http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...es-changes

just another way for the Cartels to squeeze the rest of us out. now the major AQ teams will have a HUGE edge in recruiting over those of us who can't afford to pony up the additional money for the larger scholarships.

(10-27-2011 04:03 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  just another way for the Cartels to squeeze the rest of us out. now the major AQ teams will have a HUGE edge in recruiting over those of us who can't afford to pony up the additional money for the larger scholarships.

Personally, I would expect the SBS to vote to fund the extra $2000.00 per scholarship. There may be some schools that will vote against it, but I think it will pass.

(10-27-2011 04:14 PM)crawfish3 Wrote:  

(10-27-2011 04:03 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  just another way for the Cartels to squeeze the rest of us out. now the major AQ teams will have a HUGE edge in recruiting over those of us who can't afford to pony up the additional money for the larger scholarships.

Personally, I would expect the SBS to vote to fund the extra $2000.00 per scholarship. There may be some schools that will vote against it, but I think it will pass.

I'm not sure. I can imagine 6 or 7 SBC schools voting for it, but where will the money come from? An extra 'money' game? What about the schools with the lowest budgets? This seems like a huge load to add to schools that have limited resources.

The AQ schools can do this without hesitation. The SBC, the MAC, CUSA? This is something that cull their weakest funded programs...

What will schools like MT, North Texas, WKU do if others in the Sun Belt refuse to vote for this while say CUSA does? The recruiting process just ends with who's the highest bidder. If North Texas can't offer the 2K vs tulsa or utep, then what? I could see some schools that have more than the minimum req'd sports dropping some. Say goodbye, WKU, to Swimming and Diving? Does the sun belt just allow schools to not fund all their sports programs with all the scholarships allowed. Will we be going against out of conference competition with say 75 vs 85 on scholarship? Will we have 10 on scholarship in MBB vs 13?

Definitely puts ULM at a disadvantage. I know we can't afford that. Not even close.

How much total extra money are we talking about ?

i.e. How many scholarship athletes are there on our campuses ?

I think it's a no-brainer that that the SBC vote to give the extra cash. Hope no weed is purchased with that $2,000

I think these additional costs should be funded by a centrally funded "profit sharing" NCAA account. TV could cover this for everyone.

(10-28-2011 08:53 AM)bmwilder139 Wrote:  Definitely puts ULM at a disadvantage. I know we can't afford that. Not even close.

from the Dr. Saturday blog:

Quote:...there is a perception that some of the smaller conferences might have trouble coming up with the funds to compete.

Full-cost scholarships could be tough on smaller schools"While the WAC's member institutions support providing its student-athletes with additional financial support, the current economic climate that exists on university campuses across the country will make this extremely challenging for WAC members," WAC commissioner Karl Benson said in an email.

The fact that other institutional aid, including the Student Opportunity Fund, has been opened up to use for this additional money, might make it a little easier for smaller institutions to doll out the cash they need to help their athletes make ends meet.

The caveat to this measure, explains Sun Belt commissioner Wright Waters, is that not every full scholarship athlete is entitled to the stipend. While each conference is different, it's likely that conferences will set a maximum number of these stipends and teams can then pick and choose which athletes get them. How would this work? It would be left up to the coaches and could create some lively competition for student-athletes during recruiting.

Moreover, since Pell Grants, which are given to need-based students, aren't factored into a full-cost scholarship, it's possible for certain students who receive both the Pell Grant and the stipend to actually make money to go to school, which is not the intention of the NCAA and could result in government taxation.

Still, the additional aid will create a better environment for the student-athlete it's just unclear whether all full scholarships athletes will see the benefit.

"I think it's too early to tell what the effect might be," Waters said. "Sometimes, our schools are doing a better job of financial aid and securing financial aid for students than some of the larger schools."

FAUowlaccess called the SunBelt office in regards to this. Here's what WW had to say.

FAUowlaccess story and WW Quotes...

Sun Belt Commissioner Wright Waters expects the conference to embrace the new regulations that include allowing student athletes to receive an extra $2,000 per year on top of their current scholarship.

“I think it's the right thing to do and I think, philosophically, the group sees it as the opportunity to help young people,” Waters said.

On Thursday, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors adopted several proposals, including one allowing student athletes on full athletic scholarships to receive additional aid up to the full cost of attendance or $2,000 – whichever is less.

Universities will not be forced to adopt the measure. The NCAA is encouraging conferences to choose a “common application” among their members.

Sun Belt athletic directors discussed the possibility of the legislation passing at their fall meeting a couple of weeks ago and Waters said the proposal was met with “enthusiasm” by people in the room.

Waters said a meeting of conference athletic directors is scheduled for Tuesday to discuss the new regulations.

“I would not be surprised if we didn't embrace it,” Waters said.

Waters said the NCAA also loosened some other monetary restraints on institutions that could make it easier for student athletes to receive money from other sources, thereby lessening the burdens of member institutions....

I guess most schools have a little over 200 student athletes - so this is a $450,000 expense, worst case.

And that can be reduced some by using pell grants/financial aid.


That is a big chunk - but not a program killer.

(10-28-2011 09:38 AM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  I guess most schools have a little over 200 student athletes - so this is a $450,000 expense, worst case.

And that can be reduced some by using pell grants/financial aid.


That is a big chunk - but not a program killer.

