a FBS move or similar high profile move.

My final take is: Conferences (and Notre Dame) with good TV contracts will do well. The G5 programs will make an effort to keep up for a while, but will not be able to compete long term. The MAC may quietly drop the added money; but, since they primarily play with themselves anyway, it won't be a big deal. The AAC may try to compete longer term, but without a true playoff, will lose a few members to P5 conferences. The rest of the AAC will drop back to play with the others. No FBS team will drop to FCS, but a number of them will scale down their programs to the bare minimum, and a few will drop football altogether. Very few FCS programs will find it financially feasible or desirable to move up.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

This is just the first domino. First it is the P5 schools. Already the Big East as said they will offer them at their schools to "keep up". Schools like UNI will feel the need to do the same, and thus the Missouri Valley will offer it, and if they offer it to hoops players (men and women), how could they not offer it to football players? Soon the Big Sky, CAA and MVFC will be offering FCOA damn the cost. The rest will have to decide whether to swallow hard and pay the money (Ivy, Patriot, OVC, Big South, SoCon) and others will have to think about dropping down (HBCU conferences, NEC) or abandoning football (PFL). Its a sucky shame that didn't have to happen.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

This is just the first domino. First it is the P5 schools. Already the Big East as said they will offer them at their schools to "keep up". Schools like UNI will feel the need to do the same, and thus the Missouri Valley will offer it, and if they offer it to hoops players (men and women), how could they not offer it to football players? Soon the Big Sky, CAA and MVFC will be offering FCOA damn the cost. The rest will have to decide whether to swallow hard and pay the money (Ivy, Patriot, OVC, Big South, SoCon) and others will have to think about dropping down (HBCU conferences, NEC) or abandoning football (PFL). Its a sucky shame that didn't have to happen.

UNI can barely afford what they're doing right now.

[clenz]

UNI can barely afford what they're doing right now.
Ah, the typical NDSU "I know all about UNI finance" bull**** which has been wrong time after time

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[NoDak 4 Ever]

Ah, the typical NDSU "I know all about UNI finance" bull**** which has been wrong time after time

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

If you had enough money, you wouldn't be doing 2 FBS games a season.

[DFW HOYA]

This is just the first domino. First it is the P5 schools. Already the Big East as said they will offer them at their schools to "keep up". Schools like UNI will feel the need to do the same, and thus the Missouri Valley will offer it, and if they offer it to hoops players (men and women), how could they not offer it to football players? Soon the Big Sky, CAA and MVFC will be offering FCOA damn the cost. The rest will have to decide whether to swallow hard and pay the money (Ivy, Patriot, OVC, Big South, SoCon) and others will have to think about dropping down (HBCU conferences, NEC) or abandoning football (PFL). Its a sucky shame that didn't have to happen.

No one is dropping football over FCOA. No one is dropping to Division II either.

At roughly $4K per student, football would have to account for $240K per year to accommodate FCOA. Maybe a guarantee game covers the cost. Maybe adding $1 to tickets helps at some high-attendance schools. Maybe you offer 59 scholarships instead of 63.

Or maybe your conference votes no.

[clenz]

If you had enough money, you wouldn't be doing 2 FBS games a season.Again...zero clue what you're talking about.

[clenz]

Just because...

UNI played 2 FBS games in 2 seasons

2012
Wisconsin and Iowa
This season was the first time it happened, and wasn't initially set that way. UNI had played the first part of a H/H with Southern Utah in 2011, in Cedar Falls. Wisconsin came in during the fall of 2011 and said "Hey, we need an opener next season. How about we pay your buy out to Southern Utah, pay Southern Utah some extra to cover whatever game they have, and then pay you something like 600k?" So, instead of paying to send the team to Utah the Panthers got offered a ton of cash. That's tough to say no too.

2014 was a 12 game season and was Hawaii and Iowa
Iowa is a 90 minute bus ride and a no brainer, mostly.
Hawaii paid for 100% of travel expenses (planes, equipment truck, hotel, food, travel on the island, etc...) plus about 200k for the game. Plus they offered a winnable FBS game. That game was done for the experience it would give the players/coaches more than anything else. That game wasn't added to "pad the budget".


Care to show me another year UNI played 2 FBS games strictly because UNI was in dire need of cash?


I'll wait.....



Again, shockingly another Bison fan that doesn't now jack **** about UNI finances trying to talk about them. I already put IBY in his place on the topic about a month/month and a half ago. I'm not sure why you thought it was different now.

[BisonFan02]

http://www.coachad.com/pages/Breaking-News---Northern-Iowa-Athletics-Expecting-Financial-Hit,-Not-Cutting-Sports---2-24-12.php


“We’ve stripped everything down to the point where the only thing we have left to touch are scholarships,” Dannen said, “and that’s the lifeblood of the department.
“Nothing that’s happening is going to affect the ability to compete or graduate our athletes. It might be a little tougher or more uncomfortable internally. But as we cut the general fund money, we have to be careful we don’t diminish our ability to generate other revenues to sustain the program as a whole. I can’t cut a dollar from football if it’s going to prevent me from generating two dollars.”

I'm not on the typical train as far as attempting to hammer UNI about 2 FBS games....but you are kidding yourself if you don't think UNI has an uphill climb budget wise....of note, you have good company though all over the place.

[clenz]

http://www.coachad.com/pages/Breaking-News---Northern-Iowa-Athletics-Expecting-Financial-Hit,-Not-Cutting-Sports---2-24-12.php



I'm not on the typical train as far as attempting to hammer UNI about 2 FBS games....but you are kidding yourself if you don't think UNI has an uphill climb budget wise....of note, you have good company though all over the place.

That is a 3 year old article at this point. There have been record setting donation drives the last two years.

Is UNI flush with cash to the point of using it as toilet paper? Nope.

Is UNI begging for change on the corner to get bye? Not even ****ing close.

Much of the initial "doom and gloom" of that "general fund cut" has been more than subsided with the fund raising efforts. UNI is in a much better financial state right now than they have been in a very, very long time.

To say UNI is "playing 2 FBS games per season to get bye" is completely horse ****. It's happened exactly twice in the D1 era and neither time was because "we needed money". It just happened to be right place right time.

Also, interesting to note, that article says that things like uniforms and what not would be held off on.

Since that article came out football has gotten new unforms and helmets, men's basketball has gotten a new uniform set twice, and the current set has a third alternate. Women's basketball has gotten a new set of uniforms twice. Wrestling has rolled out about 5 different singlet looks. Softball, soccer, tennis, and track and field all have gotten new uniforms.

The wrestling facility has been completely remodeled, new scoreboards were installed in the UNIDome and McLeod Center, the basketball locker rooms were completely upgraded/redone, coaches have gotten new contracts, and the connector between the UNIDome and McLeod Center has been completely remolded.


Sure seems like UNI is throwing a lot of money around for needing a 400k pay day every single season just to get bye...does it not?

[BisonFan02]

That is a 3 year old article at this point. There have been record setting donation drives the last two years.

Is UNI flush with cash to the point of using it as toilet paper? Nope.

Is UNI begging for change on the corner to get bye? Not even ****ing close.

Much of the initial "doom and gloom" of that "general fund cut" has been more than subsided with the fund raising efforts. UNI is in a much better financial state right now than they have been in a very, very long time.

To say UNI is "playing 2 FBS games per season to get bye" is completely horse ****. It's happened exactly twice in the D1 era and neither time was because "we needed money". It just happened to be right place right time.

Consider my opinion somewhere between Nodak's and yours (probably closer to yours). I agree with you about the FBS game BS...and I'm aware that the article is dated at this point, but there are always ups/downs. Like many FCS programs, I think the financials are, at a minimum, "strained" and sometimes deep in the red. That was my point. UNI is no different...Dannen has said it before and continued effort/fundraising is going to be needed to survive with the situation you guys have in IA.

