Liberty First FCS Program to Cover Cost of Attendance

[FargoBison]

Sources told FootballScoop tonight that Liberty, an FCS program located in Lynchburg Virginia, will become the first FCS program to provide “cost of attendance” dollars to their athletes.


Following the “power five” conferences’ lead, Liberty, which has been rumored to be looking to move up, is taking the bold step of possibly being the only FCS program to cover these costs, which some estimates project at nearly $2 million to the university.


Sources tell FootballScoop that Liberty has begun to inform their student athletes of the decision and will begin making the payments this Fall.


http://footballscoop.com/news/source-liberty-will-be-first-fcs-program-to-provide-cost-of-attendance/

[BisonFan02]

Good for Liberty, but I disagree with the article. There will be other FCS programs that offer cost of attendance.

[FargoBison]

Good for Liberty, but I disagree with the article. There will be other FCS programs that offer cost of attendance.

Yep, this is just more ammo for NDSU to get it rolling. I am sure there are some CAA programs that don't want to deal with Liberty having a recruiting edge.

Looking at the $2 million number it would appear Liberty is doing this for their entire athletic department.

[knucklehead]

Not surprising at all to see LU on the front of this issue.

[IBleedYellow]

Yep, this is just more ammo for NDSU to get it rolling. I am sure there are some CAA programs that don't want to deal with Liberty having a recruiting edge.

Looking at the $2 million number it would appear Liberty is doing this for their entire athletic department.

I'd bet NDSU will have COA coverage in less than 2 years.

[Bisonoline]

Yep, this is just more ammo for NDSU to get it rolling. I am sure there are some CAA programs that don't want to deal with Liberty having a recruiting edge.

Looking at the $2 million number it would appear Liberty is doing this for their entire athletic department.

Fargo didn't need any nudge what so ever. They've been very proactive in this regard.

[IBleedYellow]

Fargo didn't need any nudge what so ever. They've been very proactive in this regard.

My thoughts exactly. We've heard our AD talking about it quite a bit. It's only a matter of time.

[WileECoyote06]

Will the rest of the Big South follow? This can't sit too well with some of their conference brethren.

[knucklehead]

The big question is, will JMU? It looks like LU is sending the CUSA and SBC a message.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Gee, nobody saw this coming *cough*

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-fcs-schools-need-to-be-very.html


But in an FCS conference like, for example, the Big South, the athletic spending gap between the rich (Liberty, spending: $28 million) and more modest (Charleston Southern, spending: $10 million) can be staggering.

In conferences where there isn't that fat TV paycheck, FCOA could be something that blows things apart.

Imagine Liberty instituting FCOA, while Charleston Southern decides it can't afford it. What happens?


Some folks like William and Mary athletic director Terry Driscoll, say there's not a big "appetite" at the FCS level cost of attendance. To him, he doesn't seem to think it will have much traction at the schools that compete there.


"It's primarily because it's a financial issue," he told the Daily Press. "In addition to the regular cost of scholarships, it would place a burden. There may be some institutions that are in a position to do that. I would say at William and Mary, we're not in a position to create a cost of attendance across our entire athletic department."


That may be true - for now. But the important fact appears to be: should an individual school decide that it needs to offer full cost of attendance, there's nothing that an FCS conference can really do to stop it.

[DFW HOYA]

Big East schools are expected to cover cost of attendance, so count at least Villanova on the list.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Big East schools are expected to cover cost of attendance, so count at least Villanova on the list.

So is the A-10, so Richmond, URI --> sharpie.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The big question is, will JMU? It looks like LU is sending the CUSA and SBC a message.

From what it's looking in regards to CUSA and the SBC and their schools' funding of FCOA, it may not be the message you're thinking. It is not at all clear whether the schools of these conferences will be able to afford FCOA. It allegedly was a factor in UAB's discontinuation of football, and ODU of C-USA is certainly not interested, either - they've got 10 years to get their subsidy in order to comply with state law, and taking on an extra $2 million of spending (conservatively) will not make that any easier.

[FargoBison]

Every FBS school will do this for football and every DI school will do this for MBB.

Liberty is doing this for their entire athletics department, thus the $2 million hit. NDSU's number is much lower than that, $750k to $1 million per year and that would be be for the bulk of our athletics department.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Gee, nobody saw this coming *cough*

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-fcs-schools-need-to-be-very.html

Huh? I thought this was a fairly prevalent thought around these parts? I don't think this is surprising at all as it's bound to happen with the bigger programs that have a chance at affording it as far as I can see. Heck I'd bet there are many FCS teams that will have an easier time affording this than the lower two conferences of the G5.

[DFW HOYA]

Every FBS school will do this for football and every DI school will do this for MBB.

I-A? Sure, but not every Division I school. Cost of attendance applies to all scholarship sports, not just men's basketball, and I'm not sure that it makes cost sense for a Savannah State or an NJIT or a San Francisco to offer it across all sports.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Huh? I thought this was a fairly prevalent thought around these parts? I don't think this is surprising at all as it's bound to happen with the bigger programs that have a chance at affording it as far as I can see. Heck I'd bet there are many FCS teams that will have an easier time affording this than the lower two conferences of the G5.

It was prevalent to think that eventually it would happen in FCS but I mentioned Liberty by name, now that I've patted myself on the back enough you can go back to your regularly-scheduled topics

[BEAR]

How about we give full schollys to ALL the baseball team players for a start. This kind of funding is outside the reach for UCA unless we get some kind of addy funds.

[FargoBison]

I-A? Sure, but not every Division I school. Cost of attendance applies to all scholarship sports, not just men's basketball, and I'm not sure that it makes cost sense for a Savannah State or an NJIT or a San Francisco to offer it across all sports.

They can do it for just MBB and a women's sport, that is what the Horizon League has mandated their league members do.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

They can do it for just MBB and a women's sport, that is what the Horizon League has mandated their league members do.

Depends, do they want their schools' name on the Title IX lawsuit, or not?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

It was prevalent to think that eventually it would happen in FCS but I mentioned Liberty by name, now that I've patted myself on the back enough you can go back to your regularly-scheduled topics

Yeah I would think Liberty would be one of the top 3 that would do this first. You guessed it right but it just didn't seem like you were taking a big gamble so I was wondering if someone had specifically said you were full of **** or something like that. xlolx

[centennial]

This has the potential to upset the power balance in the FCS. Can the few schools that do this start recruiting at a higher level? I have to believe so. NDSU recruited 12-14 two star players in 2015, can we upgrade even higher? Same for Liberty are they going to displace Coastal Carolina as the best Big South program?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Yeah I would think Liberty would be one of the top 3 that would do this first. You guessed it right but it just didn't seem like you were taking a big gamble so I was wondering if someone had specifically said you were full of **** or something like that. xlolx

That's never, ever happened before xlolx

[FargoBison]

Depends, do they want their schools' name on the Title IX lawsuit, or not?

What are you talking about? The Horizon mandate is MBB and a women sport or sports of the school's choice. Completely in compliance with title IX.

This doesn't have to be done for the entire athletic department, schools can and will pick and chose.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

This has the potential to upset the power balance in the FCS. Can the few schools that do this start recruiting at a higher level? I have to believe so. NDSU recruited 12-14 two star players in 2015, can we upgrade even higher? Same for Liberty are they going to displace Coastal Carolina as the best Big South program?


Sure it will.

NDSU will start doing this very soon and the other Valley schools will try to keep up or lose recruiting battles.

It is definitely an incentive for a potential HS recruit to see this offered. I would definitely go to a school over another that didn't offer it.

[knucklehead]

On Coastal's board, it seems most are mad at LU and don't want CCU to do this. I'd have thought their fans would react more like NDSI fans and Say it's time to do it too.

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

This has the potential to upset the power balance in the FCS. Can the few schools that do this start recruiting at a higher level? I have to believe so. NDSU recruited 12-14 two star players in 2015, can we upgrade even higher? Same for Liberty are they going to displace Coastal Carolina as the best Big South program?

I doubt. There's still a relatively small pool of recruits that Liberty can attract given its profile. Coastal Carolina is a public university that is meant to appeal to the masses. Both will remain on their current path imo....

[pokefan02]

It has been said that a school can give this aid to one player, all players, or however they see fit. This also has no bearing on Title IX considerations.

Sent from my HTC M8

[knucklehead]

For Liberty it's now official and for all 20 sports: http://www.liberty.edu/flames/index.cfm?PID=10869&NewsID=14576&TeamID=

[heath]

It was prevalent to think that eventually it would happen in FCS but I mentioned Liberty by name, now that I've patted myself on the back enough you can go back to your regularly-scheduled topics
You have patted yourself on the back and stroked your front because no one gives a crap about your uneducated stupor. You get 1 right and 100 wrong. Not only do you start rumors about the FCS, but hell, anyone that KNOWS LU football thinks you are an embarrassment. See you at the spring game/scrimmage? Just so full of it.xnodx

[IBleedYellow]

For Liberty it's now official and for all 20 sports: http://www.liberty.edu/flames/index.cfm?PID=10869&NewsID=14576&TeamID=

Impressive that they are covering all sports. Props to LU for taking initiative. I wonder how much this is about wanting to get to the FBS and about competing more at the FCS level (both, IMO.)

[Lehigh Football Nation]

You have patted yourself on the back and stroked your front because no one gives a crap about your uneducated stupor. You get 1 right and 100 wrong. Not only do you start rumors about the FCS, but hell, anyone that KNOWS LU football thinks you are an embarrassment. See you at the spring game/scrimmage? Just so full of it.xnodx

I'll be looking forward to reading your blog and cataloging your contributions as to how to improve FCS:

[chattanoogamocs]

I know Chattanooga is already preparing the eventuality of COA, any good AD has to be thinking about it and how to pay for it. I just didn't think the domino's would start falling this quickly at the FCS level. It's just reality that if you want to be near at or near the top of FCS, this is inevitable (whether we like it or not).

[Twentysix]

Impressive that they are covering all sports. Props to LU for taking initiative. I wonder how much this is about wanting to get to the FBS and about competing more at the FCS level (both, IMO.)

Liberty is also a cash machine university and this is more press.

[walliver]

It makes sense for Liberty. This is an institution trying to establish itself as the Evangelical counterpart to Notre Dame and Brigham Young. The extra cost of COA money will be buried in the basic tuition and general budget of the school, and will not be publicly released, and no new student fees will be required (they can just tweak tuition a bit).

I suspect that private schools will have an easier time implementing COA than public schools, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of the schools felt least likely to implement COA will actually do so on a case-by-case basis.

[WestCoastAggie]

Liberty would do better as an FCS indy at this point. This COA gives them a serious advantage over their Big South Counterparts, many of which cannot afford to increase their SF to pay for COA.

[knucklehead]

Liberty would do better as an FCS indy at this point. This COA gives them a serious disadvantage over their Big South Counterparts, many of which cannot afford to increase their SF to pay for COA.
I assume you mean advantage?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Liberty's decision is worthy of its own blog post, but here's a preview: They may not only be pricing themselves out of FCS, but of low-level FBS as well.

[knucklehead]

Liberty's decision is worthy of its own blog post, but here's a preview: They may not only be pricing themselves out of FCS, but of low-level FBS as well.
So are you saying G5s are not going to do this? Or less of this?

[centennial]

Liberty's decision is worthy of its own blog post, but here's a preview: They may not only be pricing themselves out of FCS, but of low-level FBS as well.
I don't agree with this. I expect more than one from MVFC to do COA, same with Big Sky and the CAA. Most of these programs would consider FBS. They would be more attractive as move ups. Perhaps with COA Sun Belt might be hesitant to add them, however they did add GoSu and ASU both of which are strong programs and will probably offer COA's. What this really does is makes the top of the FCS even more exclusive. Top programs in the MVFC, CAA, Big Sky and a few others already have a recruiting advantage, this could become even more skewed.

[knucklehead]

I think CAA said no at the conference level.

[WileECoyote06]

IMHO, the FCS schools teams who can implement FCOA should be pushed into FBS. FCS is a cost-control division, and programs who implement FCOA have too much of a recruiting advantage.

[centennial]

I think CAA said no at the conference level.
Link? If that is true, that will change the landscape of the FCS.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

So are you saying G5s are not going to do this? Or less of this?


I don't agree with this. I expect more than one from MVFC to do COA, same with Big Sky and the CAA. Most of these programs would consider FBS. They would be more attractive as move ups. Perhaps with COA Sun Belt might be hesitant to add them, however they did add GoSu and ASU both of which are strong programs and will probably offer COA's. What this really does is makes the top of the FCS even more exclusive. Top programs in the MVFC, CAA, Big Sky and a few others already have a recruiting advantage, this could become even more skewed.

Two points here:

1. Conferences cannot restrict this at a conference level, or else they are subject to pending lawsuits. It's implemented on a school-by-school basis, so, if Richmond decides to implement it across their athletic department, the CAA can't prevent them from doing so. The options available at a conference level for G5 and FCS schools to limit this are extremely limited if not nonexistent.

2. FCS teams are only attractive as move-ups if G5 schools and conferences are completely on board with FCOA, which is absolutely not the case.

Eastern Michigan of the MAC and UL-Monroe of the Sun Belt cannot, so there's two conferences that are still trying to make the math work. It seems likely to me that both will have some that do, and others (maybe even most) that don't.

C-USA sees its newest member, ODU, severely addled by new legislation that requires them to lower their student fees by 20% over the next ten years - adding $20 million of new expenses for scholarships over the next ten years makes that much, much harder to meet. UAB discontinuing their program doesn't exactly invoke a lot of confidence that other schools can meet FCOA, either.

The AAC and Mountain West seem more likely to have all its members adopt it, but there are legitimate concerns there, too. It's easy to see Boise State and UConn adopt FCOA, but what about Wyoming and SMU? Certainly more schools have the capability, but not all.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I think CAA said no at the conference level.

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-fcs-schools-need-to-be-very.html


A recent Q&A by Southland commissioner Tom Burnett was a real eye-opener as to the impacts of full cost of attendance, something that all the Southland presidents were reportedly against.

"Following the approval in January of the five autonomy items," he said, "all of which are permissive but not mandated for the remainder of Division I membership, the [Southland] presidents met again to discuss future possibilities. The group determined that the autonomy legislation be permissive for Southland athletic programs to apply as they see fit, but that there be no Conference mandate to either follow the autonomy rules or to prohibit any member from doing so. Thus, Southland members can follow any of the autonomous legislation."

And why can't there be a conference mandate to tell members to, say, not implement FCOA for its football programs?

"Our league, like many other conferences, has been advised by legal counsel against colluding as an organization, prohibiting our members from following approved NCAA legislation," he said. "The decision whether or not to follow NCAA autonomous legislation is completely up to each Division I institution."

...

Some folks like William and Mary athletic director Terry Driscoll, say there's not a big "appetite" at the FCS level cost of attendance. To him, he doesn't seem to think it will have much traction at the schools that compete there.

"It's primarily because it's a financial issue," he told the Daily Press. "In addition to the regular cost of scholarships, it would place a burden. There may be some institutions that are in a position to do that. I would say at William and Mary, we're not in a position to create a cost of attendance across our entire athletic department."

