(03-04-2015 12:57 PM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:10 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 08:13 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 07:26 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  There is not a "match". Not even in the B10. Each school's numbers will be different based on the total cost of attendance as reported to the government each year. Schools will now walk a fine line between jacking that number up to offer more to athletes and possibly turning off potential students when they review the published numbers for cost.

I don't see how this is a big deal. $5,000.00 per 300 athletes is $1.5 million. With 30,000 students alone, that would be $50.00 annual increase in fees. Am I missing something?

It's the package of changes and the long term affects that will hurt. Still, as it stands now, I think 1.5M is a big deal for a number of G5 schools. But I think it's more than this alone. The 1.5M doesn't include the off campus housing allowance. That number, in most cases, will probably be higher than the COA stipend. So before we even look at the costs of extended insurance coverage we could be looking at $10,000 plus per athlete. There's also the pending rule allowing unfettered transfers ---

But you don't have those costs if you play FCS sports. I am not in favor of G-5 schools who cannot afford to play P-5 football spending money if they don't have it. Now is the time to drop. I think there are only 15 G-5 teams that will survive the changes you mentioned. And its going to take a nice football stadium and BB arena, up to $150million investment to catch up to the P-5. And it could become more. That is a serious investment.

This was posted on the Memphis Board FWIW >>

The back of the envelope number I have heard is that it will cost Memphis 7 million per year. When fully implemented.

(03-03-2015 10:32 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 10:21 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  http://bleacherreport.com/articles/23833...g-national

... Without question, Penn State is using this stipend as a recruiting tool, which purists of college athletics probably feared as soon as the movement to pay college athletes started to pick up steam. Granted, even the Big Ten's biggest stipend at $4,788 for a nine-month period of the year is extremely modest, but it will now be interesting to see if schools around the Big Ten decide to increase their own stipend to compete with the one Penn State is offering....

$4,788 can buy a lot of beer.

Or tats, or drugs, etc. Just watch - it will happen. Does anyone really believe the money will be used to buy meals and other incidentals (i.e. crab legs)?

These kids do stupid things without the cash. I give this system 6-12 months from full implementation before we see our first scandal - maybe sooner.

(03-04-2015 01:48 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 12:57 PM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:10 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 08:13 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 07:26 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  There is not a "match". Not even in the B10. Each school's numbers will be different based on the total cost of attendance as reported to the government each year. Schools will now walk a fine line between jacking that number up to offer more to athletes and possibly turning off potential students when they review the published numbers for cost.

I don't see how this is a big deal. $5,000.00 per 300 athletes is $1.5 million. With 30,000 students alone, that would be $50.00 annual increase in fees. Am I missing something?

It's the package of changes and the long term affects that will hurt. Still, as it stands now, I think 1.5M is a big deal for a number of G5 schools. But I think it's more than this alone. The 1.5M doesn't include the off campus housing allowance. That number, in most cases, will probably be higher than the COA stipend. So before we even look at the costs of extended insurance coverage we could be looking at $10,000 plus per athlete. There's also the pending rule allowing unfettered transfers ---

But you don't have those costs if you play FCS sports. I am not in favor of G-5 schools who cannot afford to play P-5 football spending money if they don't have it. Now is the time to drop. I think there are only 15 G-5 teams that will survive the changes you mentioned. And its going to take a nice football stadium and BB arena, up to $150million investment to catch up to the P-5. And it could become more. That is a serious investment.

This was posted on the Memphis Board FWIW >>

The back of the envelope number I have heard is that it will cost Memphis 7 million per year. When fully implemented.

How does that math work? $7M, really?

(03-04-2015 12:57 PM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  But you don't have those costs if you play FCS sports. I am not in favor of G-5 schools who cannot afford to play P-5 football spending money if they don't have it. Now is the time to drop. I think there are only 15 G-5 teams that will survive the changes you mentioned. And its going to take a nice football stadium and BB arena, up to $150million investment to catch up to the P-5. And it could become more. That is a serious investment.

Here's the problem with schools dropping FBS to FCS. Scholarships disappear when FBS schools disappear, generally not replaced by FCS schools.

Inner city kids are the ones who may suffer. They may be able to get an athletic scholarship at a D1 school today but not tomorrow if the opportunities are smaller due to less FBS schools. These same kids do not have the resources to pay for college and may not have the academic levels for scholastic scholarships. They become lost in the new "better" system.

(03-04-2015 04:09 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 12:57 PM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  But you don't have those costs if you play FCS sports. I am not in favor of G-5 schools who cannot afford to play P-5 football spending money if they don't have it. Now is the time to drop. I think there are only 15 G-5 teams that will survive the changes you mentioned. And its going to take a nice football stadium and BB arena, up to $150million investment to catch up to the P-5. And it could become more. That is a serious investment.

Here's the problem with schools dropping FBS to FCS. Scholarships disappear when FBS schools disappear, generally not replaced by FCS schools.