[clenz]

Consider my opinion somewhere between Nodak's and yours (probably closer to yours). I agree with you about the FBS game BS...and I'm aware that the article is dated at this point, but there are always ups/downs. Like many FCS programs, I think the financials are, at a minimum, "strained" and sometimes deep in the red. That was my point. UNI is no different...Dannen has said it before and continued effort/fundraising is going to be needed to survive with the situation you guys have in IA.

UNI is in a strange spot in Iowa. We are run by the same Board of Regents as Iowa and Iowa State. They seem to forget that without the 30m per year from the BTN and 25m per year Iowa State gets from the new B12 TV contract they wouldn't be doing nearly as well as they are. In fact, prior to the recent B12 TV deal Iowa State was on general fund money as well...so, as recent as 2012? They figured it out some after that ruling came down and the amount of backlash from it.

Also the article you quoted states that UNI was already a head of fundraising at that point. Over 26m raised on a 15m goal

I also edited my post that you quoted after you replied to it...so in case you missed it here's the edit I added





Also, interesting to note, that article says that things like uniforms and what not would be held off on.

Since that article came out football has gotten new unforms and helmets, men's basketball has gotten a new uniform set twice, and the current set has a third alternate. Women's basketball has gotten a new set of uniforms twice. Wrestling has rolled out about 5 different singlet looks. Softball, soccer, tennis, and track and field all have gotten new uniforms.

The wrestling facility has been completely remodeled, new scoreboards were installed in the UNIDome and McLeod Center, the basketball locker rooms were completely upgraded/redone, coaches have gotten new contracts, and the connector between the UNIDome and McLeod Center has been completely remolded.


Sure seems like UNI is throwing a lot of money around for needing a 400k pay day every single season just to get bye...does it not?

[clenz]

There is a massive difference between what the Cedar Rapids Gazette and Des Moines Register paint as reality regarding UNI and the actual reality.

UNI doesn't exist to either one of those unless they make the S16, and even then it's just barely, or there is some sort of scandal - financial or legal.

Think of them to UNI as the forum is to NDSU????? I think that's the right comparison to make?

[BisonFan02]

UNI is in a strange spot in Iowa. We are run by the same Board of Regents as Iowa and Iowa State. They seem to forget that without the 30m per year from the BTN and 25m per year Iowa State gets from the new B12 TV contract they wouldn't be doing nearly as well as they are. In fact, prior to the recent B12 TV deal Iowa State was on general fund money as well...so, as recent as 2012? They figured it out some after that ruling came down and the amount of backlash from it.

Also the article you quoted states that UNI was already a head of fundraising at that point. Over 26m raised on a 15m goal

I also edited my post that you quoted after you replied to it...so in case you missed it here's the edit I added





Also, interesting to note, that article says that things like uniforms and what not would be held off on.

Since that article came out football has gotten new unforms and helmets, men's basketball has gotten a new uniform set twice, and the current set has a third alternate. Women's basketball has gotten a new set of uniforms twice. Wrestling has rolled out about 5 different singlet looks. Softball, soccer, tennis, and track and field all have gotten new uniforms.

The wrestling facility has been completely remodeled, new scoreboards were installed in the UNIDome and McLeod Center, the basketball locker rooms were completely upgraded/redone, coaches have gotten new contracts, and the connector between the UNIDome and McLeod Center has been completely remolded.


Sure seems like UNI is throwing a lot of money around for needing a 400k pay day every single season just to get bye...does it not?

Should they be?....and again...I'm NOT the one hammering UNI for getting those dreaded FBS paydays!

[BisonFan02]

On the topic....are there any FCS conferences prepared to up the ante as a whole to do this in football?

[clenz]

Should they be?....and again...I'm NOT the one hammering UNI for getting those dreaded FBS paydays!

The funny thing is UNI has some very....very....wealthy donors than can, and do, make a lot of financial problems no longer exist.


Again, I'm not saying UNI has money just burning holes in the pocket book. I'm saying there are some very generous people (that would put the Scheel fortune to shame) that will make sure UNI doesn't actually face that NoDak thinks it does.


Again, the DSM Rag likes to blow things out of proportion.

Dannen is also very smart when it comes to choosing is words to generate donations.

He is great at fund raising, but rather two faced and douchey about most other things. I would like to see UNI ride with him a couple more years to flush up cash a little bit more and then go get someone with a true athletic vision

[clenz]

On the topic....are there any FCS conferences prepared to up the ante as a whole to do this in football?

In the MVFC I think only ISUb and WIU would hold out...and I'm not sure that they would hold out long.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

No one is dropping football over FCOA. No one is dropping to Division II either.

At roughly $4K per student, football would have to account for $240K per year to accommodate FCOA. Maybe a guarantee game covers the cost. Maybe adding $1 to tickets helps at some high-attendance schools. Maybe you offer 59 scholarships instead of 63.

Or maybe your conference votes no.

Perhaps, but remember this $4K number varies wildly and it encompasses not just football, but all sports. It's not going to be 59 x 4K because the inevitable Title IX lawsuit will be filed the next day adding that $240K to women's sports... which will end up for every sport. Suddenly, $240K becomes $2M real fast.

- - - Updated - - -


In the MVFC I think only ISUb and WIU would hold out...and I'm not sure that they would hold out long.

The prosecution rests, your honor.

[DFW HOYA]

Perhaps, but remember this $4K number varies wildly and it encompasses not just football, but all sports. It's not going to be 59 x 4K because the inevitable Title IX lawsuit will be filed the next day adding that $240K to women's sports... which will end up for every sport. Suddenly, $240K becomes $2M real fast.


The Big East will probably offer it for men's and women's basketball only. No Title IX issue there.

[OSBF]

Hawaii paid for 100% of travel expenses (planes, equipment truck, hotel, food, travel on the island, etc...)


I'd be really interested to know how the UNI equipment truck got to Hawaii

[clenz]

I'd be really interested to know how the UNI equipment truck got to Hawaii
They provided it on the island

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The Big East will probably offer it for men's and women's basketball only. No Title IX issue there.

I sincerely doubt that. I'll even tell you the next sport where FCOA will head in the Big East: men's and women's lax. Technically not Title IX yet, but as it spreads through the entire athletic department, it will happen.

[DFW HOYA]

I sincerely doubt that. I'll even tell you the next sport where FCOA will head in the Big East: men's and women's lax. Technically not Title IX yet, but as it spreads through the entire athletic department, it will happen.

If it comes to football, well, that will be a story all its own.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

If it comes to football, well, that will be a story all its own.

Eventually the PL will have to make a decision on it, just like everyone else. If history is any guide it will probably be a phased approach. First, prohibit it. Second, study it. Third, allow the schools to pursue it on a school-by-school basis.

What we know for sure is football won't drive that bus for the PL. Much more likely men's hoops will drive the bus. Again, this is how the league has always pretty much worked (see: merit aid for athletes). As for Georgetown, if/when that happens they'll have to make a determination at that point what they want to do.

[Bisonwinagn]

Question. Can the 4-5k be given to walkons or does it have to be a scholarship player? Thats a big question IMO.

Good question as these are the only people who need it anyway!

[BisonFan02]

Good question as these are the only people who need it anyway!

Brings new meaning to the term "partial" scholarship....or partial on top of a partial.