That may be true - for now. But the important fact appears to be: should an individual school decide that it needs to offer full cost of attendance, there's nothing that an FCS conference can really do to stop it.

At least now those who jumped all over my ass for making this quote into a BFD now might have a slight understanding why it is/was a BFD.

[WestCoastAggie]

A new Sub-Division needs to be created ASAP.

[JMU2004]

CAA

http://www.richmond.com/sports/article_dd52cca8-59d3-5f5e-9533-908ff7be11d4.html?_dc=971921821823.3436

[ursus arctos horribilis]

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-fcs-schools-need-to-be-very.html



At least now those who jumped all over my ass for making this quote into a BFD now might have a slight understanding why it is/was a BFD.

No. You are still off track.

[knucklehead]

A new Sub-Division needs to be created ASAP.
What FCSCOA?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

CAA

http://www.richmond.com/sports/article_dd52cca8-59d3-5f5e-9533-908ff7be11d4.html?_dc=971921821823.3436

"Seems unlikely" is a lot different than "no".

[ursus arctos horribilis]

"Seems unlikely" is a lot different than "no".

I also think "seems unlikely" will quickly turn to "seems likely" if CAA teams see a lot of BSC, MVFC, or another number of schools doing it. It would only take a small number of schools doing it and it will spread widely, quickly.

[walliver]

I suspect very few FCS schools will go "all-in" for COA. Coming up with money for 63 COA scholarships will be hard enough, but coming up with 63 female COA scholarships will be much harder.

I don't know where Liberty fits in in the New World Order. They are spending their way our of the Big South (and FCS) but may have trouble finding a fit in FBS. They definitely don't fit in with the directional public schools in the SunBelt (or the old Sun Belt now called C-USA). They are a geographic outlier to the MWC, and don't seem a good fit to the MAC. I don't see the AAC being interested. They could probably sue their way into FBS, but as an FBS independent with the cache of BYU or Notre Dame (which really isn't independent anymore), making out a decent football schedule would be very difficult.

My guess is that Liberty stays put for a while since they have nowhere else to go. The Big South is unlikely to kick them out since they struggle to keep their conference numbers up to keep their auto bid.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

USA Today's Dan Wolken weighed in. Interesting piece.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/04/15/liberty-university-ncaa-full-cost-of-attendance-fcs-fbs/25825491/


There's another element at play here, though: What does this mean potentially for FCS?

One athletics director at another FCS football power told USA TODAY Sports the expectation within the industry was that a very small number schools with aspirations of eventually moving up to FBS would likely offer cost of attendance and a few others with significant resources — like, perhaps, a Coastal Carolina — would think about it. The athletics director spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the topic.

[WestCoastAggie]

Its time for a new sub-division or the removal of the rule that prevents schools from moving up without a conference.

[Missingnumber7]

I fail to understand why they need to create a new sub-division. It is going to be no different for other sports do they need to create a subdivison for basketball as well?

[WileECoyote06]

FOCA for 18 scholarships, is much less of a burden than FOCA for 126 scholarships. If too many FCS schools implement FCOA for football; schools who cannot afford it will either try to force a split in the division, or schools will drop football altogether.

[PAllen]

Just what we need, yet another subdivision. Well, let's see, we can have the P5, the G5, FCS schools with FCOA, FCS without, the HBCUs, the non-scholly FCS. We could just go back to adding "A"s after the D-I moniker and look like New York high schools. (IA, IAA, IAAA, IAAAA, IAAAAA, IAAAAAA, IAAAAAAA)

[Sader87]

I think very few FCS schools will go the CoA route imo. Seems like a 1-A/FBS issue in general.

[centennial]

I've said this before the power structure of college football will change with the COA. P5 >> G5 with COA > FCS with COA >= G5 without COA> FCS without COA but full scholie >> FCS without scholies or COA

[UAalum72]

We could just go back to adding "A"s after the D-I moniker and look like New York high schools. (IA, IAA, IAAA, IAAAA, IAAAAA, IAAAAAA, IAAAAAAA)
Actually that's just about every state EXCEPT New York. NY Public High Schools are classed AA, A, B, C and D. Maybe that's less confusing than counting A's.

[FargoBison]

So are you saying G5s are not going to do this? Or less of this?

Didn't Ark State already commit to this as well as the MAC. Maybe a school like EMU will say no but honestly EMU football hardly has a pulse anyway.

I think a strong majority of the G5 will do this and it is basically mandatory in the P5 of course they TV money flowing to pay for it.

[FargoBison]

IMHO, the FCS schools teams who can implement FCOA should be pushed into FBS. FCS is a cost-control division, and programs who implement FCOA have too much of a recruiting advantage.

Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked if that happens at some point. The P5 doesn't really care if there are more G5 schools, the G5 might care but the P5 writes the rules and the G5 does what its told.

[clenz]

Then there are those of us who were called idiots, and what not, a couple years ago who said things like "there will be a time between 2015 and 2020 where the FCS as we know it won't exist because there is going to be a split in the FBS, then a split in the FCS and the top FCS will join the lower FBS and the rest of the FCS will be an after thought."


Well....2015 hits and there's a lot of smoke to that type of thing. I'm not normally a I told you so kind of guy....but...

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[knucklehead]

So, let's see, a new FBS conference with the likes of: Liberty, JMU, Richmond, NDSU, Montana, Coastal, etc? Count me in!

- - - Updated - - -

Good read USA Today article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/04/15/liberty-university-ncaa-full-cost-of-attendance-fcs-fbs/25825491/

But one way or another, Liberty's announcement this week that it will offer full cost of attendance scholarships for all 20 sports including football — the first Football Championship Subdivision program to do so — is a potential game-changer for the school and maybe even all of Division I.
"We're certainly trying to operate our program at the highest level possible," athletics director Jeff Barber told USA TODAY Sports in a phone interview Wednesday.


For all of Liberty's ambition, in reality there has been resistance to add the Flames to a league at the presidential level. There are plenty of theories for that. Part of it could be the school's Evangelical bent and some politically-charged controversies in its past. Another element is the school's massive online enrollment, which could be off-putting to presidents of more traditional universities. There's also a financial element: Some schools, particularly in a league like the Sun Belt, don't want a competitor coming in with a budget that blows everybody out of the water. In that respect, Liberty may be too financially sound.

[KPSUL]

No surprise that Liberty would be first to try to buy their way to the top of the FCS. Indoor soccer field. largest artificial surface freestyle ski and snowboard facility in the US. Large ice rink for a club sports hockey team. They spend more money on club sports teams than many schools spend on varsity programs. Liberty is all athletic facilities and churches, I've been on campus a dozen time and I still don't know where they hold classes.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

So, let's see, a new FBS conference with the likes of: Liberty, JMU, Richmond, NDSU, Montana, Coastal, etc? Count me in!

- - - Updated - - -

Good read USA Today article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/04/15/liberty-university-ncaa-full-cost-of-attendance-fcs-fbs/25825491/

I hope to never see Montana FBS unless there is a playoff with equal chance per conference as in the FCS version. The FBS is more costly and less attractive now than it probably ever has been in my eyes.

[Sader87]

FCS schools that want to go the FCoA route for football really don't get it imo....boys, this isn't the "entertaiment biz" level for college football.....

[WileECoyote06]

Liberty is playing us like Zartan:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzvnDaL8bnc

[PAllen]

Actually that's just about every state EXCEPT New York. NY Public High Schools are classed AA, A, B, C and D. Maybe that's less confusing than counting A's.

Actually I was going for the 6 or seven different divisions that NY has as opposed to most states which have three or four

[clenz]

Actually I was going for the 6 or seven different divisions that NY has as opposed to most states which have three or four
Why not just call it

2A
3A
4A


It's what Iowa does. No "a counting" needed

[thebootfitter]

FCS schools that want to go the FCoA route for football really don't get it imo....boys, this isn't the "entertaiment biz" level for college football.....
This is kind of funny, imho. Regardless of what level football you play, if you're not playing to be competitive within the rules, what is the point of playing at all?

[walliver]

FCS schools that want to go the FCoA route for football really don't get it imo....boys, this isn't the "entertaiment biz" level for college football.....

I don't think FCOA necessarily goes against the FCS philosophy. Providing it to ALL athletes doesn't make sense, but there are athletes at many FCS schools who come from truly poor families who need a little extra help. As football players and full-time students, part-time jobs are not really an option.

[Pinnum]

I don't think FCOA necessarily goes against the FCS philosophy. Providing it to ALL athletes doesn't make sense, but there are athletes at many FCS schools who come from truly poor families who need a little extra help. As football players and full-time students, part-time jobs are not really an option.

That could be said about D2, D3, NAIA, NJCAA football players as well as members of the basketball, wrestling, and track teams.

The idea behind FCS was to allow another tier for the D1 schools that didn't want to be in the arms race and commit to the expenses of the 85 scholarships. FCOA is absurd. It doesn't matter that there may be some kids from poor families. Why would you say it makes sense for schools in the division for D1 schools not willing to make the full commitment to football to offer it to their football players but it doesn't make sense to offer it to the baseball or soccer players at the school that don't have their own national championship against other schools not willing to make the maximum commitment allowed?

Liberty has FBS aspirations and they don't hide it. Everyone knows they are just waiting for an invite to a conference.

[CrazyCat]

The Big Human responds to FCOA.


“Why should the privileged be more privileged? That’s the way I look at it,” Kramer said. “Because if you’re playing a sport, playing a game, you’re not working. No one says we work football. No one says we work track and field. So you’re playing a sport and you’re getting tuition, room, board, books and fees. That’s plenty.”

http://www.idahostatejournal.com/members/isu-football-kramer-says-paying-full-cost-of-attendance-not/article_8def3a12-e31c-11e4-a6da-33ea61a3065a.html#.VS8o74ya8KQ.twitter

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I don't think FCOA necessarily goes against the FCS philosophy. Providing it to ALL athletes doesn't make sense, but there are athletes at many FCS schools who come from truly poor families who need a little extra help. As football players and full-time students, part-time jobs are not really an option.

The idea of FCOA is pretty much only intended for headcount sports, i.e. either you're on scholarship, or not. Very little effort was made to define how it would work for ALL equivalency sports, which FCS football is. This is one major area of problem that was not resolved.

The only read "headcount sports" are FBS football and D-I men's basketball, so you can say that FCOA technically is against what FCS is about.

[Nova09]

The idea of FCOA is pretty much only intended for headcount sports, i.e. either you're on scholarship, or not. Very little effort was made to define how it would work for ALL equivalency sports, which FCS football is. This is one major area of problem that was not resolved.

The only read "headcount sports" are FBS football and D-I men's basketball, so you can say that FCOA technically is against what FCS is about.

Was wondering when this would come up in the discussion. People don't understand that an FCS team can declare itself FCOA but not actually provide ANYONE FCOA--rather, give more scholarship dollars to other people. Sure, the NCAA has used strong language to declare this "not consistent with the intent," but that's all rhetoric. There is nothing about how the rule is written to prevent it.

Here's an example if you're not following what I'm saying: an FCS team might have high 40s people on "full ride" and low 30s on "half scholarship." Let's say 47 full and 32 half. Now they declare that they are offering FCOA--thus changing their denominator. But they don't actually increase the numerator for any of those 79 people on scholarship. What they do instead is suddenly find they have 5-6 more scholarships to offer, so they just offer those as full scholarships to other athletes they never would have had in the first place. Instead of operating in the FCS model of 63 total scholarships, which are allowed to be divided into partial scholarships, now they are operating with 68-70 scholarships, so not FBS level but significantly more than the rest of FCS.

[FargoBison]

The idea of FCOA is pretty much only intended for headcount sports, i.e. either you're on scholarship, or not. Very little effort was made to define how it would work for ALL equivalency sports, which FCS football is. This is one major area of problem that was not resolved.

The only read "headcount sports" are FBS football and D-I men's basketball, so you can say that FCOA technically is against what FCS is about.

I think volleyball(women's) and WBB are also headcount sports, non-headcount sports were always going to come into play due to title IX. Need to balance 98 men's cost of attendance stipends with women's stipends. VB and WBB obviously aren't enough, guessing they will have to tighten up some of the rules.

[Hammersmith]

Was wondering when this would come up in the discussion. People don't understand that an FCS team can declare itself FCOA but not actually provide ANYONE FCOA--rather, give more scholarship dollars to other people. Sure, the NCAA has used strong language to declare this "not consistent with the intent," but that's all rhetoric. There is nothing about how the rule is written to prevent it.

Here's an example if you're not following what I'm saying: an FCS team might have high 40s people on "full ride" and low 30s on "half scholarship." Let's say 47 full and 32 half. Now they declare that they are offering FCOA--thus changing their denominator. But they don't actually increase the numerator for any of those 79 people on scholarship. What they do instead is suddenly find they have 5-6 more scholarships to offer, so they just offer those as full scholarships to other athletes they never would have had in the first place. Instead of operating in the FCS model of 63 total scholarships, which are allowed to be divided into partial scholarships, now they are operating with 68-70 scholarships, so not FBS level but significantly more than the rest of FCS.

It works really well if you do it for in-state kids on full scholarship. (assuming you're a public school with differentiated tuition) In a best case scenario, I figure NDSU could offer over 13 extra scholarships in FB. More realistically it would be in the 6-10 range. I saw this happening from the moment I read the changed bylaws back in January.

[Tealblood]

Was wondering when this would come up in the discussion. People don't understand that an FCS team can declare itself FCOA but not actually provide ANYONE FCOA--rather, give more scholarship dollars to other people. Sure, the NCAA has used strong language to declare this "not consistent with the intent," but that's all rhetoric. There is nothing about how the rule is written to prevent it.

Here's an example if you're not following what I'm saying: an FCS team might have high 40s people on "full ride" and low 30s on "half scholarship." Let's say 47 full and 32 half. Now they declare that they are offering FCOA--thus changing their denominator. But they don't actually increase the numerator for any of those 79 people on scholarship. What they do instead is suddenly find they have 5-6 more scholarships to offer, so they just offer those as full scholarships to other athletes they never would have had in the first place. Instead of operating in the FCS model of 63 total scholarships, which are allowed to be divided into partial scholarships, now they are operating with 68-70 scholarships, so not FBS level but significantly more than the rest of FCS.


ding ding ding winner

- - - Updated - - -

Same will happen on sports like baseball

[Bisonoline]

It works really well if you do it for in-state kids on full scholarship. (assuming you're a public school with differentiated tuition) In a best case scenario, I figure NDSU could offer over 13 extra scholarships in FB. More realistically it would be in the 6-10 range. I saw this happening from the moment I read the changed bylaws back in January.

You dont think the NCAA hasnt thought of this and will require a full accounting of money spent? ex Hmmmm Mr Smith is on a fullride. The cost is X. So with COA he should be receiving Y but hes not?

[Hammersmith]

You dont think the NCAA hasnt thought of this and will require a full accounting of money spent? ex Hmmmm Mr Smith is on a fullride. The cost is X. So with COA he should be receiving Y but hes not?

Because you never refer to it as a full grant-in-aid in any documentation. You list it as a partial that fully covers tuition, fees, books, room and board. All the things the regular full ride covers. Instead of giving a percentage on the recruit's NLI, you give a dollar value.