Inner city kids are the ones who may suffer. They may be able to get an athletic scholarship at a D1 school today but not tomorrow if the opportunities are smaller due to less FBS schools. These same kids do not have the resources to pay for college and may not have the academic levels for scholastic scholarships. They become lost in the new "better" system.

I am not saying the new reality created by the P-5 is a "better" system. It is what it is and if you don't have the funds to compete, you don't. Schools that cannot fund and compete at the P-5 level can continue to offer scholarships as they do today for sports, without COA. The left over G-5 schools would focus on BB and field the best available talent in D-1 football. I think when the day is done, there will be about 80 teams total in the P-5.

(03-04-2015 04:39 PM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 04:09 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 12:57 PM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  But you don't have those costs if you play FCS sports. I am not in favor of G-5 schools who cannot afford to play P-5 football spending money if they don't have it. Now is the time to drop. I think there are only 15 G-5 teams that will survive the changes you mentioned. And its going to take a nice football stadium and BB arena, up to $150million investment to catch up to the P-5. And it could become more. That is a serious investment.

Here's the problem with schools dropping FBS to FCS. Scholarships disappear when FBS schools disappear, generally not replaced by FCS schools.

Inner city kids are the ones who may suffer. They may be able to get an athletic scholarship at a D1 school today but not tomorrow if the opportunities are smaller due to less FBS schools. These same kids do not have the resources to pay for college and may not have the academic levels for scholastic scholarships. They become lost in the new "better" system.

I am not saying the new reality created by the P-5 is a "better" system. It is what it is and if you don't have the funds to compete, you don't. Schools that cannot fund and compete at the P-5 level can continue to offer scholarships as they do today for sports, without COA. The left over G-5 schools would focus on BB and field the best available talent in D-1 football. I think when the day is done, there will be about 80 teams total in the P-5.

Talk about digging (G5) graves. If FBS ever does shrink to 80 teams due to attrition, it won't stop there.

The last shovel of dirt on the G5 will be an increase of scholarships the P5 can offer. In that scenario having 3 elite QBs, like OSU has now, will become the norm for most P5 teams. The surviving G5 teams will get the scraps from the bottom of the recruiting trails.

(03-04-2015 10:55 AM)wave97 Wrote:  Temple will never, ever, ever reach a fraction of the level of popular entertainment that Penn State has achieved. Temple can be in the top 20 with a brand new OCS & they will still draw 15K.

Coming from a Tulane fan?

(03-04-2015 04:06 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 01:48 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 12:57 PM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:10 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 08:13 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  I don't see how this is a big deal. $5,000.00 per 300 athletes is $1.5 million. With 30,000 students alone, that would be $50.00 annual increase in fees. Am I missing something?

It's the package of changes and the long term affects that will hurt. Still, as it stands now, I think 1.5M is a big deal for a number of G5 schools. But I think it's more than this alone. The 1.5M doesn't include the off campus housing allowance. That number, in most cases, will probably be higher than the COA stipend. So before we even look at the costs of extended insurance coverage we could be looking at $10,000 plus per athlete. There's also the pending rule allowing unfettered transfers ---

But you don't have those costs if you play FCS sports. I am not in favor of G-5 schools who cannot afford to play P-5 football spending money if they don't have it. Now is the time to drop. I think there are only 15 G-5 teams that will survive the changes you mentioned. And its going to take a nice football stadium and BB arena, up to $150million investment to catch up to the P-5. And it could become more. That is a serious investment.

This was posted on the Memphis Board FWIW >>

The back of the envelope number I have heard is that it will cost Memphis 7 million per year. When fully implemented.

How does that math work? $7M, really?

I think the key phrase here is "fully implemented" - which, if it means what I think, I doubt will happened at any G5 school. Memphis sponsors 18 sports so some will probably not see the benefits at all and some whole range of benefits. How many scholarships those 18 sponsored sports reflects I can't begin to say --- but I suspect it's more than the 'just get by' basketball / football COA only numbers we've seen posted here. In addition, what the autonomy group's final rule changes will look like --- all of the rules that will result in increased coverage costs --- isn't real clear. But they're not done -

(03-04-2015 08:13 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  I don't see how this is a big deal. $5,000.00 per 300 athletes is $1.5 million. With 30,000 students alone, that would be $50.00 annual increase in fees. Am I missing something?

Or, for a university that averages 30,000 attendance per home game, that would be $8.33 more per ticket, with 6 home games.

For a university (like Penn St) that can average 100,000 per home game over 7 games, that's about $2.14 more per ticket.

(03-04-2015 11:10 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 08:13 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 07:26 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  There is not a "match". Not even in the B10. Each school's numbers will be different based on the total cost of attendance as reported to the government each year. Schools will now walk a fine line between jacking that number up to offer more to athletes and possibly turning off potential students when they review the published numbers for cost.

I don't see how this is a big deal. $5,000.00 per 300 athletes is $1.5 million. With 30,000 students alone, that would be $50.00 annual increase in fees. Am I missing something?