[bluehenbillk]

This is just not a P5 thing & apparently some FCS schools/leagues already have plans. Anyone know anything about this?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/01/17/ncaa-convention-cost-of-attendance-autonomy-legislation-power-five/21941515/

The legislation enacted in the autonomy process is classified as "permissive," meaning the other 27 conferences in Division I can adopt the rules if they want, but they don't have to. Several conferences at the FBS, FCS and Division I-AAA levels have announced their intention to provide full cost-of-attendance scholarships.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The Big East have essentially said they will implement full cost of attendance (FCOA). I believe the MAC, Sun Belt and CUSA have committed to this as well. As for FCS, I'm fairly certain the only one is the MVFC. I don't think the Big Sky committed to it, but I'm not certain.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

The article mentions that they can pick and choose who gets it (like some schools choosing to go with basketball only). I figured it was an all athletes or no athletes thing. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.


Sounds like a Title IX lawsuit waiting to happen

As long as you give out equal numbers of FCOA deals to men and women it won't be a problem. You really wouldn't even need to give FCOA packages to all athletes in one sport. A G5 school for example could give FCOA to, say, 20 football players and divvy up 20 between their women's sports.

In fact, I would be willing to bet that even a lot of P5 schools would not be willing to fund FCOA for all of their athletes…and that opens the door for athletes to choose a G5 or FCS school over a P5 because the former is giving them more money.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

As long as you give out equal numbers of FCOA deals to men and women it won't be a problem. You really wouldn't even need to give FCOA packages to all athletes in one sport. A G5 school for example could give FCOA to, say, 20 football players and divvy up 20 between their women's sports.

In fact, I would be willing to bet that even a lot of P5 schools would not be willing to fund FCOA for all of their athletes…and that opens the door for athletes to choose a G5 or FCS school over a P5 because the former is giving them more money.

The problem is that they will still be competing for recruits by schools that will offer them for all athletes, like Texas, Oregon, Alabama, and Ohio State. Put another way, there's no reason for those super-rich schools to not spend that money.

Oregon State will have to pony up more money to compete with Oregon not just in football, but other sports, like baseball, wrestling, etc. Which gets spread to Title IX equivalents, which then spread to Gonzaga, which are competing with them in a variety of sports. Sure, they don't have to - and FCS conferences don't have to adopt FCOA, either. But it's a competitive advantage that will likely become the law of the land anyway.

[Bisonator]

The problem is that they will still be competing for recruits by schools that will offer them for all athletes, like Texas, Oregon, Alabama, and Ohio State. Put another way, there's no reason for those super-rich schools to not spend that money.

Oregon State will have to pony up more money to compete with Oregon not just in football, but other sports, like baseball, wrestling, etc. Which gets spread to Title IX equivalents, which then spread to Gonzaga, which are competing with them in a variety of sports. Sure, they don't have to - and FCS conferences don't have to adopt FCOA, either. But it's a competitive advantage that will likely become the law of the land anyway.

Pretty sure this will be the norm and across all D1 in the next 10 years. Those that can't afford it will basically shutter their FB programs or be what they are now, irrelevant to most. The real question becomes how long until the $'s start going up. $4000 now what about 10 years from now is it $10k? This is the top dogs way of weeding out the small fry IMO.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

Pretty sure this will be the norm and across all D1 in the next 10 years. Those that can't afford it will basically shutter their FB programs or be what they are now, irrelevant to most. The real question becomes how long until the $'s start going up. $4000 now what about 10 years from now is it $10k? This is the top dogs way of weeding out the small fry IMO.

It will only go up so far.

People think of the Texas', Ohio States, and other teams with endless money when they think of the P5, but most of the P5 are not in that class. The Ole Misses and NC States and Minnesotas out there won't be willing to support opulent scholarships and stipends. I think there would even come a point where the wealthiest schools will say it won't be worth the money to do it even though they could afford it. Remember that this isn't about the student athlete, it's more a legal CYA.

At the end of the day, college sports has a hierarchy and FCOA won't alter it. It's not like Georgia Southern and Troy will no longer be able to steal recruits from UGA or Ohio State if FCOA becomes adopted across the P5.

If you ask me, what could really widen the chasm between the haves and have nots in college sports is if the ceiling for the number of scholarships is raised. The population grows much faster than the number of DI sports scholarships, and that makes it harder for the schools at the top of the food chain to monopolize talent. If they want to separate themselves from everyone else, they need more scholarships, not more money per scholarship.

[DFW HOYA]

It will only go up so far.

The Ole Misses and NC States and Minnesotas out there won't be willing to support opulent scholarships and stipends.

No one in the SEC or Big 10 can plead poverty.

[Bisonator]

Just heard NDSU AD MAtt Larson on the radio. He said the MVFC and Summit have decided to allow each institution to do what they want as far as the FCOA. He said NDSU will probably have to do it to compete with MAC and MWC schools for recruits.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://kfgo.com/blogs/so-many-opinions-so-little-time/953/ndsu-will-look-at-paying-stipends-to-athletes-under-new-ncaa-rule/


"When you look at the football recruits we were able to attract this year and some of the schools we were able to attract them away from -- some Mountain West schools some MAC schools -- if you put us in this same situation next year and all of the sudden those schools are offering cost of attendance and North Dakota State isn't ... I'd like to think we still have enough to offer from a football program, academically,and all those things to attract those kids, but I think the chances become slimmer and slimmer moving down the road," Larsen said.

[bluehenbillk]

Remember for these schools it's not a football only thing. These stipends to cover the FCOA are for all varsity intercollegiate athletes, men & women. I.E. Across the board

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Remember for these schools it's not a football only thing. These stipends to cover the FCOA are for all varsity intercollegiate athletes, men & women. I.E. Across the board

This. And this is why it will end up infecting everything.

[BisonBacker]

Just heard NDSU AD MAtt Larson on the radio. He said the MVFC and Summit have decided to allow each institution to do what they want as far as the FCOA. He said NDSU will probably have to do it to compete with MAC and MWC schools for recruits.


http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2015/jan/22/ndsu-will-look-at-paying-athletes-stipend-under-new-ncaa-rule/

I also think he's correct when he states 10 years from now college athletes will have fewer choices (in certain sports anyway) as I'm sure some colleges to compete in the sports that fuel the engine will get the stipends and others will get cut to pay for it.

[DFW HOYA]

Remember for these schools it's not a football only thing. These stipends to cover the FCOA are for all varsity intercollegiate athletes, men & women. I.E. Across the board

It's not across the board, only for headcount sports. And it's definitely not for all athletes.

[WTFCollegefootballfan]

From Fargo Forum, about paying players................http://www.inforum.com/sports/bison/3662124-decision-division-i-athletic-powers-forces-lower-level-schools-ndsu-consider

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Larsen said NDSU’s cost of attendance is $3,400 per year and the good thing about the legislation is schools can pay a part of that.

And that's the extreme low end of what FCOA will cost. This number will double or possibly even triple when it reaches the Northeast or West Coast in places like Cal Poly, Sac State or UC-Davis.

[Bisonator]

And that's the extreme low end of what FCOA will cost. This number will double or possibly even triple when it reaches the Northeast or West Coast in places like Cal Poly, Sac State or UC-Davis.

The estimates are in the $2000-$6000 range.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The estimates are in the $2000-$6000 range.

Try $10K.

[thebootfitter]

Try $10K.
What are you basing the $10K on?

[thebootfitter]

http://kfgo.com/blogs/so-many-opinions-so-little-time/953/ndsu-will-look-at-paying-stipends-to-athletes-under-new-ncaa-rule/

"When you look at the football recruits we were able to attract this year and some of the schools we were able to attract them away from -- some Mountain West schools some MAC schools -- if you put us in this same situation next year and all of the sudden those schools are offering cost of attendance and North Dakota State isn't ... I'd like to think we still have enough to offer from a football program, academically,and all those things to attract those kids, but I think the chances become slimmer and slimmer moving down the road," Larsen said.