Unless they rewrite some of the rules before this fall, there is nothing the manual preventing this.

[Bisonoline]

Because you never refer to it as a full grant-in-aid in any documentation. You list it as a partial that fully covers tuition, fees, books, room and board. All the things the regular full ride covers. Instead of giving a percentage on the recruit's NLI, you give a dollar value.

Unless they rewrite some of the rules before this fall, there is nothing the manual preventing this.

Wow. Thanks for the info. I cant believe the NCAA as anal as they are about extra benefits etc haven't figured this out.

[Pinnum]

The legislation I read (from the Pac-12) stated for equivalency sports (where they can divide scholarships between multiple students) they will award the FCOA stipend based on the counter as applied to that student.

Say, for instance, let's say Liberty costs $20,000 a year for tuition, books, fees, room and board then this would be the cost of the scholarship (which is applied the same as the old standard before the FCOA legislation). So a full ride would be a counter of 1.0 against the total scholarship limit. This 1.0, as far as an athlete is concerned is the same for any school. It doesn't matter if Liberty only costs $20,000 and another expensive school costs $50,000. As far as the student is concerned their cost of attendance will be covered. So 1.0 at Liberty equals 1.0 at expensive school.

Since FCS is an equivalency sport, as many of you know, a school can divide their scholarships. So Liberty could decide to divide a scholarship between two (or more) kids and they would have a counter applied to them. For instance, if they split the $20,000 scholarship evenly between two kids, they each would become a 0.5 counter against the scholarship limit for a total of 1.0 counter combined.

The new legislation applies the FCOA stipends based on the counters so a student is awarded the FCOA on the percentage equal to their counter.

So how does this change things between Liberty and schools that don't adopt FCOA?

If Liberty determines their FCOA stipend to be $5,000 then any full scholarships athlete with a 1.0 counter would be awarded their $20,000 scholarships plus $5,000 in cash. But if they only give a kid a half scholarships (0.5 counter) then the kid is only able to get half of the FCOA stipend ($2,500). So while Liberty will likely offer some recruits a full 1.0 counter to ensure they don't go to another school, in most instances, they will be able to match a non-FCOA school with much less of an offer against their scholarship limit.

Using the figures above, Liberty could match any non-FCOA school's offer by applying a counter or 0.8 to a recruit. Though a 0.8 counter would only give a kid a 80% scholarship of $16,000 it would also allow the kid to be given 80% of the FCOA stipend which would be $4,000. So in this instance, Liberty is able to cover all of the student's cost of the scholarship, the maximum the non-FCOA school can do, with it counting much less against their scholarship limit.

Under this scenario, the non-FCOA schools would have to offer nearly 74 scholarships to match the number of full scholarship equivalencies that Liberty could offer using their 63.

Really, the best way to think of this is as a salary cap. The scholarship limits were always intended to be a salary cap. But now the FCOA is a fringe benefit that allows certain teams and conferences to raise the salary cap under the guise of looking out for the student athlete.

The BCS conferences know that this will be very effective in ensuring the non-BCS schools are not able to continue the trend of increasing parity. By offering FCOA to all sports the BCS schools will be able to dominate in all sports which includes a lot of the sports like Baseball, Softball, Wrestling, Gymnastics, and LAX which are all starting to see a significant increase in TV viewership with the expansion of conference TV packages. (Did you know the Softball Women's College World Series has posted better TV ratings than the NHL Stanley Cup also held at the same time?)

Non-BCS schools that try to keep up and offer FCOA will ultimately lose out because their limited budgets will result on them not being able to retain coaching staffs. The biggest problem in basketball (where most conferences are deciding to limit the offering of FCOA) is going to be retaining young and talented assistant coaches that are good recruiters.

The times they are a changing and if you're not in a P5 conference you're going to find it much harder for your athletic department to be able to compete.

[Catsfan90]

I don't think FCOA necessarily goes against the FCS philosophy. Providing it to ALL athletes doesn't make sense, but there are athletes at many FCS schools who come from truly poor families who need a little extra help. As football players and full-time students, part-time jobs are not really an option.
So are you saying that students could apply for financial hardship waivers? And receive assistance based off of family income, etc?

[walliver]

So are you saying that students could apply for financial hardship waivers? And receive assistance based off of family income, etc?

It Wouldn't need a waiver.

Basically, a school could chose to give a FCOA bonus only to selected students, not the whole team.

The main down-side to this is that it would be tempting to offer money to better athletes, which would eventually lead to money for everyone.

[Catsfan90]

It Wouldn't need a waiver.

Basically, a school could chose to give a FCOA bonus only to selected students, not the whole team.

The main down-side to this is that it would be tempting to offer money to better athletes, which would eventually lead to money for everyone.
That could also backfire in the sence that it could potentially be used to buy recruits much like the SMU scandals.

[Dane96]

I-A? Sure, but not every Division I school. Cost of attendance applies to all scholarship sports, not just men's basketball, and I'm not sure that it makes cost sense for a Savannah State or an NJIT or a San Francisco to offer it across all sports.

Exactly. The America East is not going full-cost across the conference. In fact, the Commissioner specifically called out the football and hockey playing schools of the AE as schools who MAY choose to offer Full-cost for those specific sports. So, if, for example, Albany goes full-cost for football...it may choose to go full-cost for 63 women scholarships to ensure title IX. That said, I do know that our HC for Men's hoops has gotten leadership "promises" to up the ante for facilities and, I'd presume, full-cost. That would mean 30 other full-cost rides for both men's and women's hoop.

[Dane96]

Two points here:

1. Conferences cannot restrict this at a conference level, or else they are subject to pending lawsuits. It's implemented on a school-by-school basis, so, if Richmond decides to implement it across their athletic department, the CAA can't prevent them from doing so. The options available at a conference level for G5 and FCS schools to limit this are extremely limited if not nonexistent.

2. FCS teams are only attractive as move-ups if G5 schools and conferences are completely on board with FCOA, which is absolutely not the case.

Eastern Michigan of the MAC and UL-Monroe of the Sun Belt cannot, so there's two conferences that are still trying to make the math work. It seems likely to me that both will have some that do, and others (maybe even most) that don't.

C-USA sees its newest member, ODU, severely addled by new legislation that requires them to lower their student fees by 20% over the next ten years - adding $20 million of new expenses for scholarships over the next ten years makes that much, much harder to meet. UAB discontinuing their program doesn't exactly invoke a lot of confidence that other schools can meet FCOA, either.

The AAC and Mountain West seem more likely to have all its members adopt it, but there are legitimate concerns there, too. It's easy to see Boise State and UConn adopt FCOA, but what about Wyoming and SMU? Certainly more schools have the capability, but not all.

Sigh. Actually, conferences CAN restrict this at the conference level. Being a member of a conference is a privilege, not a right. The same is true as a member of the NCAA, irrespective of what was advised by the Southland Conference legal counsel.

But let's not worry about basic Constitutional Law. However, from an optics perspective, it's unlikely that a conference will restrict any school at the conference level.

That said, the NCAA is due for a massive lawsuit, sometime in the near future, on anti-trust grounds. I've been saying it forever...and it would be bad for all. It's why Utah backed off their lawsuit, and the NEC's threatened lawsuit (for a playoff spot) was a veiled threat. It will take major cajones to break down the system...but the NCAA is making itself a particularly easy target, of late.

Carry on.

[WestCoastAggie]

A&T is looking at offering FCOA of some kind, at some point. I also suspect Murray State will look at it.

[PAllen]

That could also backfire in the sence that it could potentially be used to buy recruits much like the SMU scandals.

As opposed to the cars and houses that got USC a slap on the wrist? The days of the SMU scandals are long gone. The NCAA is a money machine and will turn a blind eye to any malfeasance until they're sure that their paycheck is secure. Yes, FCOA opens up a whole realm of possibilities for those who want to break the "intent" of the NCAA mission. That's the whole point.

[PAllen]

Sigh. Actually, conferences CAN restrict this at the conference level. Being a member of a conference is a privilege, not a right. The same is true as a member of the NCAA, irrespective of what was advised by the Southland Conference legal counsel.

But let's not worry about basic Constitutional Law. However, from an optics perspective, it's unlikely that a conference will restrict any school at the conference level.

That said, the NCAA is due for a massive lawsuit, sometime in the near future, on anti-trust grounds. I've been saying it forever...and it would be bad for all. It's why Utah backed off their lawsuit, and the NEC's threatened lawsuit (for a playoff spot) was a veiled threat. It will take major cajones to break down the system...but the NCAA is making itself a particularly easy target, of late.

Carry on.

Utah and the NEC backed off because they got what they wanted.

[Dane96]

Ultimately, yes. But the legal premise was valid. Lengthy and expensive battles were not palatable to the NCAA, the NEC, and Utah.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Sigh. Actually, conferences CAN restrict this at the conference level. Being a member of a conference is a privilege, not a right. The same is true as a member of the NCAA, irrespective of what was advised by the Southland Conference legal counsel.

Conferences cannot deny a school the ability to offer FCOA - that's what no conference wants to test. Case in point, Liberty. It is in the Big South's interest to restrict Liberty from offering FCOA, especially in football, but they can't and won't.

Limiting FCOA to some sports (mens/women's basketball) seems to be the route that conferences want to pursue. IMO I don't think that will be enough for Title IX purposes. Conferences seem mixed on the issue, with some going full steam ahead on "basketball only at a conference level", others being much more cautious.

[Dane96]

Conference are made up of contractual affiliations. If the conference President's vote for FCOA as a mandatory requirement and a school failed to institute, they could kick a school out.

SEE: TEMPLE, BIG EAST. Failure to abide by league minimum standards.

SEE: ATTENDANCE. DIVISION 1. FBS. 15,000 fans. Legally, the NCAA could boot many schools that fail to meet the standard.

This is contracts and con law 101, and I would really love to hear an argument that supports the contrary position.

However, I do agree with you that it is unlikely to occur because of the mishmash of Private and Public Colleges in almost every conference. The optics involved with the public schools being forced into such a proposition would be something no President would want to endure. Therefore, it's unlikely to ever happen.

Legally, there is no such argument against a league from doing so.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Conference are made up of contractual affiliations. If the conference President's vote for FCOA as a mandatory requirement and a school failed to institute, they could kick a school out.

SEE: TEMPLE, BIG EAST. Failure to abide by league minimum standards.

SEE: ATTENDANCE. DIVISION 1. FBS. 15,000 fans. Legally, the NCAA could boot many schools that fail to meet the standard.

This is contracts and con law 101, and I would really love to hear an argument that supports the contrary position.

However, I do agree with you that it is unlikely to occur because of the mishmash of Private and Public Colleges in almost every conference. The optics involved with the public schools being forced into such a proposition would be something no President would want to endure. Therefore, it's unlikely to ever happen.

Legally, there is no such argument against a league from doing so.

Legally they can't kick someone out for following NCAA-approved legislation, however, which is what FCOA is. Yes, it's "permissive", but it's still NCAA legislation.

For example, I don't believe the Patriot League hypothetically to kick out Fordham because they offered conventional scholarships and the rest of the league didn't. They could prohibit them from winning the league title, and say their stats "don't count" for postseason awards and the like - all things that the league did, even though it wasn't done to punish Fordham as much as to keep the playing field level for the rest of the league. But if they had kicked them out because of it, they could have been sued, because they would have still been NCAA members in good standing and would have abided by all of the NCAA's rules.

Temple's eviction from the Big East was not because of NCAA rules, but of self-imposed restrictions above and beyond the scope of the NCAA's rules. Temple's violation of those self-imposed restrictions wasn't a result of them following NCAA legislation. But if a conference prohibits a school from following FCOA, it prevents them from following NCAA legislation. There is a big difference.

[Dane96]

Whoak...whatever you say, counselor.

[Pinnum]

Legally they can't kick someone out for following NCAA-approved legislation, however, which is what FCOA is. Yes, it's "permissive", but it's still NCAA legislation.

For example, I don't believe the Patriot League hypothetically to kick out Fordham because they offered conventional scholarships and the rest of the league didn't. They could prohibit them from winning the league title, and say their stats "don't count" for postseason awards and the like - all things that the league did, even though it wasn't done to punish Fordham as much as to keep the playing field level for the rest of the league. But if they had kicked them out because of it, they could have been sued, because they would have still been NCAA members in good standing and would have abided by all of the NCAA's rules.

Temple's eviction from the Big East was not because of NCAA rules, but of self-imposed restrictions above and beyond the scope of the NCAA's rules. Temple's violation of those self-imposed restrictions wasn't a result of them following NCAA legislation. But if a conference prohibits a school from following FCOA, it prevents them from following NCAA legislation. There is a big difference.

Are you trying to make the claim that if Campbell started offering 60 football scholarships the non-scholarship Pioneer League could not kick them out of the league because the NCAA allows for the scholarships so the league's only recourse would be to Campbell's stats unofficial?

That is not accurate.

It is my understanding the Patriot League kept the relationship with Fordham merely as a scheduling alliance so all parties involved didn't have to try to fill games while the Patriot League members further discussed merit scholarships.

[Bill]

Hmm... I think the issue we have here is with the word "legal". I believe conferences have every right to toss a member for not complying with conference rules - I don't see it as a legal/enforceable contract with damages issue.

Absurd example: The resurgent Columbia Lions under Bags decide (after being declared IVY champs in 2015) that despite Ivy conference policy, they will be accepting the NCAA playoff berth (assuming one is extended to them). The Ivy league proceeds to boot them all the way uptown and out of the Ivy league. Can the Columbia sue the Ivy league? I don't think there's any merit there. The conference is preventing them from competing.

Full disclosure: I'm not a practicing attorney, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[centennial]

Full disclosure: I'm not a practicing attorney, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
That is good enough.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The PFL can have a conference rule "we do not allow our members to give athletic aid to our football athletes" because there is no NCAA rule mandating that Division I FCS football teams offer football scholarships.

However a conference cannot have a conference rule saying, "We are prohibiting schools from adopting FCOA", because FCOA is permissive at an institutional level.

Conferences appear to be making statements saying that "We require our members to offer FCOA for certain programs". The reason for that is, according to the NCAA (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2014-15%20Autonomy%20Legislation%20Q%20and%20A%20Vol%20 3.pdf), conferences "have the discretion to determine conference and/or institutional positions on applying autonomy legislation". Note that this doesn't say anything about restricting it, only applying it.

Conferences seem to feel allowing FCOA for men's and women's basketball and evening out the $ will be enough to keep Title IX lawyers from suing them. My position is I disagree.

[DFW HOYA]

For example, I don't believe the Patriot League hypothetically to kick out Fordham because they offered conventional scholarships and the rest of the league didn't. They could prohibit them from winning the league title, and say their stats "don't count" for postseason awards and the like - all things that the league did, even though it wasn't done to punish Fordham as much as to keep the playing field level for the rest of the league. But if they had kicked them out because of it, they could have been sued, because they would have still been NCAA members in good standing and would have abided by all of the NCAA's rules.