It's the package of changes and the long term affects that will hurt. Still, as it stands now, I think 1.5M is a big deal for a number of G5 schools. But I think it's more than this alone. The 1.5M doesn't include the off campus housing allowance. That number, in most cases, will probably be higher than the COA stipend. So before we even look at the costs of extended insurance coverage we could be looking at $10,000 plus per athlete. There's also the pending rule allowing unfettered transfers ---

Exactly. Basically zeros out AAC TV deal revenue. Poor get poorer yet still try to live in the nice zip code.

(03-04-2015 04:55 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 04:39 PM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 04:09 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 12:57 PM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  But you don't have those costs if you play FCS sports. I am not in favor of G-5 schools who cannot afford to play P-5 football spending money if they don't have it. Now is the time to drop. I think there are only 15 G-5 teams that will survive the changes you mentioned. And its going to take a nice football stadium and BB arena, up to $150million investment to catch up to the P-5. And it could become more. That is a serious investment.

Here's the problem with schools dropping FBS to FCS. Scholarships disappear when FBS schools disappear, generally not replaced by FCS schools.

Inner city kids are the ones who may suffer. They may be able to get an athletic scholarship at a D1 school today but not tomorrow if the opportunities are smaller due to less FBS schools. These same kids do not have the resources to pay for college and may not have the academic levels for scholastic scholarships. They become lost in the new "better" system.

I am not saying the new reality created by the P-5 is a "better" system. It is what it is and if you don't have the funds to compete, you don't. Schools that cannot fund and compete at the P-5 level can continue to offer scholarships as they do today for sports, without COA. The left over G-5 schools would focus on BB and field the best available talent in D-1 football. I think when the day is done, there will be about 80 teams total in the P-5.

Talk about digging (G5) graves. If FBS ever does shrink to 80 teams due to attrition, it won't stop there.

The last shovel of dirt on the G5 will be an increase of scholarships the P5 can offer. In that scenario having 3 elite QBs, like OSU has now, will become the norm for most P5 teams. The surviving G5 teams will get the scraps from the bottom of the recruiting trails.

Scholarship increases and increased numbers on coaching and recruiting staffs will be next.

(03-04-2015 04:06 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 01:48 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 12:57 PM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:10 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 08:13 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  I don't see how this is a big deal. $5,000.00 per 300 athletes is $1.5 million. With 30,000 students alone, that would be $50.00 annual increase in fees. Am I missing something?

It's the package of changes and the long term affects that will hurt. Still, as it stands now, I think 1.5M is a big deal for a number of G5 schools. But I think it's more than this alone. The 1.5M doesn't include the off campus housing allowance. That number, in most cases, will probably be higher than the COA stipend. So before we even look at the costs of extended insurance coverage we could be looking at $10,000 plus per athlete. There's also the pending rule allowing unfettered transfers ---

But you don't have those costs if you play FCS sports. I am not in favor of G-5 schools who cannot afford to play P-5 football spending money if they don't have it. Now is the time to drop. I think there are only 15 G-5 teams that will survive the changes you mentioned. And its going to take a nice football stadium and BB arena, up to $150million investment to catch up to the P-5. And it could become more. That is a serious investment.

This was posted on the Memphis Board FWIW >>

The back of the envelope number I have heard is that it will cost Memphis 7 million per year. When fully implemented.

How does that math work? $7M, really?

That's probably for the full package the P5 have indicated is the goal. So 7 millionmprobably inclueds the stilend---plus, limited lifetime insurance benefit, revenue sharing for name/likeness use, lifetime educational benefit, extended family travel benefits, etc...

Just a hunch but as incompetent as the U.S. Government is they will still continue to give most athletes an average of $4k in Pell Grant money each year. A lot of athletes will now have close to $9k per year to spend which is not too shabby especially when you throw in other misc payouts like off campus housing allowances, travelling expenses, bowl money etc.. These kids basically get about the same budget as a lot of minor league baseball players only with access to better housing and food.

Prepare to see a lot of fresh tattoos on players after a week of having the money. In the end they will still be struggling for money.

(03-05-2015 09:25 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Prepare to see a lot of fresh tattoos on players after a week of having the money. In the end they will still be struggling for money.

Ain't that the truth....

When are we (either as a conference or as individual schools) going to announce what we will be providing in the way of COA. I'm afraid if we don't soon, it will negatively affect recruiting. I know we have made general statements that we will be providing them, but I'm looking for specifics, such as school X will be providing X dollars, while school Y will be providing Y, etc. Like we have heard out of the monied 5

(03-05-2015 02:18 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  When are we (either as a conference or as individual schools) going to announce what we will be providing in the way of COA. I'm afraid if we don't soon, it will negatively affect recruiting. I know we have made general statements that we will be providing them, but I'm looking for specifics, such as school X will be providing X dollars, while school Y will be providing Y, etc. Like we have heard out of the monied 5

I agree on recruiting. The fact that there's been nothing announced suggests that there might be some remaining debate / discussion among the schools on this. And honestly, I can see some schools wanting to come closer to the P5 'payouts' than others in this conference.