It is interesting to consider this particular dynamic and the ripple effects it may have. NDSU really is competing against MAC and MWC schools for a good number of recruits. And winning a fair number of those recruiting battles. So, while NDSU is competing on the field against the MVFC, they are also competing for recruits at a higher level. NDSU could concede the battle and forego the FCOA stipends, but that's not really in the nature of NDSU. They will strive to compete and be the best. And they will find a way to come up with the dollars for FCOA to continue competing at that level. (Not that I want to turn this into an "NDSU to FBS" thread, but this is probably a really good opportunity to test a potential transition for an eventual move up.)

Then what happens to the rest of the MVFC? They are going to have to step up as well in order to stay competitive. The competition in the Valley will continue to be elevated above any of the other conferences and schools that don't adopt FCOA.

NDSU may not be the only FCS school competing against G5 conferences for recruits, but right now they are arguably the best at it. Just like in the FBS, this could end up widening the gap between haves and have-nots.

[No_Skill]

It looks like NDSU will be offering these stipends to some extent. Have any other ADs made statements about their intentions?

[Bisonwinagn]

The two biggest problems that could come out of this are:
1) There is no guidance on the amount that can be paid so teams in LA or NY could offer $10k or $20k.
2) The non revenue sports are going to start getting dropped to pay for this new payment.

[Catsfan90]

The two biggest problems that could come out of this are:
1) There is no guidance on the amount that can be paid so teams in LA or NY could offer $10k or $20k.
2) The non revenue sports are going to start getting dropped to pay for this new payment.
They should base it off of cola.

[WWII]

They should base it off of cola.

or coke

[Bisonoline]

Try $10K.

3400.00 at NDSU. Where you getting your numbers?

[clenz]

3400.00 at NDSU. Where you getting your numbers?
It's LFN...he doesn't need to show his work.

I have a hard time believing a COL stipend would exceed the cost of tuition

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24553166/ncaas-latest-cost-of-attendance-debate-offers-questions-no-answers


Universities annually list a higher actual cost of attending college beyond an athletic scholarship. It's based on miscellaneous expenses that differ by school. A 2012 study found that out-of-pocket expenses for a full-scholarship FBS athlete ranged from $1,000 a year to $6,904 a year, depending on the school. The average NCAA gap is now around $3,500.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/10/22/7041515/texas-college-athletes-paid-10000-dollars


Texas athletic director Steve Patterson said on Wednesday that the university will start paying athletes $10,000 per year under new NCAA rules. "The money will cover college expenses that aren't covered by a traditional full scholarship and give each player $5,000 in compensation for the university's use of his image," the Dallas Morning News reports (http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/headlines/20141021-texas-athletic-director-with-new-rules-longhorns-will-pay-each-player-10000.ece).

No, this doesn't at all sound like something that's going to balloon over time... xrolleyesx

[DFW HOYA]

The image compensation issue is separate from cost of attendance scholarships and only those affected by the O'Bannon and EA Sports settlements. Almost no I-AA schools would be affected.

[Hammersmith]

It's LFN...he doesn't need to show his work.

I have a hard time believing a COL stipend would exceed the cost of tuition

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

At Lehigh, the stipend this year would have been around $2100. The stipend is linked to a number that schools must provide by federal law*. It's almost always listed on the school's website in the financial aid, cost, or tuition and fees section. Lehigh's number is $2065. NDSU's number is $3400. The number Texas would use is probably $4300. UNI would probably be around $2600. Anyone can go to their own school's website to figure it out. Just remember not to include the books number; those are already included in full scholarships.

And you can certainly expect those numbers to inflate in the coming years. Expect more NCAA legislation on the subject at the April meeting this year or next. The SEC already tried to bring an amendment on the subject last weekend which failed.


*I don't believe that the calculation of the number is part of the law, just that a number is provided. How the number is calculated is up to the school. (I think)

[Lehigh Football Nation]

At Lehigh, the stipend this year would have been around $2100. The stipend is linked to a number that schools must provide by federal law*. It's almost always listed on the school's website in the financial aid, cost, or tuition and fees section. Lehigh's number is $2065. NDSU's number is $3400. The number Texas would use is probably $4300. UNI would probably be around $2600. Anyone can go to their own school's website to figure it out. Just remember not to include the books number; those are already included in full scholarships.

And you can certainly expect those numbers to inflate in the coming years. Expect more NCAA legislation on the subject at the April meeting this year or next. The SEC already tried to bring an amendment on the subject last weekend which failed.


*I don't believe that the calculation of the number is part of the law, just that a number is provided. How the number is calculated is up to the school. (I think)

With that number getting baked into scholarships, you can bet your ass that number will no longer be up to the individual schools to calculate, and those numbers bear that out. There is zero way the incidentals at Lehigh cost $1,000 less than they do at NDSU and are half the expenses at Texas.

Of course, with FCOA scholarships on the horizon, it would have been of benefit for Texas to have a very high FCOA number, correct? Lehigh, whose tuition is already very high, not so much of a benefit.

[AmsterBison]

It's not across the board, only for headcount sports. And it's definitely not for all athletes.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/mizzou/alden-on-ncaa-autonomy-cost-of-attendance/article_3f1259f1-f6f0-50c2-b44d-9d52cfbff6c8.html


In the equivalency sports, an athlete who’s on a 20-percent athletic scholarship can receive up to 20 percent of the cost of attendance figure.

I see two positives:
1. Yeah, it's more money spent on athletics, but at least it's being spent on student-athletes and not on multi-million dollar playhouses and coaching staffs.
2. This kind of thing might speed of the separation of the NCAA and the P5. The P5, left to their own devices, will spin completely out of control until their minor-league NFL/NBA system being fed by non-student athletes collapses.

[No_Skill]

I really don't know if the cost of living numbers are going to balloon like everyone thinks.

My guess is that the cost if living numbers are reported so that potential students can use them when deciding on which school to attend. Given this, I would assume that the administration wants to keep that number as low as possible. If schools drastically increase this number to be able to entice the elite atheletes, they run the risk of turning off the potential regular students.

Case in point. LFN states that the true cost of living is significantly higher than $2100. Why would the school report a lower number than reality? Is it to help attract students?

If the stipend stays tied to the cost of living number I expect it will help balance that equation. Almost like a check and balance.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I really don't know if the cost of living numbers are going to balloon like everyone thinks.

My guess is that the cost if living numbers are reported so that potential students can use them when deciding on which school to attend. Given this, I would assume that the administration wants to keep that number as low as possible. If schools drastically increase this number to be able to entice the elite atheletes, they run the risk of turning off the potential regular students.

Case in point. LFN states that the true cost of living is significantly higher than $2100. Why would the school report a lower number than reality? Is it to help attract students?

If the stipend stays tied to the cost of living number I expect it will help balance that equation. Almost like a check and balance.

A school might want to keep it down if their tuition is high to begin with, i.e. private institutions like Lehigh. In places where it's a publicly-funded school that's not as much of an issue.

The problem is the intent of the number is changing. Before, it was a theoretical number that was largely cosmetic in nature. Now, it's going to be an actual check amount.

Another problem is you can't really tie the number to cost-of-living indeces because then schools like Stanford and Boston College (which reside in some of the highest COL index places in the nation) will have to fork over perhaps 2X the number as, say, Nebraska. Is it fair that the same scholarship costs Nebraska half the amount as Boston College?

It's a complicated issue.

[No_Skill]

A school might want to keep it down if their tuition is high to begin with, i.e. private institutions like Lehigh. In places where it's a publicly-funded school that's not as much of an issue.