Not according to the PL by-laws, where associate members are in the league at the discretion of the school presidents. Quoting:

"Associate membership status may be revoked on notice to the institution’s President at any time and upon 30 days notice in the sole discretion of the Council of Presidents. Revocation will be effective at the conclusion of the particular sport season(s) for which an institution was granted the status of an associate member. This decision shall not be subject to review by any body or court."

[Pinnum]

The PFL can have a conference rule "we do not allow our members to give athletic aid to our football athletes" because there is no NCAA rule mandating that Division I FCS football teams offer football scholarships.

However a conference cannot have a conference rule saying, "We are prohibiting schools from adopting FCOA", because FCOA is permissive at an institutional level.

Conferences appear to be making statements saying that "We require our members to offer FCOA for certain programs". The reason for that is, according to the NCAA (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2014-15%20Autonomy%20Legislation%20Q%20and%20A%20Vol%20 3.pdf), conferences "have the discretion to determine conference and/or institutional positions on applying autonomy legislation". Note that this doesn't say anything about restricting it, only applying it.

Conferences seem to feel allowing FCOA for men's and women's basketball and evening out the $ will be enough to keep Title IX lawyers from suing them. My position is I disagree.

I am really struggling to follow your logic or even argument.

Are you saying that conferences (and institutions) have the freedom to make decisions regarding the application of FCOA but not the ability to make decisions regarding no applying it? How can you have freedom to do one thing if you don't have the freedom for the inverse?

Honestly, I am really trying to understand what you're arguing. Are you saying that FCOA falls outside the purview of competitive balance or that there is another applicable law that would trump the ability for an association to provide any such limits?

And yes, this will be applied at schools in a manner that is compliant with T9. The easiest method to show compliance is to adhere to the proportionality prong and as a result, it likely won't be difficult since women's basketball already offers more scholarship opportunities than men's basketball (15 to 13) which is right about in line with the proportionality of most college campuses. Of course, places like Lehigh, with an engineering focus will have more men than the typical school so it is true that there may be some range in application from school to school within conference but schools have the right to treat different programs differently within an athletic department permitted that it is not on the basis of sex. In the case of the Horizon League (and others) they are prioritizing the sport of basketball, not men's basketball.

[Bisonoline]

[QUOTE=Pinnum;2220105]I am really struggling to follow your logic or even argument.

Glad I am not the only one.

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

Legally they can't kick someone out for following NCAA-approved legislation, however, which is what FCOA is. Yes, it's "permissive", but it's still NCAA legislation.

For example, I don't believe the Patriot League hypothetically to kick out Fordham because they offered conventional scholarships and the rest of the league didn't. They could prohibit them from winning the league title, and say their stats "don't count" for postseason awards and the like - all things that the league did, even though it wasn't done to punish Fordham as much as to keep the playing field level for the rest of the league. But if they had kicked them out because of it, they could have been sued, because they would have still been NCAA members in good standing and would have abided by all of the NCAA's rules.

Temple's eviction from the Big East was not because of NCAA rules, but of self-imposed restrictions above and beyond the scope of the NCAA's rules. Temple's violation of those self-imposed restrictions wasn't a result of them following NCAA legislation. But if a conference prohibits a school from following FCOA, it prevents them from following NCAA legislation. There is a big difference.

This part is correct. The TU administration failed to support the football program at a competent level relative to our conference mates. Rutgers was basically put on the clock around the same time we were, late 90's, but the RU administration and alumni stepped up. Ours did not.

Georgetown is basically the Temple of the PL. At some point I could see the league telling the Hoya's to take a hike. There's been other programs that have been strong armed out of leagues due to poor performance. VMI and the SoCon in the late 90's comes to mind.

I don't believe the Liberty situation has much in common with the above cases. Ultimately, this one will take care of itself imo. I still don't see LU at a competitive advantage via the full cost of attendance. If they decide to move on to FBS they'll still have an up-hill battle from a competitive standpoint relative to the Top 70-80 FBS teams. The Flames have yet to crack into a consistent Top 25 program. It'll be interesting to see if they can build on last year.

I highly doubt Fordham or the PL would have went to court. The CAA would have opened their arms to Fordham while the PL scrambled for plan B. The big boys go to court over their exit fees. There's legitimately millions at stake when those cards shuffle.. That's not the case when FCS or D2 schools get disgruntled.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I am really struggling to follow your logic or even argument.

Are you saying that conferences (and institutions) have the freedom to make decisions regarding the application of FCOA but not the ability to make decisions regarding no applying it? How can you have freedom to do one thing if you don't have the freedom for the inverse?

What I am saying is that conferences don't have the discretion to restrict an institution from wanting to apply FCOA if they, as an institution, choose to do so. The Big South cannot make a rule saying that Liberty is prohibited from implementing FCOA - and indeed, their silence on this development speaks volumes.

The Big South can say they require their institutions to implement FCOA for hoops. That's conference discretion "to determine conference and/or institutional positions on applying autonomy legislation"."

However, I feel that's risky. You appear to think even spending on men's and women's FCOA scholarships will be sufficient, but I'm not sure.

[Hammersmith]

I am really struggling to follow your logic or even argument.

Are you saying that conferences (and institutions) have the freedom to make decisions regarding the application of FCOA but not the ability to make decisions regarding no applying it? How can you have freedom to do one thing if you don't have the freedom for the inverse?

Honestly, I am really trying to understand what you're arguing. Are you saying that FCOA falls outside the purview of competitive balance or that there is another applicable law that would trump the ability for an association to provide any such limits?

And yes, this will be applied at schools in a manner that is compliant with T9. The easiest method to show compliance is to adhere to the proportionality prong and as a result, it likely won't be difficult since women's basketball already offers more scholarship opportunities than men's basketball (15 to 13) which is right about in line with the proportionality of most college campuses. Of course, places like Lehigh, with an engineering focus will have more men than the typical school so it is true that there may be some range in application from school to school within conference but schools have the right to treat different programs differently within an athletic department permitted that it is not on the basis of sex. In the case of the Horizon League (and others) they are prioritizing the sport of basketball, not men's basketball.

Don't try too hard. He gets to the correct answer(conferences are not going to prohibit FCOA), but his logic and reasons are all wrong.

When the autonomy legislation was passed last year, all non-P5 schools and conferences were given an "out". It's called permissibility or permissive legislation. It means schools can choose to follow the new rules or not. Conferences were also given the power to explicitly allow, tacitly allow, or explicitly prohibit member schools from applying the new rules. In the vast majority of the new rules, this is the only consideration.

But student-athlete benefits are a little different. There are currently one or more antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA and conferences on behalf of student-athletes alleging collusion of the conferences to illegally restrict benefits to student-athletes. So far, only the NCAA as a whole, P5 conferences, and P5 conference members have been the target of these lawsuits. The new FCOA legislation is partially a response to these lawsuits. Legal advisors to several conferences have advised their clients that actively prohibiting FCOA at the conference level would be inviting action. Either new lawsuits from student-athletes would come, or their conference would be pulled into an existing lawsuit. As a result, it does not appear that any conferences are going to prohibit FCOA and risk the lawsuit. Members of the Southland, MVFC, and Summit, at the very least, have mentioned this in interviews. (probably several more)


Here is the relevant section of NCAA bylaws that gives conferences the power to prohibit FCOA if they wish:

C. Constitution:
5 Legislative Authority and Process
5.3 Amendment Process.
5.3.2 Division I Legislative Process.
5.3.2.1 Process for Areas of Autonomy.
5.3.2.1.2 Areas of Autonomy.
5.3.2.1.2.2 Application to Other Conferences/Institutions. Legislation set forth as an area of autonomy may be applied by other member institutions at each conference's respective discretion which may include delegation of such discretion to its member institutions.
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Division%20I%20Governance%20Structure%20Proposal%2 0%282014-2%29_0.pdf


And here's an example of a antitrust collusion lawsuit that is keeping smaller conferences from officially prohibiting FCOA legislation:
http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/03/06/3369971/another-antitrust-lawsuit-hits-the-ncaa/


The suit’s collusion claims rest on the fact that the five major conferences have attempted to institute a full cost-of-attendance stipend above the typical scholarship. Smaller Division I schools have prevented the proposal from gaining approval. That suggests, the suit says, that collusive agreements between schools (and aided by NCAA rules) have prevented schools from competing for players in a way that would lead to agreements that would at least cover the full cost-of-attendance.
(remember that this lawsuit was filed before autonomy legislation passed last fall)

[Lehigh Football Nation]

When the autonomy legislation was passed last year, all non-P5 schools and conferences were given an "out". It's called permissibility or permissive legislation. It means schools can choose to follow the new rules or not. Conferences were also given the power to explicitly allow, tacitly allow, or explicitly prohibit member schools from applying the new rules. In the vast majority of the new rules, this is the only consideration

Mostly right, but the highlighted piece is wrong.

They can mandate schools apply it, or mandate schools apply it to certain sports, but they can't prohibit it.

[Hammersmith]

Mostly right, but the highlighted piece is wrong.

They can mandate schools apply it, or mandate schools apply it to certain sports, but they can't prohibit it.

Yes they can. Do you have anything except a misunderstood quote from a Southland official or AD to back up your position? All NCAA legislation meant for the autonomy group will have an 'A' next to it. The NCAA bylaw I quoted says conferences can allow 'A' legislation at their discretion. That means saying explicitly yes or explicitly no. It also says conferences can delegate the discretion to its member schools, which means saying nothing and letting each member school decide.

With regards to FCOA, conferences actually have four choices:
1. Mandate using the FCOA method for scholarship calculation. (Horizon is using this choice for MBB)
2. Put it in writing that member schools can choose which method they wish.
3. Prohibit member schools from using the FCOA scholarship calculation. (danger of lawsuit)
4. Put nothing in writing at all. (effectively the same as #2 - most non-P5 are going to go this route)

Conferences can also mix and match these choices for different sports. For example, the Horizon is using choice #1 for MBB and enough women's sports for Title IX compliance, while likely using choice #4 for everything else.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Man, you guys need to ease up on LFN. Dude's getting crushed by logic and reason here. Is it just me or has he moved into a different version of himself lately? It's more like a MPLFNBison sort of thing it appears.

Misunderstanding one little press release by a Southland rep can have a serious lasting effect apparently, even if it's pointed out right away that you are misunderstanding something. xlolx

Either way, thanks LFN cuz it's been a pretty good read for sure.xthumbsupx

[Pinnum]

Mostly right, but the highlighted piece is wrong.

They can mandate schools apply it, or mandate schools apply it to certain sports, but they can't prohibit it.

When you say they may not. What is the entity you are thinking prevents this? There is no NCAA or conference level policy I am aware of that prevents this and the courts have not decided any case that would set a legal precedent making it illegal under the law.

The Labor Board's decision with Northwestern football merely allows them to organize. The O'Bannon case explicitly says the NCAA can cap compensation to athletes, though the judge gave another arbitrary cap of $5,000.00 a year that the judge wanted to be free from NCAA wide collusion. This is the nearest thing that would support your claim and not wanting to have to pay for a possible legal challenge is the reason a few schools don't want to push for a conference policy to restrict the FCOA. It is simply a chilling effect of the current climate. I do not know of any entity having a policy restricting conferences from being able to restrict FCOA.

Advocates of paying athletes and anti-athlete-pay advocates both agree that the O'Bannon ruling lead to more questions than it provided answers. There will be much more to come.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

With regards to FCOA, conferences actually have four choices:
1. Mandate using the FCOA method for scholarship calculation. (Horizon is using this choice for MBB) (puts them at risk for lawsuit, opinion of LFN)
2. Put it in writing that member schools can choose which method they wish. (most conferences are opting for this path, Patriot League included, hoping and praying every day that nobody actually goes through with it)
3. Prohibit member schools from using the FCOA scholarship calculation. (danger of lawsuit) (no current conference has gone this path, alluded to by Southland statement saying that legal counsel has advised them against it and they're open to a potential lawsuit, plus NCAA Q&A only mentions conference discretion on "applying" FCOA legislation, not prohibiting its members from applying FCOA legislation)
4. Put nothing in writing at all. (effectively the same as #2 - most non-P5 are going to go this route)

Isn't this basically what I've been saying all along (with some minor clarifications added)?

[Dane96]

This part is correct. The TU administration failed to support the football program at a competent level relative to our conference mates. Rutgers was basically put on the clock around the same time we were, late 90's, but the RU administration and alumni stepped up. Ours did not.

Georgetown is basically the Temple of the PL. At some point I could see the league telling the Hoya's to take a hike. There's been other programs that have been strong armed out of leagues due to poor performance. VMI and the SoCon in the late 90's comes to mind.

I don't believe the Liberty situation has much in common with the above cases. Ultimately, this one will take care of itself imo. I still don't see LU at a competitive advantage via the full cost of attendance. If they decide to move on to FBS they'll still have an up-hill battle from a competitive standpoint relative to the Top 70-80 FBS teams. The Flames have yet to crack into a consistent Top 25 program. It'll be interesting to see if they can build on last year.

I highly doubt Fordham or the PL would have went to court. The CAA would have opened their arms to Fordham while the PL scrambled for plan B. The big boys go to court over their exit fees. There's legitimately millions at stake when those cards shuffle.. That's not the case when FCS or D2 schools get disgruntled.

Indeed...my point was simple. A conference can kick a school out for just about any old reason allowed by their By-Laws, A.K.A. contractual relationship.

LFN is missing this point. The conference COULD choose to institute FCOA as a mandate, if done so within the procedures allowed by it's bylaws to institute such policies. If it did pass, and if a school failed to comply, theoretically (and more importantly, legally) the league has the power to boot them.

Would it come to fruition? Highly unlikely, as I stated, because of the poor optics involved...especially with public schools.

I am just glad LFN is not a lawyer. He'd have a rough go of it...

[IBleedYellow]

Isn't this basically what I've been saying all along (with some minor clarifications added)?

No. You've basically been talking in circles and never actually attempted to state your opinion and probably confused yourself and everyone else while typing in giggerish.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Indeed...my point was simple. A conference can kick a school out for just about any old reason allowed by their By-Laws, A.K.A. contractual relationship.

LFN is missing this point. The conference COULD choose to institute FCOA as a mandate, if done so within the procedures allowed by it's bylaws to institute such policies. If it did pass, and if a school failed to comply, theoretically (and more importantly, legally) the league has the power to boot them.

Would it come to fruition? Highly unlikely, as I stated, because of the poor optics involved...especially with public schools.

I am just glad LFN is not a lawyer. He'd have a rough go of it...

They can choose to mandate instituting FCOA, they just can't prohibit their members from instituting it.

But I say again, is balancing out the FCOA $$ enough? I'm not sure, and anyone who says that they're sure is lying.

You're simply saying that a conference could mandate its schools all implement FCOA, and if they don't, they could boot them. They clearly have that right. They simply can't say they they can't implement FCOA, and if they go ahead and do what the NCAA gives them the right to do, they can boot them.

[Pinnum]

So why isn't the Big South implementing such a rule, then? Out of the goodness of their hearts?

Can a conference have as its bylaws something that prevents a school from following NCAA legislation? Could a conference have a bylaw saying that football helmets are outlawed? Could a conference have a law saying they're going to pay each student-athlete $10,000 and a new car because it can?

