NEC SCHOLARSHIPS

[Ruler 79]

Is there a chance the NEC goes to the maximum of 63 rides with an AQ on the line? I know most teams in the NEC are hoping for 45 which puts them on equal footing with most teams. I do not think all programs use the full 63 or am I mistaken about this? I know for a fact if UA could go to a new conference (CAA...save this for another thread) that would allow them to ramp up to 63 they would do it tommorrow.

Either way the NEC at 45 puts them on the map and the "Old Gaurd" should not have a problem with scheduling the cupcakes from the NEC any longer.

[CRAZY_DANE]

I found this article that I thought was insightful

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070926/SPORTS0202/709260338/1002/SPORTS

"The FCS commissioners are scheduled to meet today in Chicago. One of the items they will discuss, Grom said, is a piece of proposed legislation sponsored by the Ohio Valley Conference that would require schools to provide at least 50 scholarships or, for non-scholarship programs, spend at least $1.5 million in institutional financial aid to football players."

[danefan]

I doubt the NEC will go to full 63. The bottom end (St. Francis, Wagner & Sacred Heart) wouldn't support this or be in the financial position to do so. Not surprisingly, those schools are the remaining small private institutions that woud fit perfectly in a non-scholarship MAAC.

full scholly NEC could be:
Albany
CCSU
Monmouth
RMU
Duquense
Stony Brook
Bryant

Non-scholly MAAC:
Iona
Marist
Wagner
St. Francis (PA)
Sacred Heart
Lasalle

[danefan]

I found this article that I thought was insightful

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070926/SPORTS0202/709260338/1002/SPORTS

"The FCS commissioners are scheduled to meet today in Chicago. One of the items they will discuss, Grom said, is a piece of proposed legislation sponsored by the Ohio Valley Conference that would require schools to provide at least 50 scholarships or, for non-scholarship programs, spend at least $1.5 million in institutional financial aid to football players."

Welcome Crazy Dane.
Nice find on that article.

[USDFAN_55]

Welcome Crazy Dane.
Nice find on that article.

NO..... another Dane Fan xeekx xeekx xeekx xeekx


I kid, I kid.... welcome.

[danefan]

NO..... another Dane Fan xeekx xeekx xeekx xeekx


I kid, I kid.... welcome.

Awesome signature USDFAN

[aceinthehole]

I doubt the NEC will go to full 63. The bottom end (St. Francis, Wagner & Sacred Heart) wouldn't support this or be in the financial position to do so. Not surprisingly, those schools are the remaining small private institutions that woud fit perfectly in a non-scholarship MAAC.

full scholly NEC could be:
Albany
CCSU
Monmouth
RMU
Duquense
Stony Brook
Bryant

Non-scholly MAAC:
Iona
Marist
Wagner
St. Francis (PA)
Sacred Heart
Lasalle

Not going to happen! Wagner, SHU, and SFPA already are offering scholarships. Sure, they may not want to fund 63, but they are not getting rid of what they have and returing to non-scholly. There is not an ounce of support for that conclusion. Remember it was the 6 full-time members of the NEC (CCSU, MU, RMU, SFPA, SHU, and WC) that voted to move to schollys; associate mebers (UA, and SBU) had NOT vote on conference matters. Those 6 schools will decide the limit on NEC schollys.

Furthermore, the MAAC is not a conference and won't be again, sorry. Duquesne didn't leave beacsue of the scholly issue, it was lack of leadership or support from the conference. No NEC member is going to be assoicate MAAC meber (without a vote) and let SBU and UA dictate football terms to the NEC. Trust me Albany is happy with its arraignment with the NEC teams at this time. That may change by 2010, but for now I think they are content with an opportunity to offers 30 rides and a shot at an AQ in 2008 and 2009!

Bottom line is the NEC may increase schollys for 2009, but even Albany and CCSU haven't reached 30 yet, so there is no rush. I agree we need to push the limit, but let's not get crazy. Guys lets not go crazy!

[danefan]

Not going to happen! Wagner, SHU, and SFPA already are offering scholarships. Sure, they may not want to fund 63, but they are not getting rid of what they have and returing to non-scholly. There is not an ounce of support for that conclusion. Remember it was the 6 full-time members of the NEC (CCSU, MU, RMU, SFPA, SHU, and WC) that voted to move to schollys; associate mebers (UA, and SBU) had NOT vote on conference matters. Those 6 schools will decide the limit on NEC schollys.

Furthermore, the MAAC is not a conference and won't be again, sorry. Duquesne didn't leave beacsue of the scholly issue, it was lack of leadership or support from the conference. No NEC member is going to be assoicate MAAC meber (without a vote) and let SBU and UA dictate football terms to the NEC. Trust me Albany is happy with its arraignment with the NEC teams at this time. That may change by 2010, but for now I think they are content with an opportunity to offers 30 rides and a shot at an AQ in 2008 and 2009!

Bottom line is the NEC may increase schollys for 2009, but even Albany and CCSU haven't reached 30 yet, so there is no rush. I agree we need to push the limit, but let's not get crazy. Guys lets not go crazy!