The problem is the intent of the number is changing. Before, it was a theoretical number that was largely cosmetic in nature. Now, it's going to be an actual check amount.

Another problem is you can't really tie the number to cost-of-living indeces because then schools like Stanford and Boston College (which reside in some of the highest COL index places in the nation) will have to fork over perhaps 2X the number as, say, Nebraska. Is it fair that the same scholarship costs Nebraska half the amount as Boston College?

It's a complicated issue.

It depends on your definition of "fair" I suppose. If the actual cost of living is truly higher in Boston than Nebraska, shouldn't more be provided to that student? In principle, that's what all this is about right?

Definitely complicated.

[bostonspider]

Interesting that the commissioner of the CAA thinks that the COA stipends will be unlikely for CAA Football. I know UR will be providing them for Men's and Women's Basketball, so I think it would be difficult to not provide it for Football, even if the much larger roster means much larger costs. With 63 scholarships, and an official COA of $2,160, it would cost UR an additional $136,000. Not much more than two additional scholarships. So if say UR and VU will be giving the stipends for their other sports, I would assume they would in the end give them for Football too. Will this lead to different schools in the CAA having a recruiting advantage over others?

http://www.richmond.com/sports/article_dd52cca8-59d3-5f5e-9533-908ff7be11d4.html

UR's total Cost of Attendance

http://financialaid.richmond.edu/prospective/cost.html

[BisonTru]

Any speculation how this will work with partial scholarships? Does a half scholarship player receive half of the COA or the full amount?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Bisonator]

Any speculation how this will work with partial scholarships? Does a half scholarship player receive half of the COA or the full amount?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I believe the FCOA is totally up to the schools discretion. I don't think they even have to give every player in a sport the FCOA. Maybe I'm wrong on that?

[BisonTru]

I believe the FCOA is totally up to the schools discretion. I don't think they even have to give every player in a sport the FCOA. Maybe I'm wrong on that?

So could PWOs get FCOA?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Interesting that the commissioner of the CAA thinks that the COA stipends will be unlikely for CAA Football. I know UR will be providing them for Men's and Women's Basketball, so I think it would be difficult to not provide it for Football, even if the much larger roster means much larger costs. With 63 scholarships, and an official COA of $2,160, it would cost UR an additional $136,000. Not much more than two additional scholarships. So if say UR and VU will be giving the stipends for their other sports, I would assume they would in the end give them for Football too. Will this lead to different schools in the CAA having a recruiting advantage over others?

http://www.richmond.com/sports/article_dd52cca8-59d3-5f5e-9533-908ff7be11d4.html

UR's total Cost of Attendance

http://financialaid.richmond.edu/prospective/cost.html

You're forgetting Title IX, so multiply that number by 2, call it $300,000. Then factor in cost of living, so (at a minimum) $3,160, which is close, but not quite, the same COA that NDSU is claiming. $3,160 * 126 is approximately $400,000 - and that's with the cost of living in North Dakota.

Then you have to think about the other sports. Once you've done it for mens/womens hoops, football/Title IX offset, how are you going to deny it for other sports like, say, track? Even with partials we're clearly on the order, conservatively, of half a million dollars per year.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

So could PWOs get FCOA?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This only applies if they get a scholarship. If they are PWO they are regular students possibly going through the financial aid and qualifying for other aid. They might qualify for FCOA, but then again it wouldn't be charged to the athletic department.

Also to answer a question elsewhere in the thread, I think that if they are getting a 20% scholarship or more they qualify for FCOA scholarship that is pro-rated. So a 20% scholarship would be 20% FCOA. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that, but that's the impression I had.

[bostonspider]

You're forgetting Title IX, so multiply that number by 2, call it $300,000. Then factor in cost of living, so (at a minimum) $3,160, which is close, but not quite, the same COA that NDSU is claiming. $3,160 * 126 is approximately $400,000 - and that's with the cost of living in North Dakota.

Then you have to think about the other sports. Once you've done it for mens/womens hoops, football/Title IX offset, how are you going to deny it for other sports like, say, track? Even with partials we're clearly on the order, conservatively, of half a million dollars per year.

Though even $500,000 if that is the number is only a 5% increase of the athletic budget. That is a lot, but not insurmountable. About the same as adding 8 more scholarship athletes.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Though even $500,000 if that is the number is only a 5% increase of the athletic budget. That is a lot, but not insurmountable. About the same as adding 8 more scholarship athletes.

I agree as how it relates to Richmond. For other schools, though, the increase in budget may be much, much tougher to manage.

[clenz]

Though even $500,000 if that is the number is only a 5% increase of the athletic budget. That is a lot, but not insurmountable. About the same as adding 8 more scholarship athletes.
Almost the exact wording UNI's AD used.

[Hammersmith]

This only applies if they get a scholarship. If they are PWO they are regular students possibly going through the financial aid and qualifying for other aid. They might qualify for FCOA, but then again it wouldn't be charged to the athletic department.

Also to answer a question elsewhere in the thread, I think that if they are getting a 20% scholarship or more they qualify for FCOA scholarship that is pro-rated. So a 20% scholarship would be 20% FCOA. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that, but that's the impression I had.

That's what Missouri's AD said. I'm still waiting to see the text of the new legislation. Some ADs have said equivalency sports still need to be worked out. And NDSU's AD has said conferences will not have the power to forbid FCOAs, which flies in the face of other reports(and what legislation has been made public). I don't think we'll have all the final answers until April(the next big NCAA meeting).

[Nova09]

Also to answer a question elsewhere in the thread, I think that if they are getting a 20% scholarship or more they qualify for FCOA scholarship that is pro-rated. So a 20% scholarship would be 20% FCOA. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that, but that's the impression I had.

That was how one of the proposals was worded, but strangely the autonomous group didn't actually vote on any of the proposals which would have cleared a lot of this up for us, they just somehow declared that they were voting on FCOA and passed that vote, even though no one knows what they were actually voting on.

[Hammersmith]

That was how one of the proposals was worded, but strangely the autonomous group didn't actually vote on any of the proposals which would have cleared a lot of this up for us, they just somehow declared that they were voting on FCOA and passed that vote, even though no one knows what they were actually voting on.
Ahh, that explains why everything is so confused right now. So definitely no solid answers until April, then.


edit: found new information - please read new message below

[Hammersmith]

That was how one of the proposals was worded, but strangely the autonomous group didn't actually vote on any of the proposals which would have cleared a lot of this up for us, they just somehow declared that they were voting on FCOA and passed that vote, even though no one knows what they were actually voting on.

Are you absolutely sure about that? I found the legislation online a couple hours ago as well as some of the rules the autonomy group works under. One of the things I found is that no new amendments can be brought up during a business meeting(which is what last weekend's meeting was). They could only vote on what was in front of them(the agenda).

There were four amendments to the COA proposal on the agenda, and three of them were voted on(one was withdrawn by its sponsor). Two of the three were voted down. After the amendments were voted on, only then was the overall proposal voted on. Is it possible that you or your source was confused about exactly what was being voted on?



text of proposal: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Official%20Notice%20of%20Autonomy%20Proposals%201-12-15.pdf
you're looking for 2014-13; of the four amendments, only 2014-13-1 passed

here's a great Q&A that was provided to the P5 representatives prior to the meeting; it will answer your questions on how equivalency sports will work - the Mizzou AD was completely wrong BTW
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2014-15%20Autonomy%20Legislation%20Q%20and%20A.pdf

[Nova09]

Are you absolutely sure about that? I found the legislation online a couple hours ago as well as some of the rules the autonomy group works under. One of the things I found is that no new amendments can be brought up during a business meeting(which is what last weekend's meeting was). They could only vote on what was in front of them(the agenda).