"We're going to prohibit our schools from following this NCAA rule, because we don't like it" I'm pretty sure isn't a valid argument.

"Of course not, those are overarching NCAA rules that take precedence over conference rules," you'll say. Then, look at FCOA as an NCAA rule that takes precedence over conference rules.

Yes. A school and conference is permitted to implement their own rules. However, if they deviate from the rules of the NCAA, they are not permitted to have those competitions count toward as an NCAA competition and depending on the application may be barred from counting the sport in their NCAA sports participation minimums. Most often, the NCAA allows teams to deviate from rules but treats them as a scrimmage and countable event. If they were paying money and a car to every athlete they would be free to do so but they would not be able to use those athletes in NCAA competitions since it would violate the amateurism rules but the school would be free to do it outside of the NCAA framework.

The best example is probably sand volleyball. Some schools started playing sand volleyball and made up their own governing rules. This was outside the purview of the NCAA and the schools were free to do as they pleased (with the exception of policies that governed athletes that also wished to preserve their ability to play during the traditional volleyball season at the school). As the sport gained some more schools and popularity, the members sought to bring it under NCAA governance. They have no requirement to put it under the NCAA but it makes governance and sponsorship more streamlined. Some other varsity sports that have not elected to be governed by the NCAA are rodeo and equestrian.

But your comments are merely hyperbole. This isn't talking about expanding the limits but rather working within the limits. This isn't about removing helmets but making a more stringent policy of what the teams agree are acceptable helmet requirements while still adhering to the helmet limits of the NCAA.

I am not sure if you really don't understand all of this or if you're digging your heels in and merely trying to find a rationale to defend your original position.

[Sader87]

I'm still of the belief that most FCS programs won't go the FCoA route...it just seens like a sop to the P5 programs (and playahs) that have been bitching about royalties etc ovah the last few years. I'm not saying they (the playahs) are altogether wrong in their complaints either....when college coaches are making multi-millions of $$$ yearly, something is out of whack.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

This isn't talking about expanding the limits but rather working within the limits.

The P5 has not restricted the limits of what can be offered as a "scholarship", they have expanded it. They have essentially made two different types of scholarships: non-FCOA (the old definition) and FCOA (the new one). The NCAA has validated this new definition. If a conference tries to restrict this new definition, they apparently are at risk of deviating from the rules of the NCAA.

Which explains why the Big South hasn't come out with that splashy press release saying that they're going to prohibit their football membership from offering FCOA.

[Pinnum]

The P5 has not restricted the limits of what can be offered as a "scholarship", they have expanded it. They have essentially made two different types of scholarships: non-FCOA (the old definition) and FCOA (the new one). The NCAA has validated this new definition. If a conference tries to restrict this new definition, they apparently are at risk of deviating from the rules of the NCAA.

Which explains why the Big South hasn't come out with that splashy press release saying that they're going to prohibit their football membership from offering FCOA.

The NCAA has also defined the application of other forms of scholarship and allows member schools to apply their own application. This is why the PFL does not permit athletic merit aid and is also why the Patriot and NEC have reduced limits.

They are not "apparently at risk of deviating the rules of the NCAA" but rather not electing to act on the matter. The biggest reason they are not acting as a conference is because everyone knows more changes and challenges will be coming and it is in the best interest of the conferences to be reactionary and see how the changes impact member schools and the conference as a whole. There is no point in making policies that may end up moot.

If in a few years conferences are divided, you can be sure conference policies will be enacted with programs either conforming or being removed. Right now, there are too many unknowns to bother trying to enact effective policy.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The NCAA has also defined the application of other forms of scholarship and allows member schools to apply their own application. This is why the PFL does not permit athletic merit aid and is also why the Patriot and NEC have reduced limits.

The NCAA does not require FCS schools offer scholarships in football. They can offer any number, 0 to 63, split, or not. They simply can't go beyond 63.

The PFL requiring its members to prohibit offering conventional scholarships isn't the same thing as FCOA because that isn't a violation of NCAA or FCS rules. Similarly, the NEC restricting its total number to 30 (?) doesn't violate the definition of what a scholarship is.

However, if the NEC issues a statement that "we are only going to offer 30 non-FCOA scholarships." that appears to be a potential violation of NCAA rules.

[Pinnum]

The NCAA does not require FCS schools offer scholarships in football. They can offer any number, 0 to 63, split, or not. They simply can't go beyond 63.

The PFL requiring its members to prohibit offering conventional scholarships isn't the same thing as FCOA because that isn't a violation of NCAA or FCS rules. Similarly, the NEC restricting its total number to 30 (?) doesn't violate the definition of what a scholarship is.

So you're saying that because the NCAA allows, but does not require, FCOA that a conference can not restrict it.

But you're also saying that because the NCAA allows, but does not require, a certain number of scholarships to be offered that a conference can restrict it?

Is that your contention?

To extrapolate your position on not being able to deviate from an NCAA definition further... are you saying that a conference could not make their own definition of a scholarship, say only allowing for it to cover the cost of tuition but not cover fees, room or board, even though it falls within the acceptable limits of NCAA governance? Are you saying any such policy would be illegal? (Again, it is never clear if you think these would violate NCAA policy or State/Federal law.)

The conferences are free to make their own definition of a scholarship and apply their own limits, permitted they are still compliant within the NCAA framework. The reason most conference prefer broader policy is because of various funding and aid methods and not wanting to get into policies that would impact business operations at an institution.

[clenz]

I'm still of the belief that most FCS programs won't go the FCoA route...it just seens like a sop to the P5 programs (and playahs) that have been bitching about royalties etc ovah the last few years. I'm not saying they (the playahs) are altogether wrong in their complaints either....when college coaches are making multi-millions of $$$ yearly, something is out of whack.
As of now UNI will not be offering FCOA for football. It will for MBB, WBB and potentially volleyball and wrestling from the start

[Lehigh Football Nation]

They are not "apparently at risk of deviating the rules of the NCAA" but rather not electing to act on the matter. The biggest reason they are not acting as a conference is because everyone knows more changes and challenges will be coming and it is in the best interest of the conferences to be reactionary and see how the changes impact member schools and the conference as a whole. There is no point in making policies that may end up moot.

If in a few years conferences are divided, you can be sure conference policies will be enacted with programs either conforming or being removed. Right now, there are too many unknowns to bother trying to enact effective policy.

The Big South just experienced a destabilizing event with Liberty offering FCOA across all sports. To them it isn't an unknown - the future is here and now. Coastal will be under pressure to enact it at the very minimum - in fact, they've been mentioned in conjunction with Liberty and their decision. You're saying that everyone in the Big South is being cautious and forward-thinking here, that they are happily letting this all happen because that's what they want to do?

[Pinnum]

However, if the NEC issues a statement that "we are only going to offer 30 non-FCOA scholarships." that appears to be a potential violation of NCAA rules.

Just say you added this to the comment...

Where does it 'appear' to be a violation? That is a fallacy.

Just because no conferences have acted on it does not mean that are not able to act on it.

[clenz]

The issue that is going to happen up front is that "donating" to cover FCOA is going to have to be made differently than a regular donation to earmark it.

It also means that the additional money to cover FCOA has to come from the existing budget. Money would have to be shifted around/cut from somewhere else to cover the expense (at UNI about 400k). That money isn't just laying around to go "sure, let's do it".

Someday it might be there but at least year 1 and 2 it isn't.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

So you're saying that because the NCAA allows, but does not require, FCOA that a conference can not restrict it.

But you're also saying that because the NCAA allows, but does not require, a certain number of scholarships to be offered that a conference can restrict it?

Yes.

You have one part wrong. The NCAA has changed the definition of what a "full scholarship" is. The NCAA now defines a "full scholarship" as "tuition, fees, books, and room and board" plus "expenses such as academic-related supplies, transportation and other similar items. The value of those benefits can differ from campus to campus." That last bit is the FCOA.

Conferences can't change or restrict that definition of "full scholarship" to tell schools to not include those expenses, just as if a conference wanted to change the definition to, say, not include room and board. That's against NCAA rules.

[Pinnum]

The Big South just experienced a destabilizing event with Liberty offering FCOA across all sports. To them it isn't an unknown - the future is here and now. Coastal will be under pressure to enact it at the very minimum - in fact, they've been mentioned in conjunction with Liberty and their decision. You're saying that everyone in the Big South is being cautious and forward-thinking here, that they are happily letting this all happen because that's what they want to do?

Yes. I am saying that the conference (as an association of member schools) has not decided how they will act on the matter and which direction they will go.

Many conferences have various funding levels from school to school. Some conferences have some member schools offering the maximum number of scholarships across all sports while others have very few sports with the maximum number of scholarships (basically, everyone commits to basketball scholarships.)

Why do schools commit to basketball scholarships? The same reason the conferences are only committing to basketball FCOA. The NCAA's structure, policies, and revenue sharing model incentivizes schools to allocate more resources to basketball. Why are the schools making announcements on the matter? Recruiting and coaching staffs. They want to make an affirmation to the coaches, recruits, and others that they are committed to basketball. For many schools, and thus their conference of peers, they are uncertain on what they will do from there. Many administrations are waiting to decide.

(There has been a lot of talk about the celebration bowl, but every conference gets more guaranteed money from the NCAA basketball revenue sharing plan for offering basketball every year than the SWAC will get from the Celebration bowl.)

I am not sure you understand all of the multitude of factors involved in strategic decisions within a University or Athletic Department.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Just say you added this to the comment...

Where does it 'appear' to be a violation? That is a fallacy.

Just because no conferences have acted on it does not mean that are not able to act on it.

So who's lining up to cast the first stone, then?

[walliver]

The Big South just experienced a destabilizing event with Liberty offering FCOA across all sports. To them it isn't an unknown - the future is here and now. Coastal will be under pressure to enact it at the very minimum - in fact, they've been mentioned in conjunction with Liberty and their decision. You're saying that everyone in the Big South is being cautious and forward-thinking here, that they are happily letting this all happen because that's what they want to do?

Don't forget that both Liberty and CCU have been quite vocal about getting out of the Big South. Liberty quite plainly wants to move to FBS. This move is an extension of that. CCU was vocal a few years ago, but I haven't heard much lately.

The article that mentions CCU was somewhat surprising as it suggested CCU was flush with money. CCU's athletics have a heavy subsidy, they have few older alumni, and their attendance is 8-10K. CCU may be under pressure to keep up with Liberty, but going FCOA across the board may make them less desirable to other FCS conferences.

The Big South won't do much (if anything) about it because the football portion of the conference is not stable to begin with. They have added affiliate schools over the last few years to maintain the NCAA minimum for an automatic bid. The Big South could possibly afford to lose Liberty IF Kennesaw hangs around a while, but cannot afford to lose LU and CCU.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Yes. I am saying that the conference (as an association of member schools) has not decided how they will act on the matter and which direction they will go.

Many conferences have various funding levels from school to school. Some conferences have some member schools offering the maximum number of scholarships across all sports while others have very few sports with the maximum number of scholarships (basically, everyone commits to basketball scholarships.)

Why do schools commit to basketball scholarships? The same reason the conferences are only committing to basketball FCOA. The NCAA's structure, policies, and revenue sharing model incentivizes schools to allocate more resources to basketball. Why are the schools making announcements on the matter? Recruiting and coaching staffs. They want to make an affirmation to the coaches, recruits, and others that they are committed to basketball. For many schools, and thus their conference of peers, they are uncertain on what they will do from there. Many administrations are waiting to decide.

(There has been a lot of talk about the celebration bowl, but every conference gets more guaranteed money from the NCAA basketball revenue sharing plan for offering basketball every year than the SWAC will get from the Celebration bowl.)

I am not sure you understand all of the multitude of factors involved in strategic decisions within a University or Athletic Department.

I think I do understand the multitude of factors involved - that the decisions aren't made just for football, men's basketball, or women's bowling, but for all the interactions of the athletic department as a whole. However, you seem to think the Big South is operating under a "wait and see" attitude when the realities of FCOA will come into play next season... in golf, cross country, women's lacrosse, tennis, as Liberty U. athletes get that benefit while other member schools don't.

In the upcoming year, no conference will have as drastic a difference in athletics funding levels as the Big South. Liberty could be spending as much at an athletic department level as three Big South Schools combined. Yet for some reason, even though y'all are claiming that they have the right to restrict it, they're not, because they're "forward thinking". Sure. Right.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Don't forget that both Liberty and CCU have been quite vocal about getting out of the Big South. Liberty quite plainly wants to move to FBS. This move is an extension of that. CCU was vocal a few years ago, but I haven't heard much lately.

The article that mentions CCU was somewhat surprising as it suggested CCU was flush with money. CCU's athletics have a heavy subsidy, they have few older alumni, and their attendance is 8-10K. CCU may be under pressure to keep up with Liberty, but going FCOA across the board may make them less desirable to other FCS conferences.

The Big South won't do much (if anything) about it because the football portion of the conference is not stable to begin with. They have added affiliate schools over the last few years to maintain the NCAA minimum for an automatic bid. The Big South could possibly afford to lose Liberty IF Kennesaw hangs around a while, but cannot afford to lose LU and CCU.

Ah, but read the thread! Plenty of people are claiming that the Big South CAN do something about it - merely, restrict FCOA in football!

[Pinnum]

Yes.

You have one part wrong. The NCAA has changed the definition of what a "full scholarship" is. The NCAA now defines a "full scholarship" as "tuition, fees, books, and room and board" plus "expenses such as academic-related supplies, transportation and other similar items. The value of those benefits can differ from campus to campus." That last bit is the FCOA.

Conferences can't change or restrict that definition of "full scholarship" to tell schools to not include those expenses, just as if a conference wanted to change the definition to, say, not include room and board. That's against NCAA rules.

This is an autonomy policy that allows a conference to use either definition. Conferences have the discretion in adopting the new definition and thus far have delegated it to the institutions.

I think you need to consult NCAA Rules governing autonomy legislation...

5.3.2.1.2.2 Application to Other Conferences/Institutions. Legislationset forth as an area of autonomy may be applied by other member
institutions at each conference's respective discretion, which may
include delegation of such discretion to its member institutions. (Emphasis added)

[Pinnum]

Also, the NCAA has said that both definitions will be permitted with the old scholarship standard remaining. The standard scholarship is not defined by the FCOA standard.

"As set forth in new Bylaw 20.02.7, the definition of a full grant for purposes of Bylaw 20 is full tuition and fees, room and board and required course-related books."

[Hammersmith]

The P5 has not restricted the limits of what can be offered as a "scholarship", they have expanded it. They have essentially made two different types of scholarships: non-FCOA (the old definition) and FCOA (the new one). The NCAA has validated this new definition. If a conference tries to restrict this new definition, they apparently are at risk of deviating from the rules of the NCAA.

Which explains why the Big South hasn't come out with that splashy press release saying that they're going to prohibit their football membership from offering FCOA.

Could you please tell us once again from what you're basing this line of reasoning on? Is it anything other than the wording of the Southland article? Are you still thinking that somehow the NCAA will sue if conferences prohibit FCOA?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Could you please tell us once again from what you're basing this line of reasoning on? Is it anything other than the wording of the Southland article? Are you still thinking that somehow the NCAA will sue if conferences prohibit FCOA?

xlolx

I really can't believe he is hanging on by that thread but the reasoning has been so specious so far I think this is what it's all about.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Also, the NCAA has said that both definitions will be permitted with the old scholarship standard remaining. The standard scholarship is not defined by the FCOA standard.