I can tell you this Ace, if the NCAA mandates a number of rides for AQ consideration and the NEC doesn't up its limit to match such #, Albany will be gone sooner than we can speculate on here about.

[USDFAN_55]

Awesome signature USDFAN

I can't take credit for it. I saw another user post it as a funny. I'm going to use it to rile some people up that don't read it thoroughly.xthumbsupx xlolx

[aceinthehole]

I can tell you this Ace, if the NCAA mandates a number of rides for AQ consideration and the NEC doesn't up its limit to match such #, Albany will be gone sooner than we can speculate on here about.

Possibly, but we don't have to worry about that right now. :) The proopsal for a minimum equivs/budget was withdrawn.

[Seawolf97]

I can tell you this Ace, if the NCAA mandates a number of rides for AQ consideration and the NEC doesn't up its limit to match such #, Albany will be gone sooner than we can speculate on here about.


Im guessing but I think that is the reason Stonybrook pulled out . Time will tell if it was the right move at the right time.

[danefan]

Possibly, but we don't have to worry about that right now. :) The proopsal for a minimum equivs/budget was withdrawn.

That article above was published today. They are still talking about scholarship minimums there.

[FCSFAN]

That article above was published today. They are still talking about scholarship minimums there.N o . 2007-101
DIVISION MEMBERSHIP — DIVISION I REQUIREMENTS — FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS — ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL AID REQUIREMENTS

Intent: To specify that an institution classified in NCAA Football Championship Subdivision shall meet the following additional financial aid requirements: (a) Provide an average of at least 50 football grants-in-aid per year over a rolling two-year period; or (b) For an institution that does not award athletics grants-in-aid in football, annually expend a minimum of $1,500,000 in institutional financial aid to football student-athletes that would have been countable if provided to a counter.

Bylaws: Amend 20.9.8, as follows:
[Federated provision, FCS only.]
20.9.8 Football Championship Subdivision Requirements. An institution classified as a football championship subdivision member shall meet the additional requirements listed below.

[20.9.8.1 through 20.9.8.2 unchanged.]

20.9.8.3 Additional Financial Aid Requirements. The institution shall satisfy the following additional financial aid requirements:
(a) Provide an average of at least 50 football grants-in-aid (equivalencies) per year over a rolling two-year period; or
(b) For an institution that does not award athletics grants-in-aid in football, annually expend a minimum of $1,500,000 in institutional financial aid to football student-athletes that would have been countable if provided to a counter.

Source: Ohio Valley Conference.
Effective Date: August 01, 2008
Category: Amendment
Topical Area: Division Membership

Rationale: Current legislation governing membership in the NCAA Division I Football Championship does not require conferences to demonstrate a common commitment to their football studentathletes in order to be eligible. In 1978, the football subdivisions were created to facilitate postseason football opportunities for institutions providing similar levels of grants-in-aid. When Division I institutions that had been competing in football at the Division II or Division III level were forced to move to the football championship subdivision, it created a situation in the subdivision in which conferences have markedly disparate financial commitments to the sport. As a result, competitive inequities have occurred and have detracted from the championship subdivision football experience and championship event. This proposal provides a remedy by ensuring that the privilege of automatic qualification for the Division I Football Championship is available to a more homogenous group of conferences.

Estimated Budget Impact: Variable to reach minimum requirements.
Impact on Student-Athlete's Time: None.
Position Statement(s)
History: Jul 12, 2007 Submit Submitted for consideration.

[Model Citizen]

competitive inequities have occurred and have detracted from the championship subdivision football experience and championship event. This proposal provides a remedy by ensuring that the privilege of automatic qualification for the Division I Football Championship is available to a more homogenous group of conferences.

The playoff teams couldn't possibly be more homogenous (sic) than they are already. They are the eggmen.

[Tod]

"The Division I model is are you moving and trying to act like a Division I institution or do you call yourself Division I but don't build your program up?"

xnodx xnodx xnodx

[McNeese_beat]

I don't understand the motive behind this proposal. What exactly is the OVC proposing as a penalty for not complying to the minimum standards? That these schools drop football? Or that a football minimal scholarship subdivision (FMSS) be formed? Or that some of these schools be forced to drop to D-II?

I don't see the motive. All it would do is encourage athletic departments to drop football and what good does that do anyone?

[FCSFAN]

I don't understand the motive behind this proposal. What exactly is the OVC proposing as a penalty for not complying to the minimum standards? That these schools drop football? Or that a football minimal scholarship subdivision (FMSS) be formed? Or that some of these schools be forced to drop to D-II?

I don't see the motive. All it would do is encourage athletic departments to drop football and what good does that do anyone?Incentive to be eligible for the FCS playoffs. Otherwise play D-I ball outside the D-I playoffs.

[McNeese_beat]

Incentive to be eligible for the FCS playoffs. Otherwise play D-I ball outside the D-I playoffs.

Then you create a third subdivision. Which creates another rung on the bottom of the D-I latter. Which discourages FCS teams from playing them because it would be looked upon in much the same way as a D-II game and would be held against them in post-season consideration. Which makes it harder for the limited-scholly teams to schedule. Probably more expensive. Which would create motive to drop the sport.