There were four amendments to the COA proposal on the agenda, and three of them were voted on(one was withdrawn by its sponsor). Two of the three were voted down. After the amendments were voted on, only then was the overall proposal voted on. Is it possible that you or your source was confused about exactly what was being voted on?



text of proposal: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2014-15%20Autonomy%20Legislation%20Q%20and%20A.pdf
you're looking for 2014-13; of the four amendments, only 2014-13-1 passed

here's a great Q&A that was provided to the P5 representatives prior to the meeting; it will answer your questions on how equivalency sports will work - the Mizzou AD was completely wrong BTW
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2014-15%20Autonomy%20Legislation%20Q%20and%20A.pdf

They are marked "passed" or "defeated" but it is not clear that any separate votes actually took place. Furthermore, the "withdrawn" one is the one specifically speaking about computing equivalencies, so all of our speculation about how this applies to equivalencies is pointless until the autonomous group either holds a vote or just tells us "what they meant" when they passed...something.

[Hammersmith]

They are marked "passed" or "defeated" but it is not clear that any separate votes actually took place. Furthermore, the "withdrawn" one is the one specifically speaking about computing equivalencies, so all of our speculation about how this applies to equivalencies is pointless until the autonomous group either holds a vote or just tells us "what they meant" when they passed...something.

No. There is a section within the original proposal that deals with equivalencies. The amendment would have changed that section. Since the amendment was withdrawn, the original section remained intact. It does tell you exactly how equivalencies are going to be dealt with.

[Nova09]

No. There is a section within the original proposal that deals with equivalencies. The amendment would have changed that section. Since the amendment was withdrawn, the original section remained intact. It does tell you exactly how equivalencies are going to be dealt with.

It spells out how the autonomous group will calculate equivalencies--for all of their sports. It then gives the rest of us a choice--but it is not clear if we can mix and match, which is exactly what people have been discussing in this thread. If an FCS football team wants to use the autonomous definition and offer FCOA, then does that school have to use that denominator figure for every other equivalency sport? Or for that matter, if an FCS school wants to offer its bball teams, male and female, FCOA, then does that decision automatically mean that it is a FCOA school, has opted into autonomy legislation, and must calculate equivalencies by the autonomous method, even though its equivalency sports didn't opt in?

It is certainly not settled.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

It spells out how the autonomous group will calculate equivalencies--for all of their sports. It then gives the rest of us a choice--but it is not clear if we can mix and match, which is exactly what people have been discussing in this thread. If an FCS football team wants to use the autonomous definition and offer FCOA, then does that school have to use that denominator figure for every other equivalency sport? Or for that matter, if an FCS school wants to offer its bball teams, male and female, FCOA, then does that decision automatically mean that it is a FCOA school, has opted into autonomy legislation, and must calculate equivalencies by the autonomous method, even though its equivalency sports didn't opt in?

It is certainly not settled.

While I'm as confused as your paragraph (on purpose) sounds, too, one certainty is FCS and FBS count their scholarships differently. In FBS, football and basketball are "headcount" sports where it's either all or nothing, you are either of full scholarship and get the benefits, or walk-on with no benefits. But FCS is an "equivalency" sport where you can divvy up scholarships up and down your whole roster, as long as the total number doesn't exceed 63.

Which makes for a very interesting dichotomy. When FBS is talking about equivalencies, they thing they are discussing all other non-revenue sports. But in practical terms at the FCS level it affects football. Ergo, the P5 could make a decision on FCOA that is intended to affect, say, men's track at P5 schools, but the impact and rule could affect football at the FCS level positively or negatively.

[Hammersmith]

It spells out how the autonomous group will calculate equivalencies--for all of their sports. It then gives the rest of us a choice--but it is not clear if we can mix and match, which is exactly what people have been discussing in this thread. If an FCS football team wants to use the autonomous definition and offer FCOA, then does that school have to use that denominator figure for every other equivalency sport? Or for that matter, if an FCS school wants to offer its bball teams, male and female, FCOA, then does that decision automatically mean that it is a FCOA school, has opted into autonomy legislation, and must calculate equivalencies by the autonomous method, even though its equivalency sports didn't opt in?

It is certainly not settled.

I'm sorry. I messed up and used the same link twice. If I had given you the correct link, you would see it. Try reading this one:

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Official%20Notice%20of%20Autonomy%20Proposals%201-12-15.pdf



And to your question about mixing and matching, not only can you mix and match sports, you can also mix and match individual players within a sport. (there's no advantage to it, however)


15.5.3.2.3 Additional Requirements. The following additional requirements shall apply to equivalency computations:

a) An institution may use either the actual cost or average cost of any or all of the elements (other than books) of the equivalency calculation, provided the same method is used in both the numerator and denominator for each element. Either method (or different combinations of methods among elements) may be used for each student-athlete on the same team or for separate teams generally.
my emphasis added

[WestCoastAggie]

Why won't the FCS Schools that are considering and likely going to approve giving FCOA or FGIA to their student-athletes just join with the G5 conferences and create a new Division-One Sub-Division?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Why won't the FCS Schools that are considering and likely going to approve giving FCOA or FGIA to their student-athletes just join with the G5 conferences and create a new Division-One Sub-Division?

It's where it is headed but why would anyone that hasn't jumped yet jump now because of this? I want playoffs not ****ty bowl games so I'm a bit biased on the matter of course.

[BisonFan02]

It's where it is headed but why would anyone that hasn't jumped yet jump now because of this? I want playoffs not ****ty bowl games so I'm a bit biased on the matter of course.

Agree....combine the G5 with the MVFC, CAA, SoCon, Big Sky, etc. and go back to being a "College Division" to use older jargon (obviously would be under a different name, this time with playoffs instead of championship bowl games).

https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6113/6329857339_c5513fd117_b.jpg

[Nova09]

I'm sorry. I messed up and used the same link twice. If I had given you the correct link, you would see it. Try reading this one:

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Official%20Notice%20of%20Autonomy%20Proposals%201-12-15.pdf



And to your question about mixing and matching, not only can you mix and match sports, you can also mix and match individual players within a sport. (there's no advantage to it, however)


my emphasis added

This is really hard to explain on a message board but I'll take a stab at it:

That rule (15.5.3.2.3) already existed before all this FCOA nonsense. It does not refer to choosing between FCOA or not. What it means is that there are slight variances in every students bill (athletes or not) and it is permissible to just use an average rather than calculating the exact equivalency for each individual, using a different denominator for each because of those slight variances in billing. That rule is unchanged; whether you use FCOA or the old maximum scholarship guideline, there will still be slight variance from student to student about what is "full" scholarship. And you still have the option to calculate specifically for each individual based on his/her specific total bill, or to just average it all out.

Still unanswered is if the denominator specifically can be the old definition of "full scholarship" even if some of your sports (or some other athletes on the same team) are FCOA. I can tell you definitively that those outside P5 were told all along that they could "opt in" to whatever extent they felt comfortable, but were told at convention that it might actually be all or nothing. Really depends what the autonomous group feels like telling the rest of us we are allowed to do, as I have said all along. It is not settled until they say it is.

And to be clear, Hammersmith, I'm not arguing against you. How you interpret it might ultimately be exactly how it is put into practice. But just because you read something a certain way doesn't mean the autonomous group (and NCAA, to whatever extent they still have authority) agrees that they want it to end up that way.

[walliver]

Is this how these fees will be paid for at the FCS level? :

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/sports/college/story/2015/jan/28/utc-cutting-mens-track-and-field-teams/285048/

UTC, one of the largest schools in the SoCon, doesn't offer baseball either.