"As set forth in new Bylaw 20.02.7, the definition of a full grant for purposes of Bylaw 20 is full tuition and fees, room and board and required course-related books."



This definition is made on a per-institution basis - each institution makes an individual decision as to whether to implement one definition or the other (and for what sport). It pointedly says it's an institutional decision, not a conference decision.

It says a conference has discretion on whether to apply autonomy legislation at a conference level, but it says nothing about empowering a conference to prohibit one of its member institutions from choosing one or the other.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Could you please tell us once again from what you're basing this line of reasoning on? Is it anything other than the wording of the Southland article? Are you still thinking that somehow the NCAA will sue if conferences prohibit FCOA?

Hopefully you'll start to actually read my posts and especially the parts talking about the actual NCAA bylaws.

[Pinnum]

This definition is made on a per-institution basis - each institution makes an individual decision as to whether to implement one definition or the other (and for what sport). It pointedly says it's an institutional decision, not a conference decision.

It says a conference has discretion on whether to apply autonomy legislation at a conference level, but it says nothing about empowering a conference to prohibit one of its member institutions from choosing one or the other.

Ha ha this isn't worth engagement anymore. The policy explicitly says that it 'may be applied by [non-P5] member institutions at each conference's respective discretion.' The conference has the discretion in the whether an institution may apply the legislation. This is common of NCAA policy. The NCAA regularly allows conferences to determine their own policies for uniform application and enforcement.

I will let you continue to think what you want.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Ha ha this isn't worth engagement anymore. The policy explicitly says that it 'may be applied by [non-P5] member institutions at each conference's respective discretion.' The conference has the discretion in the whether an institution may apply the legislation. This is common of NCAA policy. The NCAA regularly allows conferences to determine their own policies for uniform application and enforcement.

I will let you continue to think what you want.

And I you. And we'll all be waiting for the first conference to say that they're restricting FCOA for one sport, or all sports. And we'll be waiting forever.

[Hammersmith]

And I you. And we'll all be waiting for the first conference to say that they're restricting FCOA for one sport, or all sports. And we'll be waiting forever.
But that's like saying the sun comes up every morning because of the rooster crowing. Or that correlation equals causation. Just because conferences choose not to prohibit FCOA, it doesn't necessarily mean it's because it's against NCAA regulations. Not if there's another, more valid, explanation. In this case, the other explanation is the antitrust lawsuit from student-athletes that is independent of the relationship between the NCAA and conferences.

But, whatever. It's plain that neither of us will change the mind of the other. We agree that conferences will not prohibit FCOA. When they don't, you'll say you were correct because it was against NCAA regulations. And the rest of us on this thread will say we were correct because they were in fear of student-athlete lawsuits.

[walliver]

Ah, but read the thread! Plenty of people are claiming that the Big South CAN do something about it - merely, restrict FCOA in football!

I didn't say they couldn't do anything.
Quite simply I stated that they won't do anything.
The Big South is allowing Kennesaw State to play a full conference schedule as a first year program because they need the numbers to maintain their automatic bid. If Liberty were kicked out this year for FCOA, that would leave CCU, CSU, GW, PC, Monmouth (leaving in a few years), and Kennesaw - I'd have to check the details, but this could put the conference's automatic bid in jeopardy. In fact, the Big South's future as a football conference is at risk. I believe this is the reason the Big South will not intervene, not a fear of lawsuits.

[Pinnum]

I didn't say they couldn't do anything.
Quite simply I stated that they won't do anything.
The Big South is allowing Kennesaw State to play a full conference schedule as a first year program because they need the numbers to maintain their automatic bid. If Liberty were kicked out this year for FCOA, that would leave CCU, CSU, GW, PC, Monmouth (leaving in a few years), and Kennesaw - I'd have to check the details, but this could put the conference's automatic bid in jeopardy. In fact, the Big South's future as a football conference is at risk. I believe this is the reason the Big South will not intervene, not a fear of lawsuits.

I am inclined to think the same. I wouldn't be shocked to see them make legislation in a few years but right now it is in their best interest to hold off.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Want to take a step back here.

Philosophies aside, I think everyone can agree that Liberty's decision to enact FCOA across all sports creates a hellaproblem for the Big South across all the sports it sponsors.

If Liberty leaves the Big South or gets kicked out, a problem now crops up about the survival of Big South football as a conference, who is already hovering around 6 members. They could survive Liberty leaving with Kennesaw State stating football, but things would still be hanging by a thread. Other sports, though, would be better off (since they would be operating on a more level playing field).

If Liberty stays for a long period, however, there's a potential huge problem in competitiveness in all sports, with Liberty spending mammoth numbers of $ and giving its athletes millions of $ more in benefits across the board that other schools can't (or don't want to) provide.

But if you guys are right, there's a third way - to put in a league rule restricting FCOA to only be allowed for certain sports.

The Big South leadership could negotiate with the leadership at Liberty, asking which sports they want FCOA in the most (say, football and men's basketball), and then, for "competitiveness reasons" restrict FCOA for other sports. Of course Title IX would have to enter into it, so some other women's sports would still have FCOA as a part of it. But it could be more limited so that FCOA only affects a limited number of sports, not all.

And that's also to say that Liberty is actually interested in FCOA in football at the FCS level. It seems likely, but perhaps, again for "competitiveness reasons", the Big South could (again, if you guys are right) set up a league rule limiting FCOA to only apply to men's and women's basketball for all schools in the conference. After all, according to folks here, the great majority of schools at the FCS level aren't considering implementing FCOA at all for their football programs, but a significant number are planning to implement it for men's and women's basketball (in fact, some other conferences are attempting to mandate it).

Without the Big South taking any actions - curiously, they haven't made any public statement on the matter at all - there's no way to prove whether the Big South has this in their toolbox or not. The lack of action doesn't prove me right, or anyone else right, or wrong. It's all theoretical.

But there's a larger question here. Should the Big South try to do something?

I see both known paths of action - do nothing, or kick them out/see them leave - and I don't see a good way forward either way. One destabilizes a sport for the good of all the others. The other causes, IMO, a serious competition problem with all the other members. Even if Liberty gets their way, and gets an FBS invite to, say, the Sun Belt, it's still not good for the Big South.

Is it in their interest to try to do something to keep Liberty, or no?

[Pinnum]

As long as we are taking a step back I think it is important to take a Liberty centric look at this. FCOA is very important to Liberty from a strategic point of view. I am not sure how many of you really know much about Liberty but they have been very active in working to make the school respected by prospective students and academia.

They have been very active in trying to shed the image of being Bible School filled with sheltered homeschool kids that are socially awkward and transform the school into a destination for all students that share in one faith. While they don't want to shed their ideology and will never allow for things like drinking, they want to make it a destination where kids can have a college experience that rivals other institutions and in doing so attract more talented students that raise the academic profile of the school.

Liberty has done a lot of things to really entice students and make them feel comfortable that they will not be missing out on what some other schools offer in the experience. Things like installing a snowless, year round, ski and snowboarding facility are all part of this mission. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L207SviZo8I http://www.liberty.edu/snowflex/

Athletics is part of this strategy. They want people to know that it is also a destination for talented athletes where they can excel at the highest level. The school is committed to elevating every sport on campus to further the interaction with FBS schools which house a lot of the graduate programs they want to be associated with and viewed as a peer.

Liberty is not a Big South school but it is currently their only option. Each side knows they are only using each other for the time being (and there is nothing wrong with that.)

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I didn't say they couldn't do anything.
Quite simply I stated that they won't do anything.
The Big South is allowing Kennesaw State to play a full conference schedule as a first year program because they need the numbers to maintain their automatic bid. If Liberty were kicked out this year for FCOA, that would leave CCU, CSU, GW, PC, Monmouth (leaving in a few years), and Kennesaw - I'd have to check the details, but this could put the conference's automatic bid in jeopardy. In fact, the Big South's future as a football conference is at risk. I believe this is the reason the Big South will not intervene, not a fear of lawsuits.
Nice work, this is what happens when a guy puts some thought into the "why" of it all.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

As long as we are taking a step back I think it is important to take a Liberty centric look at this. FCOA is very important to Liberty from a strategic point of view. I am not sure how many of you really know much about Liberty but they have been very active in working to make the school respected by prospective students and academia.

They have been very active in trying to shed the image of being Bible School filled with sheltered homeschool kids that are socially awkward and transform the school into a destination for all students that share in one faith. While they don't want to shed their ideology and will never allow for things like drinking, they want to make it a destination where kids can have a college experience that rivals other institutions and in doing so attract more talented students that raise the academic profile of the school.

Liberty has done a lot of things to really entice students and make them feel comfortable that they will not be missing out on what some other schools offer in the experience. Things like installing a snowless, year round, ski and snowboarding facility are all part of this mission. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L207SviZo8I http://www.liberty.edu/snowflex/

Athletics is part of this strategy. They want people to know that it is also a destination for talented athletes where they can excel at the highest level. The school is committed to elevating every sport on campus to further the interaction with FBS schools which house a lot of the graduate programs they want to be associated with and viewed as a peer.

Liberty is not a Big South school but it is currently their only option. Each side knows they are only using each other for the time being (and there is nothing wrong with that.)

I agree with all this. The Liberty/Big South situation is definitely a marriage of convenience, and has been for some time. Additionally, it has worked out very well for both parties.

I do question Liberty's strategy about this whole thing, however. I'm not sure how full FCOA makes them more attractive to G5 conferences, many of whom have members wrestling with this decision themselves, and there's no way a P5 conference would touch Liberty over a school like UConn (and they're seemingly not interested in them, either). It's a possibility that they price themselves out of the Big South while not really having an FBS option.

[UNH Fanboi]

As long as we are taking a step back I think it is important to take a Liberty centric look at this. FCOA is very important to Liberty from a strategic point of view. I am not sure how many of you really know much about Liberty but they have been very active in working to make the school respected by prospective students and academia.

They have been very active in trying to shed the image of being Bible School filled with sheltered homeschool kids that are socially awkward and transform the school into a destination for all students that share in one faith. While they don't want to shed their ideology and will never allow for things like drinking, they want to make it a destination where kids can have a college experience that rivals other institutions and in doing so attract more talented students that raise the academic profile of the school.

Liberty has done a lot of things to really entice students and make them feel comfortable that they will not be missing out on what some other schools offer in the experience. Things like installing a snowless, year round, ski and snowboarding facility are all part of this mission. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L207SviZo8I http://www.liberty.edu/snowflex/

Athletics is part of this strategy. They want people to know that it is also a destination for talented athletes where they can excel at the highest level. The school is committed to elevating every sport on campus to further the interaction with FBS schools which house a lot of the graduate programs they want to be associated with and viewed as a peer.

Liberty is not a Big South school but it is currently their only option. Each side knows they are only using each other for the time being (and there is nothing wrong with that.)

They will never be respected in academia as long as they have an entire young earth creationism department.

- - - Updated - - -


As long as we are taking a step back I think it is important to take a Liberty centric look at this. FCOA is very important to Liberty from a strategic point of view. I am not sure how many of you really know much about Liberty but they have been very active in working to make the school respected by prospective students and academia.

They have been very active in trying to shed the image of being Bible School filled with sheltered homeschool kids that are socially awkward and transform the school into a destination for all students that share in one faith. While they don't want to shed their ideology and will never allow for things like drinking, they want to make it a destination where kids can have a college experience that rivals other institutions and in doing so attract more talented students that raise the academic profile of the school.

Liberty has done a lot of things to really entice students and make them feel comfortable that they will not be missing out on what some other schools offer in the experience. Things like installing a snowless, year round, ski and snowboarding facility are all part of this mission. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L207SviZo8I http://www.liberty.edu/snowflex/

Athletics is part of this strategy. They want people to know that it is also a destination for talented athletes where they can excel at the highest level. The school is committed to elevating every sport on campus to further the interaction with FBS schools which house a lot of the graduate programs they want to be associated with and viewed as a peer.

Liberty is not a Big South school but it is currently their only option. Each side knows they are only using each other for the time being (and there is nothing wrong with that.)

They will never be respected in academia as long as they have an entire young earth creationism department.

[CrazyCat]

I'll go out on a limb and say that we will never lose a recruit to Liberty because they offer FCOA and we don't.

[The Cats]

I haven't read the entire thread so I hope this is not a duplicate post, but
The Big South Conference has decided that all 11 of its schools, including Asheville, will pay cost of attendance for all scholarship players on the men's and women's basketball teams.

......according to an article in the Asheville paper.

It also look like Western Carolina will also do the same for basketball only.


http://www.citizen-times.com/story/sports/2015/04/25/unc-asheville-pay-selected-athletes-next-season/26361637/

[Lehigh Football Nation]

From the article it is very unclear whether the Big South is mandating FCOA in men's and women's basketball (the "Horizon Solution") or letting each school do its own thing (which is what most other conferences are doing). There is no link to an official statement and I was unable to find one.

What might be the biggest reveal is that App State doesn't know whether they will pursue it or not as a member of the Sun Belt. The irony-o-meter of having both FCS programs (Liberty) and Big South teams in their backyard (UNCA) and possibly their old football "rival" (WCU) offering FCOA before App would be off the charts. Wasn't the move-up to FBS supposed to help them look more like the P5...?

The view of the SoCon schools seems abundantly clear - they want no part of it.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/apr/25/ncaa-inclusion-forum-cost-living-stipend-title-IX/?#article-copy


Since the Power Five schools voted in January to allow the NCAA’s member institutions to provide student-athletes with full cost of attendance stipends that cover living expenses beyond tuition, fees, books and room and board, many schools have declared their intention to offer these stipends and can begin doing so this fall.

But as Title IX and labor attorney Timothy O’Brien highlighted in a presentation at the NCAA Inclusion Forum in La Jolla on Saturday, there are a myriad of Title IX factors schools have to consider as they decide whether they will offer the stipends.


Title IX is a federal statute that requires all institutions that receive federal funding to provide equal participation opportunities and benefits for male and female students.


As O’Brien pointed out to a room full of athletics administrators, “Title IX still applies as you continue to award and enhance benefits.”


The problem, however, is that no one seems quite sure how this will work in a murky new era of added benefits in intercollegiate athletics.


North Dakota, for instance, competes at the FCS level in football, but boasts a men’s hockey team that has won seven NCAA championships and is a perennial Division I Frozen Four contender.


Daniella Irle, North Dakota’s deputy director of athletics, said Saturday that her school will offer full cost-of-attendance stipends for men’s hockey, but that they’re still figuring out how to distribute those stipends among their women’s sports to stay in compliance with Title IX.

“In men’s hockey, we recruit against the Big Ten. With the Big Ten going to full cost of attendance for men’s hockey, we felt like we didn’t have a choice,” Irle said. “We have plans for funding and plans for what we’ll do on the women’s side, but there’s a lot of factors we’re still balancing.”