I don't want that. I want the opposite. I want Wichita State, Lamar, St. John's, etc., to bring back football, even if it's non or limited scholly. It's good for the sport.

[FCSFAN]

All D-I victories count for FCS.

[UAalum72]

2006-110 was proposed in June 2006 and withdrawn last January. 2007-101 is identical except the dollar amount is raised from $1.25M to $1.5M.

So I have the same questions:
1. Why 50? Whose a$$ did they pull that number out of? Why not make it 56.7 - at least that would have the logic of being 90% of maximum and make the teams counters for FBS bowl teams. Hmmm, could it be that some current autobid conferences average over 50 but not 56? A conference like, maybe, the OVC?

and don't tell me it's about being competitive, because of

2. $1.5M - will get you eligible, but will only buy you about 35 equivalencies at Georgetown. So why $1.5M ? Were too many NEC teams getting too close to $1.25M?

The proposal's rationale is also wrong for the majority of the NEC - Sacred Heart, Albany, Monmouth, and Robert Morris were NEVER D-I schools with D-III football.

[Dane96]

The 50 number is for the PL. I believe that the pct. of teams in the PL who have 50 equivliancies is around 50. Remember, the proposal wasnt for every league member to be at 50...but I think for a certain pct. The move was a clear act to keep the PFL and NEC out...however I am not worried from the UA standpoint; If the number is 50...so be it...the NEC must move to institute 1.5mm in spending or 50 rides. If they do not...Albany has a reason to leave (Big South, possible CAA, or Indy).

I actually agree with the minimums. 1.5mm is about 500k increase for Albany.

[Ruler 79]

So let me get this straight (yes, I am slow) If this passes then NEC will be forced to 50 scholarships or 1.5 Million for equivalencies or whatever if they want to be in the 2008 Playoffs?

If that is the case as a UA fan I am lovin this. Lets just hope the NEC is behind this. if not Danefan is right it will be bye bye NEC for UA. UA has funds RIGHT NOW earmarked for the move to 63 rides. This would be a cost savings.

On a UA only topic, this may force the powers to be to fund our new stadium. If they deny our bid then our "plan B" will probably go into effect!

[Dane96]

Two-step process before a vote:

1. Expansion of playoffs
2. Limited to a minimum requirement.

Once those things are decided (and it clearly looks like 1 is a go)...then it will be pieced together for an overall vote.

I think it will be 50 rides and 1.5...plus expansion.

[henfan]

If the NEC goes to 50+, I've got to wonder how attractive something like that would be for a Rhody or UMaine, two schools who fronted efforts in the old A-10 to cut back on schollies.

[lizrdgizrd]

I can't take credit for it. I saw another user post it as a funny. I'm going to use it to rile some people up that don't read it thoroughly.xthumbsupx xlolx
I think it's technically not a "legal" signature. I don't think you can use text bigger than normal. I'm sure the mods will get around to you eventually. xpeacex

[aceinthehole]

If the NEC goes to 50+, I've got to wonder how attractive something like that would be for a Rhody or UMaine, two schools who fronted efforts in the old A-10 to cut back on schollies.

Not sure. The progress the NEC has made is OUTSTANDING, but I think we are getting way ahead of ourselves.

NEC teams have alluded to the fact they have about 20 schoolys this year - that's 10 below the NEC limit. Shouldn't we wait for 2008 and the teams to get to 30 rides, before we worry about raising it.

UA guys are very pumped and I think they made the right choice by sticking with the NEC (unlike SBU) and could be the favorite to earn the NEC first playoff spot next season. But, as we see the UA stadium, is still likely years away. It take the NEC 3 trises to get the AQ. Nothing moves too quickly.

Maybe ist just me, but I've see too much change (SBU to Big South) to predict scenarios more than 3 season away. IMO - we could be looking at CAA expansion or contraction for 2011, which would totally change the dynamic of this situations.

But to respond to your point, I just don't see any chance that UMass/URI would join NEC football ever, even if we had 63 schollys. The Minutemen and Rams (or Maine or UNH) just aren't playing conference games vs. Wagner and SFPA. If that is the case, the I will go on record and say the America East has the worst conference leadership, ever.

I'll go out on a limb and say I can possibly see a "new" conference forming for around 2011 with Albany, CCSU, Stony Brook, UNH, Maine, URI, UMass, and possibly Monmouth.

[henfan]

If that is the case, the I will go on record and say the America East has the worst conference leadership, ever.[/B]

As a fan of a team who's 'been there', I think I can safely say that is the case, unfortunately.

While the currrent leadership is better and appears more serious about pursuing improvement, they are still short on delivery (see AEC FB, hockey, etc.)

[Model Citizen]

Isn't "institutional aid" in this case the same as need-based (non-athletic) grants? If so, I'd guess that members of the PFL, MAAC, and NEC fall short of $1.5M. The Ivy would qualify.

[Dane96]

Yes, it is. The NEC, however, does not give need-based aid.

[Model Citizen]

If the NEC is limited to 30 equivalencies spread among 85 counters, then I imagine many aid packages include merit aid. Won't add up to big bucks at a state school, however.