Chatty blames Title IX, and that may be a major component, but it also comes across as a cost-saving move.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

This is really hard to explain on a message board but I'll take a stab at it:

That rule (15.5.3.2.3) already existed before all this FCOA nonsense. It does not refer to choosing between FCOA or not. What it means is that there are slight variances in every students bill (athletes or not) and it is permissible to just use an average rather than calculating the exact equivalency for each individual, using a different denominator for each because of those slight variances in billing. That rule is unchanged; whether you use FCOA or the old maximum scholarship guideline, there will still be slight variance from student to student about what is "full" scholarship. And you still have the option to calculate specifically for each individual based on his/her specific total bill, or to just average it all out.

Still unanswered is if the denominator specifically can be the old definition of "full scholarship" even if some of your sports (or some other athletes on the same team) are FCOA. I can tell you definitively that those outside P5 were told all along that they could "opt in" to whatever extent they felt comfortable, but were told at convention that it might actually be all or nothing. Really depends what the autonomous group feels like telling the rest of us we are allowed to do, as I have said all along. It is not settled until they say it is.

And to be clear, Hammersmith, I'm not arguing against you. How you interpret it might ultimately be exactly how it is put into practice. But just because you read something a certain way doesn't mean the autonomous group (and NCAA, to whatever extent they still have authority) agrees that they want it to end up that way.

And just to reiterate, what's really troubling is that a decision that the P5 is making unilaterally that affects only their non-revenue sports could have vast impact on FCS football teams. When you couple that with the underlined point above, this doesn't sound good.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/recruiting/2015/02/03/new-benefits-autonomy-james-franklin-mike-macintyre-hugh-freeze/22808431/




"It was really more of a system to make sure everybody stays in line with what the university cost of attendance is and you don't wake up all the sudden and some institution triples it one day," Auburn athletics director Jay Jacobs said. "Maybe people thought it was too bureaucratic, too much paperwork. Maybe people didn't quite understand it, but we know if we go through a year of this and there needs to be checks and balances, it wouldn't surprise me if the other conferences caught up."

It's not hard to envision a world coming to fruition in which those checks and balances might be necessary.


Jacobs, for instance, said the average full cost of attendance benefit for Auburn athletes is likely in the neighborhood of $6,000 per year, with an additional $1,500 if they enroll in summer school. That number would rank among the highest in the SEC and perhaps even a couple thousand dollars more per year than some of the regional schools Auburn regularly recruits against.

Shot across the bow, to be sure, and not only to South Alabama. Jacksonville State, too.

[YoUDeeMan]

I'd be really interested to know how the UNI equipment truck got to Hawaii

I'm even more interested in how they moved the UNI hotel to Hawaii.

[clenz]

Hmm...

Who kept saying the stipends were going to be something like 10k?


http://btn.com/2015/03/03/stipend-figures-heres-a-look-at-potential-big-ten-numbers/

Much has been written about the stipend that will be granted by “Power Five” conference schools (http://www.pennlive.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/03/penn_state_cost_of_attendance_recruiting.html) beginning in 2015-16 as part of radical NCAA reforms.
Now, student-athletes will not just receive tuition, books and room-and-board but also an extra amount to be used toward incidental living expenses—Little Caesar’s crazy bread, gas for the Vespa, iTunes downloads, “Cracked” magazine subscriptions … stuff like that. It is known in university parlance as “cost of attendance.” Me? I like to call it “kicking around cash,” or “Friday night loot.”


Big Ten Stipends



School
In-state
Out-state
Stipend


1. Penn State
$34,506
$47,456
$4,788


2. Wisconsin
$24,475
$40,725
$4,265


3. Nebraska
$22,625
$36,545
$3,544


4. Indiana
$24,417
$47,270
$3,036


5. Maryland
$24,214
$44,507
$3,024


6. Rutgers
$29,875
$44,653
$2,763


7. Illinois
$29,568
$44,194
$2,500


8. Ohio State
$23,589
$40,089
$2,454


9. Northwestern
$65,844
$65,844
$2,326


10. Minnesota
$25,740
$32,990
$2,194


11. Iowa
$20,861
$40,191
$2,128


12. Michigan
$26,834
$55,254
$2,054


13. Purdue
$23,322
$42,124
$1,920


14. Michigan State
$25,286
$47,051
$1,872




Based on cost-of-attendance figures cited by CollegeData.com for the 2014-15 academic calendar, the table above is a look at the miscellaneous expenses for each Big Ten school, in addition to in-state and out-of-state tuitions for each institution.

I’m sure you’re thinking what I am thinking. You know, like: How can the “cost of attendance” figures vary so widely between some of these schools? Here is a for instance: How can Indiana have a miscellaneous expense of $3,036 and Purdue have one of $1,920? Is living in Bloomington that much more expensive than West Lafayette? Really? What am I missing? Is there price-fixing on Red Bull and NOS in Monroe County?

Also know this: Schools with a higher “cost of attendance” figure to use it as a recruiting tool. Heck, David Jones of Pennlive.com says Penn State coach James Franklin is on record recently as saying the stipend is definitely a recruiting factor. (Man, I love Franklin.) So, will coaches at schools with a low stipend lobby their athletic directors to increase it?

You betcha, is my guess. Urban Meyer probably is knocking on Gene Smith’s door as I type this.

I can’t imagine Michigan’s Jim Harbaugh and Michigan State’s Mark Dantonio would be too stoked if the stipend at their schools was at the above figures in 2015-16. By July, schools must designate what their allowance will be. I have a feeling you’ll see the “big boys” have cost-of-living allowances near the top of the Big Ten when it’s all said and done. You just wonder how big this stipend will grow to—and how wide the chasm will be among schools.
Welcome to the new world of college athletics.

[PAllen]

Hmm...

Who kept saying the stipends were going to be something like 10k?



I'll go on record as saying that they'll be well above 10K at some schools in five years. Welcome to the new world of college sponsored professional athletics.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

This has nothing to do with what they were yesterday, it's what they will be going forward.

If you think Michigan State's FCOA will stay $1,872 when they're competing against Wisconsin's $4,275 for recruits, I've got a bridge to sell you.

FCOA was largely defined by student surveys and were more a theoretical measure before this year. Now, FCOA calculations are going to be a competitive advantage for schools. Boom, $10K apiece as the richest schools try to fudge the numbers to match or beat their competition.

[clenz]

Keep in mind that the university published low numbers to attract students.

Pretty tough to sell and out of state student on 44K per year on tuition is the FCOA is another 10-15K ON TOP of that 44k

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

I'll go on record as saying that they'll be well above 10K at some schools in five years. Welcome to the new world of college sponsored professional athletics.

I will believe this when I see it. Most of the P5's do not have endless money like the Ohio States and the Notre Dames of college sports. These less wealthy P5s are not going to let FCOA policies be written to open the floodgates to huge spending on athletes because they know that they could get outspent to the point that it hurts their competitiveness.

Also, you have to keep in mind colleges absolutely do not want their athletics to lose tax-exempt status and they will have to be very careful not to step over that line. You can't just simply hand out money to athletes to be spent as they wish.

I think we will see pretty tight regulations on what things FCOA will cover to keep costs from completely ballooning.

I'll say it again…all of this is not about the well-being of the student athlete, and it never was.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I will believe this when I see it. Most of the P5's do not have endless money like the Ohio States and the Notre Dames of college sports. These less wealthy P5s are not going to let FCOA policies be written to open the floodgates to huge spending on athletes because they know that they could get outspent to the point that it hurts their competitiveness.

Some thought that, but then it passed 79-1.


I think we will see pretty tight regulations on what things FCOA will cover to keep costs from completely ballooning.