Title IX mandates that schools have to provide equal opportunities and resources to male and female student athletes, but institutions can allocate these resources at their discretion.


Meaning, if North Dakota awards 18 cost of attendance stipends to men’s hockey, it doesn’t matter which women’s team it promotes to “stipend” status as long as it awards 18 cost of attendance stipends on the women’s side too.


Conversely, instead of awarding cost of attendance stipends to 18 female athletes to offset that number on the male side, North Dakota could also add up the dollar amount of 18 cost of attendance stipends, and use this to create several more athletic scholarships for women.

“As long as your financial aid numbers come out the same at the end of the day, you’re good to go,” O’Brien said.


This could be particularly helpful for the so-called “equivalency sports” such as softball, track or soccer, in which athletes are generally awarded partial scholarships.


“If you’re splitting up a scholarship (among several athletes) how do you calculate the full cost of attendance?” O’Brien said. “It’s really just about increasing the amount of aid awarded.”

Some extremely interesting information about Title IX in the FCOA era, something that could theoretically destabilize women's sports in the Big Sky (UND and hockey FCOA), and more muddling of how FCOA and partial scholarships can be allocated to women for "opportunities".

[ursus arctos horribilis]

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/apr/25/ncaa-inclusion-forum-cost-living-stipend-title-IX/?#article-copy



Some extremely interesting information about Title IX in the FCOA era, something that could theoretically destabilize women's sports in the Big Sky (UND and hockey FCOA), and more muddling of how FCOA and partial scholarships can be allocated to women for "opportunities".

I guarantee that if UND tries to expand the women's side in a way that affects their conference mates adversely we're gonna find out real quick what a conference is willing to do about this.

[Pinnum]

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/apr/25/ncaa-inclusion-forum-cost-living-stipend-title-IX/?#article-copy

Some extremely interesting information about Title IX in the FCOA era, something that could theoretically destabilize women's sports in the Big Sky (UND and hockey FCOA), and more muddling of how FCOA and partial scholarships can be allocated to women for "opportunities".

No new information.

As I said, nearly every school uses the proportionality prong to determine compliance. All you need to do is balance them. This is why the Horizon League's policy is sound. Notre Dame has not been offering the maximum number of scholarships for many of their sports so they don't have to actually offer any FCOA stipends to those sports but rather just increase the total funding allotment and remain in compliance based on campus enrolment proportionality.

Women's resources are hardly ever tied to their program's success but rather just needed to balance their male counterparts. You want to increase resources for the men then you're obligated to give consideration to the women. For this reason, the cost of operating a men's basketball program is not the financial outlays for the men's team but rather all financial outlays for the men's and women's teams combined since without the counter balance you are unable to operate the program at most schools.

[Pinnum]

I guarantee that if UND tries to expand the women's side in a way that affects their conference mates adversely we're gonna find out real quick what a conference is willing to do about this.

No. Not in this instance. I don't believe most North Dakota programs are fully funded with the maximum allotment of scholarships, so using the comparable proportionality of aid metric they will only be increasing scholarships within the previously acceptable range for Big Sky women's sports.

As a result, this will likely elicit no response from the conference.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

As I said, nearly every school uses the proportionality prong to determine compliance. All you need to do is balance them.

You are saying this as if it's an established fact. It is not. Some folks are of the opinion that it is for FCOA. I am not sure.

UND evidently also does not have the same clarity you appear to have on this issue, either, as they're trying to solve the problem institutionally and haven't figured out how to balance them in a way that satisfies Title IX.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

No. Not in this instance. I don't believe most North Dakota programs are fully funded with the maximum allotment of scholarships, so using the comparable proportionality of aid metric they will only be increasing scholarships within the previously acceptable range for Big Sky women's sports.

As a result, this will likely elicit no response from the conference.

What if UND just figures it's easier to offer FCOA across every sport? Would the Big Sky be within their rights to tell UND to knock it off for certain sports?

[Pinnum]

You are saying this as if it's an established fact. It is not. Some folks are of the opinion that it is for FCOA. I am not sure.

UND evidently also does not have the same clarity you appear to have on this issue, either, as they're trying to solve the problem institutionally and haven't figured out how to balance them in a way that satisfies Title IX.

It is fact. They even said it in the article you cited and you made it bold and underlined.

“As long as your financial aid numbers come out the same at the end of the day, you’re good to go,” O’Brien said."

They understand it but because they have underfunded sports (most schools do, though their fans aren't aware), they are trying to figure out if they showcase a womens sport of raise the level to all women's teams on campus.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

No. Not in this instance. I don't believe most North Dakota programs are fully funded with the maximum allotment of scholarships, so using the comparable proportionality of aid metric they will only be increasing scholarships within the previously acceptable range for Big Sky women's sports.

As a result, this will likely elicit no response from the conference.

No it wouldn't if they are under. I stated if it affects their conference mates adversely but meant it in the way that would be outside what the conference/limits would be in any given sport. As long as they are under the cap there ain't no problem to be had.

[Pinnum]

What if UND just figures it's easier to offer FCOA across every sport? Would the Big Sky be within their rights to tell UND to knock it off for certain sports?

Considering how North Dakota was unable to afford the funding level required to offer the maximum allowable number of scholarships for all sports before this legislation was enacted, I don't know why they would find it easier to add a lot more expenses.

This is why I said it will not be an issue in North Dakota's case.

However, if you want to play the 'what if' game, then the answer is Yes. The Big Sky could enact legislation that would prevent North Dakota from being a member of the conference and offering FCOA. However, conferences typically don't regulate sports they do not sponsor so there would likely be no problem with the offering of FCOA to ice hockey. Should this happen, the onus would fall on North Dakota to ensure compliance with both the Big Sky and the United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. If this were to happen, the likely solution would be to remove the equal number of scholarship equivalencies from other men's sports in which the Big Sky Conference sponsors a championship (Football, Golf, Track, Tennis, Basketball) in order to ensure they are able to compete with the Big Ten in their sport of choice.

This is not any different than the Atlantic 10. You have various schools in that conference with varying levels of funding commitments to sports. UMass sponsors an FBS football program and an Ice Hockey program that they take very seriously and both of which command a lot of resources. These resources are pulled from sports the A 10 sponsors--like Men's soccer (where UMass sits at the bottom of the league and was one of the worst teams in the NCAA). Though UMass is a member of the conference, their primary focus is not on the Atlantic 10's success (outside of basketball). The same is true of North Dakota where they are more concerned about Ice Hockey success.

You compare this to other A10 schools that don't have any interest in football, or football schools with varying levels of interest like Davidson and Dayton (non-scholarship Pioneer League), Duquesne (NEC), Fordham (Patriot), or Richmond and Rhode Island (CAA) and all of these schools have their own issues with ensuring compliance between a multitude of different requirements from various governing bodies in which they are members. All of them must figure out, for themselves, how to remain compliant with their conference memberships despite having different focuses.

It just happens that at many of these schools, like UMass and Fordham, you find that in order to ensure compliance they commit a wealth of resources to women's sports which actually helps the Atlantic 10 find more success in these sports and brings recognition to the conference.

This is a trade off that every conference has when they have multiple factions with varying interests and levels of commitment. It is why the Big East and AAC ultimately split. It is also why UAB is likely to be expelled from CUSA. Some groups (like the A10) provide more latitude than others (like CUSA).

Yes, the Big Sky Conference could make North Dakota choose between the Big Sky Conference or Ice Hockey FCOA but I think we all know they would likely stick with Ice Hockey and end up in the Summit League or somewhere else. Is it really in the interest of the Big Sky to push them out when this move will actually raise the competitiveness of the conference without putting any teams at a disadvantage based on what has always been allowable?

[Pinnum]

No it wouldn't if they are under. I stated if it affects their conference mates adversely but meant it in the way that would be outside what the conference/limits would be in any given sport. As long as they are under the cap there ain't no problem to be had.

I think you're right. I had heard very few of their sports were fully funded (though, I wasn't sure if I was confusing them with NDSU). The fact they mentioned being able to increase scholarships to women seems to confirm that they were not already offering what they could.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Considering how North Dakota was unable to afford the funding level required to offer the maximum allowable number of scholarships for all sports before this legislation was enacted, I don't know why they would find it easier to add a lot more expenses.

This is why I said it will not be an issue in North Dakota's case.

However, if you want to play the 'what if' game, then the answer is Yes. The Big Sky could enact legislation that would prevent North Dakota from being a member of the conference and offering FCOA. However, conferences typically don't regulate sports they do not sponsor so there would likely be no problem with the offering of FCOA to ice hockey. Should this happen, the onus would fall on North Dakota to ensure compliance with both the Big Sky and the United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. If this were to happen, the likely solution would be to remove the equal number of scholarship equivalencies from other men's sports in which the Big Sky Conference sponsors a championship (Football, Golf, Track, Tennis, Basketball) in order to ensure they are able to compete with the Big Ten in their sport of choice.

This is not any different than the Atlantic 10. You have various schools in that conference with varying levels of funding commitments to sports. UMass sponsors an FBS football program and an Ice Hockey program that they take very seriously and both of which command a lot of resources. These resources are pulled from sports the A 10 sponsors--like Men's soccer (where UMass sits at the bottom of the league and was one of the worst teams in the NCAA). Though UMass is a member of the conference, their primary focus is not on the Atlantic 10's success (outside of basketball). The same is true of North Dakota where they are more concerned about Ice Hockey success.

You compare this to other A10 schools that don't have any interest in football, or football schools with varying levels of interest like Davidson and Dayton (non-scholarship Pioneer League), Duquesne (NEC), or Fordham (Patriot) and all of these schools have their own issues with ensuring compliance between a multitude of different requirements from various governing bodies in which they are members. It just happens that at many of these schools, like UMass and Fordham, you find that in order to ensure compliance they commit a wealth of resources to women's sports which actually helps the Atlantic 10 find more success in these sports and brings recognition to the conference.

This is a trade off that every conference has when they have multiple factions with varying interests and levels of commitment. It is why the Big East and AAC ultimately split. It is also why UAB is likely to be expelled from CUSA. Some groups provide more latitude than others.

Yes, the Big Sky Conference could make North Dakota choose between the Big Sky Conference or Ice Hockey FCOA but I think we all know they would likely stick with Ice Hockey and end up in the Summit League or somewhere. Is it really in the interest of the Big Sky to push them out when this move will actually raise the competitiveness of the conference without putting any teams at a disadvantage based on what has always been allowable?

You conveniently forgot the arms race aspect of this - that this "raising the competitiveness" could pressure the other Big Sky schools to offer FCOA in other sports, thus causing essentially all sport to sponsor FCOA and send costs for all the schools spiraling.

It would be much more accurate to characterize this as the tradeoff as every school has when THEY choose whether to implement this or not. As the Big South and soon the Big Sky is now learning, institutional decisions on FCOA can have ripple effects that seep their way into their conferences. It's my assertion is that conferences can't really do much about it, though you seem to believe that "yes they do... sure they could!" However, here's another case where a conference could (and I'd argue should) implement some rules to make sure costs don't spiral out of control, and yet they don't.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

It is fact. They even said it in the article you cited and you made it bold and underlined.

“As long as your financial aid numbers come out the same at the end of the day, you’re good to go,” O’Brien said."

They understand it but because they have underfunded sports (most schools do, though their fans aren't aware), they are trying to figure out if they showcase a womens sport of raise the level to all women's teams on campus.

What you're describing has its OWN Title IX implications. Much more likely that they're trying to figure out what those implications actually are. Hence that it's not as cut-and-dried as you seem to believe.

You can make the financial aid numbers add up, and yet do it in such a way that you're making the opportunities uneven.

[CrazyCat]

I'm pretty sure the Big Sky has stated (can't remember what interview) that each school can decide for themselves whether to implement FCOA or not. UND doing it for hockey doesn't affect the BSC at all.

Found it. It was UND AD Faison.


As it stands now, Faison said the Big Sky Conference, the Western Athletic Conference and the National Collegiate Hockey Conference -- leagues in which UND programs compete -- won’t dictate whether their league members will be forced to provide this cost. It’s up to each institution to determine whether they opt in to cover the full cost of attendance.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/und-hockey/3663833-stipends-und-more-questions-answers

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Thanks for finding that. So the Big Sky won't do anything, even though everyone keeps saying they could.

[CrazyCat]

Thanks for finding that. So the Big Sky won't do anything, even though everyone keeps saying they could.

If the Griz can't financially afford it for football. I can't see how anybody else could. I can see some schools doing it for basketball though.

[Pinnum]

What you're describing has its OWN Title IX implications. Much more likely that they're trying to figure out what those implications actually are. Hence that it's not as cut-and-dried as you seem to believe.

You can make the financial aid numbers add up, and yet do it in such a way that you're making the opportunities uneven.

In that case, it would move on to roster spots to determine proportionality. There are a multitude of factors that are considered, you're correct. But this is only addressing the one of aid since this is the only one being altered by the change. Everything else is static.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

You conveniently forgot the arms race aspect of this - that this "raising the competitiveness" could pressure the other Big Sky schools to offer FCOA in other sports, thus causing essentially all sport to sponsor FCOA and send costs for all the schools spiraling.

It would be much more accurate to characterize this as the tradeoff as every school has when THEY choose whether to implement this or not. As the Big South and soon the Big Sky is now learning, institutional decisions on FCOA can have ripple effects that seep their way into their conferences. It's my assertion is that conferences can't really do much about it, though you seem to believe that "yes they do... sure they could!" However, here's another case where a conference could (and I'd argue should) implement some rules to make sure costs don't spiral out of control, and yet they don't.

And yet they don't? You think everything should happen the instance any announcement is made? You have got to be kidding dude cuz this is dumb **** man.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

And yet they don't? You think everything should happen the instance any announcement is made? You have got to be kidding dude cuz this is dumb **** man.

The Big Sky did make a statement very soon after the announcement that FCOA was made - they already declared they would let it be up to each school.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

The Big Sky did make a statement very soon after the announcement that FCOA was made - they already declared they would let it be up to each school.

No kidding...they did..well then you have it correct and have shown yourself to be much brighter than anyone else. Your credibility is now sound due to all of us missing that snippet!

Your MPLSBison type arguments are just f'n silly and I'm gonna try to leave you to toil from now on cuz I just can't do this with childish arguments like this. It's hard not to though, gotta admit that.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

No kidding...they did..well then you have it correct and have shown yourself to be much brighter than anyone else. Your credibility is now sound due to all of us missing that snippet!

Your MPLSBison type arguments are just f'n silly and I'm gonna try to leave you to toil from now on cuz I just can't do this with childish arguments like this. It's hard not to though, gotta admit that.

shrug

[Hammersmith]

I think you're right. I had heard very few of their sports were fully funded (though, I wasn't sure if I was confusing them with NDSU). The fact they mentioned being able to increase scholarships to women seems to confirm that they were not already offering what they could.

NDSU is almost completely funded across the board. At least 90-95%, maybe as high as 97%. Not counting a temporary decrease in FB scholarships to 58*, NDSU is fully funded in women's sports, and about 1-2 scholarships light each in MT&F, baseball and Mgolf.