Bottom line; if we are going to play with the big boys (recruiting wise) we will have to pony up this money. Schools that cannot do so need to consider dropping down because not doing so would significantly widen the gap in talent. This might cause the merger of the WAC and the Sunbelt though; depending on what respective member schools do.

alright boys and girls! time to start donating back to your college institutions if you are not already!

So much for cutting money games!

Maybe at the final couple home games each school can put out buckets to collect cash for scholarship funds.

Also, how about the states that have lotteries? could that possibly be used to help fund the extra cost of these scholies? Bama needs to pass a lottery!

sorry for the stream of consciencousness writing... haha

That Waters said the SBC would embrace it says all I needed to hear. Looks like there are a number of ways to skin that cat.

The AQ Conferences will probably be forced to offer the 4 year deals get those 4-5 star guys so assuming the 85 total stays in effect that should mean more talent for the lower level FBS programs. I say that am assuming most players that lost those one year scholarship at a AQ school probably transferred to a lower level to avoid sitting out a year.

(10-28-2011 10:26 AM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  That Waters said the SBC would embrace it says all I needed to hear. Looks like there are a number of ways to skin that cat.

The AQ Conferences will probably be forced to offer the 4 year deals get those 4-5 star guys so assuming the 85 total stays in effect that should mean more talent for the lower level FBS programs. I say that am assuming most players that lost those one year scholarship at a AQ school probably transferred to a lower level to avoid sitting out a year.

There were discussions at the SBC fall meeting about reducing football scholarships to 75, just to let everyone know.

(10-28-2011 10:40 AM)CajunT Wrote:  

(10-28-2011 10:26 AM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

There were discussions at the SBC fall meeting about reducing football scholarships to 75, just to let everyone know.

We might as well drop to IAA if we did that. BAD IDEA!

Even taking into account the obvious fact that the posters here know more than our ADs, you would think they would have been smart enough not to have met the proposal with “enthusiasm” if there were major issues for the any SBC team. Right?

Wow ! I can't believe that a School will have to guarantee a 4 yr scholorship. We are seeing a reduction of efford in the NFL once
players get the Big contracts, now college athletes will no longer have to earn their way.. So typical of the way this world is headed.
It's becomming more and more clear that the D1 level of football will have to be split up .. Just to hard for Mid majors to keep up with the
Flagship Schools who rake in the money. Why continue to beat our heads
against the wall trying to figure out how? Let's just create a D-1 Mid Major Division and let the BCS schools fight it out without us having to
give them the automatic W's. If they want to flaunt their 12-0, 11-1
records, let them earn it against teams of equal means. This system is not working for Mid majors, and it never will. We are settling for this
un-level playing field instead of promoting a winning formula.

(10-28-2011 11:37 AM)CajunFan8301 Wrote:  Wow ! I can't believe that a School will have to guarantee a 4 yr scholorship. We are seeing a reduction of efford in the NFL once
players get the Big contracts, now college athletes will no longer have to earn their way.. So typical of the way this world is headed.
It's becomming more and more clear that the D1 level of football will have to be split up .. Just to hard for Mid majors to keep up with the
Flagship Schools who rake in the money. Why continue to beat our heads
against the wall trying to figure out how? Let's just create a D-1 Mid Major Division and let the BCS schools fight it out without us having to
give them the automatic W's. If they want to flaunt their 12-0, 11-1
records, let them earn it against teams of equal means. This system is not working for Mid majors, and it never will. We are settling for this
un-level playing field instead of promoting a winning formula.

Yep...that is the good ole American spirit..........just quit.

Actually I was thinking that many of these doomsday rules like averaging 15K at home, scheduling a certain # home games, and the like has resulted in a better product on the field/courts for SBC schools. Granted the AQ schools have the money to build really impressive facilities but in many cases their athletic teams are not as impressive as their facilities, and it looks like the SBC is competing better.

But what does it matter that 15k rule will send all SBC teams to the FCS anyway.

Additional dollars and a 4 year scholarship are the NCAA and BCS conferences way to take some of the steam out of the billions and billions the athletes are making for the institutions.

There have been rumblings by the athletes and their loose conglomeration of advocates about the huge dollars the schools are earning on the backs of the generally poor football players. To head off litigation down the road, this is certainly a prudent move by the BCS conferences and the NCAA.

This does now, however, open a pandora's box for potentially ratcheting up these stipends going forward. The SBC will approve them and those programs who have trouble meeting the obligations may have to determine whether or not FBS football is worth while.

However, we need to see the bigger picture here; for there to be ever increasing dollars being handed out to these institutions, some kind of good faith appropriations must be given to the money earners.

(10-28-2011 12:27 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  Additional dollars and a 4 year scholarship are the NCAA and BCS conferences way to take some of the steam out of the billions and billions the athletes are making for the institutions.

There have been rumblings by the athletes and their loose conglomeration of advocates about the huge dollars the schools are earning on the backs of the generally poor football players. To head off litigation down the road, this is certainly a prudent move by the BCS conferences and the NCAA.

This does now, however, open a pandora's box for potentially ratcheting up these stipends going forward. The SBC will approve them and those programs who have trouble meeting the obligations may have to determine whether or not FBS football is worth while.

However, we need to see the bigger picture here; for there to be ever increasing dollars being handed out to these institutions, some kind of good faith appropriations must be given to the money earners.

Well the posters here can spin this anyway they want and/or create any imaginary scenario/motive they want but from what I've heard it was/is viewed as a positive step forward for the athletes by the SBC and was in fact met with enthusiasm.