The P5 chose to ram this through and implement it without coming up with a complete set of definitions first, or regulations, or punishments. Yet it's still the law of the land today.


I'll say it again…all of this is not about the well-being of the student athlete, and it never was.

On this we agree.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

Some thought that, but then it passed 79-1.



[/COLOR]The P5 chose to ram this through and implement it without coming up with a complete set of definitions first, or regulations, or punishments. Yet it's still the law of the land today.



On this we agree.[/COLOR]

I didn't say that they would oppose any FCOA.

The legislation isn't in its final form. The SEC of all leagues proposed an amendment to increase transparency on what king of aid schools provide for athletes. The ACC proposed an amendment on capping aid. The amendments failed, but it shows that the leagues aren't interested in seeing runaway athletics spending.

[PAllen]

I didn't say that they would oppose any FCOA.

The legislation isn't in its final form. The SEC of all leagues proposed an amendment to increase transparency on what king of aid schools provide for athletes. The ACC proposed an amendment on capping aid. The amendments failed, but it shows that the leagues aren't interested in seeing runaway athletics spending.

When you've got Oregon build "performance centers" with lounges, messages, video games, food and even haircuts for kids who don't have to go to class, this absolutely has nothing to do with the well being of the students. As for the SEC and ACC proposals, those commissioners still have to appease Vanderbilt and Wake Forest.

[Bisonoline]

Hmm...

Who kept saying the stipends were going to be something like 10k?


http://btn.com/2015/03/03/stipend-figures-heres-a-look-at-potential-big-ten-numbers/

Much has been written about the stipend that will be granted by “Power Five” conference schools (http://www.pennlive.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/03/penn_state_cost_of_attendance_recruiting.html) beginning in 2015-16 as part of radical NCAA reforms.
Now, student-athletes will not just receive tuition, books and room-and-board but also an extra amount to be used toward incidental living expenses—Little Caesar’s crazy bread, gas for the Vespa, iTunes downloads, “Cracked” magazine subscriptions … stuff like that. It is known in university parlance as “cost of attendance.” Me? I like to call it “kicking around cash,” or “Friday night loot.”


Big Ten Stipends



School
In-state
Out-state
Stipend


1. Penn State
$34,506
$47,456
$4,788


2. Wisconsin
$24,475
$40,725
$4,265


3. Nebraska
$22,625
$36,545
$3,544


4. Indiana
$24,417
$47,270
$3,036


5. Maryland
$24,214
$44,507
$3,024


6. Rutgers
$29,875
$44,653
$2,763


7. Illinois
$29,568
$44,194
$2,500


8. Ohio State
$23,589
$40,089
$2,454


9. Northwestern
$65,844
$65,844
$2,326


10. Minnesota
$25,740
$32,990
$2,194


11. Iowa
$20,861
$40,191
$2,128


12. Michigan
$26,834
$55,254
$2,054


13. Purdue
$23,322
$42,124
$1,920


14. Michigan State
$25,286
$47,051
$1,872




Based on cost-of-attendance figures cited by CollegeData.com for the 2014-15 academic calendar, the table above is a look at the miscellaneous expenses for each Big Ten school, in addition to in-state and out-of-state tuitions for each institution.

I’m sure you’re thinking what I am thinking. You know, like: How can the “cost of attendance” figures vary so widely between some of these schools? Here is a for instance: How can Indiana have a miscellaneous expense of $3,036 and Purdue have one of $1,920? Is living in Bloomington that much more expensive than West Lafayette? Really? What am I missing? Is there price-fixing on Red Bull and NOS in Monroe County?

Also know this: Schools with a higher “cost of attendance” figure to use it as a recruiting tool. Heck, David Jones of Pennlive.com says Penn State coach James Franklin is on record recently as saying the stipend is definitely a recruiting factor. (Man, I love Franklin.) So, will coaches at schools with a low stipend lobby their athletic directors to increase it?

You betcha, is my guess. Urban Meyer probably is knocking on Gene Smith’s door as I type this.

I can’t imagine Michigan’s Jim Harbaugh and Michigan State’s Mark Dantonio would be too stoked if the stipend at their schools was at the above figures in 2015-16. By July, schools must designate what their allowance will be. I have a feeling you’ll see the “big boys” have cost-of-living allowances near the top of the Big Ten when it’s all said and done. You just wonder how big this stipend will grow to—and how wide the chasm will be among schools.
Welcome to the new world of college athletics.

I think it tied to the cost of living in a certain area. The govt IRS has those figures and the schools will use those.

[Silenoz]

Is there anything preventing someone like Texas from just jacking it up every time they feel like it in order to stay on top?

[Bisonoline]

Is there anything preventing someone like Texas from just jacking it up every time they feel like it in order to stay on top?

They are not going to let anyone just jack up the FCOA stipend. Our AD kind of explained it but all the ADs know what the FCOA is at their school.

[clenz]

I think it tied to the cost of living in a certain area. The govt IRS has those figures and the schools will use those.
With that being an IRS issue how would schools be able to fudge it

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[PAllen]

With that being an IRS issue how would schools be able to fudge it

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

The same way Al Sharpton can owe millions in unpaid taxes and still visit the White House, and Tim Geithner can be named Treasury Secretary while not having paid income taxes for years. Money and connections. The major players in college football have both. They'll be able to do what they please until they piss off some senator somewhere, at which point they'll have to negotiate a payoff a la the Pac 10 and Utah/O. Hatch.

[DFW HOYA]

I'll go on record as saying that they'll be well above 10K at some schools in five years. Welcome to the new world of college sponsored professional athletics.

Is the cost of attendance the same in Northampton County or will one school outprice the other?

[centennial]

Its a shame.At 10k+ these kids are basically minor league athletes. Not only that, what would happen if you give a 19 year old that kind of money? The have and have not difference is going to increase in both FBS and FCS.
The categories that I expect-
Top tier- P5 schools paying multiple times FCOA.
Middle tier- Lower P5 and upper G5 still paying more than a reasonable amount.
Low tier- Schools paying FCOA including middle G5 and top FCS
Dungeon- Lowest G5 and middle to low FCS not paying FCOA
This also puts all the transfer U's at a disadvantage. Why drop down when you make more than most households in the country?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://www.collegedata.com/cs/content/content_payarticle_tmpl.jhtml?articleId=10065


What's Included in the COAAs dictated by Congress, the COA is the average cost to attend for one academic year (fall through spring). It includes tuition and fees, books and supplies, room and board, transportation, and personal expenses. Colleges adjust the COA yearly to reflect changes to these costs.


"Oops... we just found out that those "lab supplies" cost the students $5,000 extra dollars! "

[catamount man]

The Catamount Club is increasing giving for two of their levels for the 2015-16 fiscal year per the note I got in the mail yesterday. Not sure if any other FCS schools booster clubs will do the same?

[gumby013]

The Catamount Club is increasing giving for two of their levels for the 2015-16 fiscal year per the note I got in the mail yesterday. Not sure if any other FCS schools booster clubs will do the same?

NDSU has been upping donation levels and ticket prices each of the past few years. Here's the current breakdown.

http://www.gobison.com/documents/2015/3/5/Football_Season_Ticket_Seating_Chart.pdf?path=

[catamount man]

NDSU has been upping donation levels and ticket prices each of the past few years. Here's the current breakdown.

http://www.gobison.com/documents/2015/3/5/Football_Season_Ticket_Seating_Chart.pdf?path=

Here is the benefits breakdown for the CC. The increases will be at the "Coaches" level and the "Cullowhee" level: http://www.catamountsports.com/catamountclub/catamount-club-membership-benefits.html