UND, on the other hand, is fully funded in only 7 of their 21 sports. M/W hockey, M/WBB, FB, VB, and ???. I did some very rough calculations, and I think UND is about 50% funded in men's sports outside the ones listed above, and about 80% funded in women's sports outside the above. They could easily absorb scholarships worth 15 stipends. (UND's M/W enrollment means that they would only need 15 women's stipends to offset 18 men's) In fact, UND could add about 5 more women's scholarships among their underfunded sports and meet proportionality for 18 men's hockey stipends. Not tough at all.




*don't know why, maybe a combination of academic ineligibilities, players leaving the program, holding a couple scholarships back because of an over-large graduating class, etc.

[Pinnum]

NDSU is almost completely funded across the board. At least 90-95%, maybe as high as 97%. Not counting a temporary decrease in FB scholarships to 58*, NDSU is fully funded in women's sports, and about 1-2 scholarships light each in MT&F, baseball and Mgolf.

UND, on the other hand, is fully funded in only 7 of their 21 sports. M/W hockey, M/WBB, FB, VB, and ???. I did some very rough calculations, and I think UND is about 50% funded in men's sports outside the ones listed above, and about 80% funded in women's sports outside the above. They could easily absorb scholarships worth 15 stipends. (UND's M/W enrollment means that they would only need 15 women's stipends to offset 18 men's) In fact, UND could add about 5 more women's scholarships among their underfunded sports and meet proportionality for 18 men's hockey stipends. Not tough at all.




*don't know why, maybe a combination of academic ineligibilities, players leaving the program, holding a couple scholarships back because of an over-large graduating class, etc.

Thanks for the confirmation. That is what I thought. As a result it won't impact Big Sky Conference sports at all.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Fair enough, thanks for the information. We don't know how fully funded the rest of the schools of the Big Sky are... that would be useful for comparison.

[walliver]

A somewhat related topic:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/04/26/unlimited-food-snacks-wisconsin-oregon-ncaa-student-athletes/26405105/

Things are getting out of hand in the new landscape of college athletics ... Athlete-only dining halls with gourmet meals. Some P5 schools are spending more money on new food services than FCOA.

Rules designed to give poor athletes a little extra help are being used to create semi-pro college football.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The food thing is something that is a really tricky subject. Emmert's quote here is very telling, and true:


"That's real money, and I understand that, but I'm all in favor of it," NCAA President Mark Emmert said. "They were going to spend that money anyway. It wasn't like they were taking that and $700,000 and sending it to the chemistry department. They were going to spend it on the locker room, or they were going to spend it on the video system.
"Spend it on kids. So they're spending it to give kids better nutrition."

Personally, I like it because of two reasons: 1) it's a real benefit that goes to the athletes and 2) it can be a life-changing benefit for a kid from a disadvantaged background. However the costs can be astronomical, and it seems unreasonable to ask a lot of schools to spend half a mil a year for the food allowance. Carving stations might be a bit much, but certainly having a facility open where kids can get food seems like a positive thing, if the budget allows.

[BisonTru]

A somewhat related topic:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/04/26/unlimited-food-snacks-wisconsin-oregon-ncaa-student-athletes/26405105/

Things are getting out of hand in the new landscape of college athletics ... Athlete-only dining halls with gourmet meals. Some P5 schools are spending more money on new food services than FCOA.

Rules designed to give poor athletes a little extra help are being used to create semi-pro college football.

"Some of the argument about not doing it was, 'Well, people are going to compete over who's going to give kids the best food,' " he said. "Well, why is that a bad thing?"

That line pretty much sums up my opinion of all of this. If Wisconsin can afford to feed their student-athletes crab legs, more power to them. NDSU can't and doesn't compete with Wisconsin for recruits. Now we better stay competitive with SDSU.

IMO, there has always been an arms race in college athletics (facilities, coach's pay, ect.) and there always will be. FCOA and unlimited food opens the door to funnel more compensation to the student-athletes, and I have no issues with that.

As far as FCS, every AD should and most likely are looking into what can they afford. And, again JMO, they should implement what they can. I can't think of a better recruiting advantage then FCOA.

[Pinnum]

These things have less to do with student-athlete welfare and more to with pricing out competition. The P5 know that non-P5 schools won't be able to offer same benefits so it will help price NDSU football as well as Murray State, Belmont, and Wofford basketball out.

While this creates a competitive advantage within the NCAA it also creates a competitive advantage for the NCAA against external leagues. In football the UFL was a competitor to college football and as the profitability rises, the viability of upstart leagues raises. The same is true in college basketball with the D-League and Euroleagues.

The reality is that most fans have allegiance to the institution and are less drawn by the athletes. I know I have said it before, but the collegiate athlete talent pool is a bell shaped curve so in order to ensure the P5 programs are able to secure a more talented roster, it is vital to not only attract the talent but retain it as long as possible. The value of the scholarship, which included room and board, had been very significant for many years. The quality of the atmosphere as well as the quality of life for college athletes has been very high. As a result, very few athletes would forgo the college offer for an offer from a lower tier professional league offering $15k-$30k a year.

The viability of upstart leagues has risen in recent years and as a result the prospect of a league being able to price out the top college programs has risen. If the P5 schools were in competition with a UFL for the top five or ten percent of current or prospective college football players then it would be a huge talent drain that would lead to a great deal of parity.


However, if a P5 is able to offer gourmet meals, elite training facilities, a raucous crowd with community support, spending money, and housing, in addition to being able to spend time with other kids their age, you won't find many kids that would give up that pampered life in order to support themselves on a modest salary. This is part of the reason so many drafted kids turn down their offer to play college baseball or ice hockey. As the benefits rise to the amateur leagues you see less kids leaving to try to make it on their own.

The reality is that this is not about taking care of poor college kids because the majority of them are not destitute and for every one their is you will find many others on campus that are in a similar situation without the benefit and support of the athletic department behind them. The poor kid is merely a poster child used to raise benefit limits.


Kids, and their families, make the decisions because they are what they perceive to be their best options. They are not exploited. I remember a conversation I had just a few years ago about someone who was in favor of stipends. They told me about a kid we both knew from a lower middle income family where the family had spent a lot of money on his training over the years. He was an east coast kid and they mentioned how his mother was trying to get some support in getting the money together to fly their son home from his P5 Midwest school. He was on full scholarship. The point was suppose to be that the kid had a need. But if that was an undue burden then the kid should have accepted any of the many other scholarship offers he had from east coast schools including those near his parent's home.

The more we talk about the poor students the more we feed the arms race machine and exacerbate the problem.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

These things have less to do with student-athlete welfare and more to with pricing out competition. The P5 know that non-P5 schools won't be able to offer same benefits so it will help price NDSU football as well as Murray State, Belmont, and Wofford basketball out.

While this creates a competitive advantage within the NCAA it also creates a competitive advantage for the NCAA against external leagues. In football the UFL was a competitor to college football and as the profitability rises, the viability of upstart leagues raises. The same is true in college basketball with the D-League and Euroleagues.

The reality is that most fans have allegiance to the institution and are less drawn by the athletes. I know I have said it before, but the collegiate athlete talent pool is a bell shaped curve so in order to ensure the P5 programs are able to secure a more talented roster, it is vital to not only attract the talent but retain it as long as possible. The value of the scholarship, which included room and board, had been very significant for many years. The quality of the atmosphere as well as the quality of life for college athletes has been very high. As a result, very few athletes would forgo the college offer for an offer from a lower tier professional league offering $15k-$30k a year.

The viability of upstart leagues has risen in recent years and as a result the prospect of a league being able to price out the top college programs has risen. If the P5 schools were in competition with a UFL for the top five or ten percent of current or prospective college football players then it would be a huge talent drain that would lead to a great deal of parity.


However, if a P5 is able to offer gourmet meals, elite training facilities, a raucous crowd with community support, spending money, and housing, in addition to being able to spend time with other kids their age, you won't find many kids that would give up that pampered life in order to support themselves on a modest salary. This is part of the reason so many drafted kids turn down their offer to play college baseball or ice hockey. As the benefits rise to the amateur leagues you see less kids leaving to try to make it on their own.

The reality is that this is not about taking care of poor college kids because the majority of them are not destitute and for every one their is you will find many others on campus that are in a similar situation without the benefit and support of the athletic department behind them. The poor kid is merely a poster child used to raise benefit limits.


Kids, and their families, make the decisions because they are what they perceive to be their best options. They are not exploited. I remember a conversation I had just a few years ago about someone who was in favor of stipends. They told me about a kid we both knew from a lower middle income family where the family had spent a lot of money on his training over the years. He was an east coast kid and they mentioned how his mother was trying to get some support in getting the money together to fly their son home from his P5 Midwest school. He was on full scholarship. The point was suppose to be that the kid had a need. But if that was an undue burden then the kid should have accepted any of the many other scholarship offers he had from east coast schools including those near his parent's home.

The more we talk about the poor students the more we feed the arms race machine and exacerbate the problem.

Amen. And a couple of addendums:

1) All the decisions are made for the benefit of the P5 and nobody else. They view themselves in "competition" with the semi-pro leagues, schools like Lehigh, Wofford and Montana not so much.

2) Once those decisions are made with the P5 in mind, the NCAA and P5 pretty much doesn't give two ****s about how complicated, or expensive, it is for everyone else to implement. Essentially their response is "f- you, we're doing this, deal with it." Before "autonomy" those members' refuge was the way NCAA laws were passed - if enough of the rest of the schools wanted to veto something that they saw as harmful to themselves, they could - which is, in fact, what happened with FCOA. That experience cause the P5 to create this "autonomy f-you" way of doing business.

3) All recruits think of their scholarships in terms of benefits for them (for 1-5 years) and also an ROI on the time/money/energy spent on their sport, it is true. Sometimes they make good decisions, other times they might not, however nobody should go hungry over it. IMO, the food thing falls in the category: "sure, food security doesn't affect most of the athletes, but with some athletes it's a life-changer". Would it be better if the plan were designed to only really be in place for true "at-need" athletes? Absolutely, but, again, look at 1) and 2). The P5 doesn't care about it, so it doesn't get discussed or implemented.

4) The true irony is that it's at under-resourced institutions where food security can actually be a big problem. If food security were the issue trying to be resolved, the best thing the NCAA could do is to donate $2M to each under-resourced school per year to come up with a food plan and training table for all students, let alone just athletes. Again, however, see 1) and 2).

[Pinnum]

Amen. And a couple of addendums:

3) IMO, the food thing falls in the category: "sure, food security doesn't affect most of the athletes, but with some athletes it's a life-changer". Would it be better if the plan were designed to only really be in place for true "at-need" athletes? Absolutely, but, again, look at 1) and 2). The P5 doesn't care about it, so it doesn't get discussed or implemented.


3. In my experience, I have found student-athletes to be taken care of in regards to food even under the old system. Room and board (meals) are part of the scholarship and even when it is not (partial scholarships, walk-ons, etc.) the kids would have to eat anywhere they were living. The issue I often see is that kids would go home to their off campus apartment and then not feel like going back to campus to get food. It was more about being inconvenienced than not having the option available. It is amazing how much hand holding a lot of college athletes require. Sure, there may be some anomalies and rare instances but every athletic department and coach wants to ensure their athletes are eating well since it is vital to performance.

People like to blame the NCAA but that is only because it is some big faceless body but the reality is that if a kid is not allotted the time to get foot it is a failure on the coaching staff. That is not a position any program is willing to take so they blame it on the NCAA for not allowing them to spend more money on benefits.

[Bisonoline]

3. In my experience, I have found student-athletes to be taken care of in regards to food even under the old system. Room and board (meals) are part of the scholarship and even when it is not (partial scholarships, walk-ons, etc.) the kids would have to eat anywhere they were living. The issue I often see is that kids would go home to their off campus apartment and then not feel like going back to campus to get food. It was more about being inconvenienced than not having the option available. It is amazing how much hand holding a lot of college athletes require. Sure, there may be some anomalies and rare instances but every athletic department and coach wants to ensure their athletes are eating well since it is vital to performance.


People like to blame the NCAA but that is only because it is some big faceless body but the reality is that if a kid is not allotted the time to get foot it is a failure on the coaching staff. That is not a position any program is willing to take so they blame it on the NCAA for not allowing them to spend more money on benefits.

The food thing as you said is horse hooey. Many kids get out of practice and if not required they will go out to eat and not eat where the food is already being provided. Even when I was in school our cafeteria wasn't open but for one meal on sunday so we got cash to eat a sunday meal during the season.

[WestCoastAggie]

The nutrition item should be looked at by FCS schools. A way for an FCS school to pay for this is to allow the general student body to take advantage of this, for a cost of course.

Have charging stations all over campus and in the Union instead of a traditional store that sales junk food exclusively and improve the food options in the dining halls. Kids will pay for higher quality food.

[walliver]

Some of the food changes are good. I was unaware until this week that walk-ons were not previously allowed to eat at the training table. On the other hand, athletes can be given adequate nutrition at very little marginal cost. No one in the SEC is spending millions on athletes' extra meals (I believe that meals expenses are already covered by their existing salariesxsmiley_wix)

The whole "recharging station" BS is essentially a way of creating an all-inclusive resort environment for athletes.

How long will the NCAA stick with it's outdated model that requires athletes to take academic courses? Don't these people realize that going to classes, studying, and taking tests interferes with these athlete's sleep cycles and causes completely unnecessary stress and anxiety.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Wow, nobody could have predicted this:

http://www.citizen-times.com/story/sports/2015/05/13/pay-pay-college-athletes/27261343/


UNC Asheville track and field runner Kelsie Rubino was not familiar with the NCAA decision on cost of attendance adopted in January that allows schools to pay stipends of thousands of dollars for scholarship athletes.

And she certainly wasn't aware that her school has made the decision to pay only the men's and women's basketball players but not scholarship athletes in 12 other sports.

"I don't think that's fair!" Rubino said earlier this week at a school-sponsored fundraiser she attended that raised thousands of dollars for her athletic program.

Who to pay — and not pay — and how many athletes colleges can afford to pay is just a few of the many questions Division I schools are facing as the measure takes effect at the start of the upcoming school year.

"I don't understand why some students are (going to) get paid and others aren't," said Rubino, a rising senior from Charlotte.

[Bisonator]

Wow, nobody could have predicted this:

http://www.citizen-times.com/story/sports/2015/05/13/pay-pay-college-athletes/27261343/

Seems little miss priss has a lot to learn yet. Life isn't fair!

[CrazyCat]

Seems little miss priss has a lot to learn yet. Life isn't fair!

Personally, I would take the FCOA money that the full ride basketball players are wanting and divy it out to the track squads.

[jmufan999]

my god this thread has some long posts. I did a ton of skimming, so I'm sure I've missed a lot. oh well.

JMU will definitely offer FCOA, and probably soon. we basically have to at this point. we have a pretty big athletic budget by FCS standards so I'd assume we'll be forced to do this very soon.

[Sader87]

FCOA is going to be a disaster public relations-wise imo. That UNC-A female athlete will be the first of many who complain....

[FargoBison]

FCOA is going to be a disaster public relations-wise imo. That UNC-A female athlete will be the first of many who complain....

The alternative was lawsuits and a potential membership split, so the NCAA will take the PR hit.