(05-31-2013 02:55 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 02:43 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 02:36 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 02:33 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Clay Travis ‏@ClayTravisBGID 1h
SEC's Slive coming out strong in favor of $4k yearly stipend for all scholarship athletes. All five big conferences support this.

So make that $750,000 $1,500,000. For now.

That would be much tougher for schools in the Sun-Belt, MAC, and bottom of C-USA. Pretty much everyone in the AAC and MWC could pay that, and the top of C-USA financially could make it work as well.

ACtually, isn't it still less than the lower-FBS schools will be getting from the playoff fund?

Might be, but that doesn't really change who would or wouldn't be able to absorb that financial hit. Everyone in the AAC has budgets that could make that work. I'm fairly certain the same would apply to the MWC. The top half of C-USA in terms of finances could probably do it as well. When you start getting down to those schools with 20 million or less budgets you have some real issues and they might not be able to do it.

I think if it's the difference between staying in lower-FBS with the AAC, etc., they'll find a way to come up with the money, at least for football. Probably by raising student fees.

(05-31-2013 02:55 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 02:43 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 02:36 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 02:33 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Clay Travis ‏@ClayTravisBGID 1h
SEC's Slive coming out strong in favor of $4k yearly stipend for all scholarship athletes. All five big conferences support this.

So make that $750,000 $1,500,000. For now.

That would be much tougher for schools in the Sun-Belt, MAC, and bottom of C-USA. Pretty much everyone in the AAC and MWC could pay that, and the top of C-USA financially could make it work as well.

ACtually, isn't it still less than the lower-FBS schools will be getting from the playoff fund?

Might be, but that doesn't really change who would or wouldn't be able to absorb that financial hit. Everyone in the AAC has budgets that could make that work. I'm fairly certain the same would apply to the MWC. The top half of C-USA in terms of finances could probably do it as well. When you start getting down to those schools with 20 million or less budgets you have some real issues and they might not be able to do it.

I know NIU's budget is over 20M but not by that much. It will be quite a hit. I think most GO5 schools will probably ask for more money to play at a P5 team's stadium.

Tulane's athletic budget has grown from 15 million in 2006 to about 28-30 million in 2013. Even the miniature private universities understand that times are changing...

Do college presidents gets bonuses for the amount of money they bring in?

(05-31-2013 02:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 02:43 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 02:36 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 02:33 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Clay Travis ‏@ClayTravisBGID 1h
SEC's Slive coming out strong in favor of $4k yearly stipend for all scholarship athletes. All five big conferences support this.

So make that $750,000 $1,500,000. For now.

That would be much tougher for schools in the Sun-Belt, MAC, and bottom of C-USA. Pretty much everyone in the AAC and MWC could pay that, and the top of C-USA financially could make it work as well.

ACtually, isn't it still less than the lower-FBS schools will be getting from the playoff fund?

How much are they supposed to get from the playoff fund? I can't imagine it would be that much.

Non-contract FBS conferences that have at least 12 schools get $12 million a year from the playoff money -- $1 million/school if the league has 12 members.

(05-31-2013 01:46 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Would the stipend be the exact thing at every school, regardless of conference affiliation?

The original proposal applied ONLY to full scholarships, not to partials. And it was optional by conference and by school. Obviously, it would be very hard for a school not to do it if someone in their conference was.

I know Texas voted against the proposal because they wanted it applied proportionately to partial scholarships, both for fairness and for Title IX issues. So their idea was that a 1/2 scholarship would get 1/2 the stipend.

The Sun Belt was actually the first conference to give its members authority to implement the stipend.

In reality, I suspect a number of schools would not give out the full stipend, instead awarding it on a need basis. A might get $2000, B might get $500, C might get $0.

But yes, coupled with the enhanced CFP payout, the stiped essentially is a net zero on the balance sheet. IF YOU PLAY FBS FOOTBALL.

The 220 or so schools that don't play FBS... it's a tough choice. Do you pay it or do you concede the fact that you probably weren't going to out-recruit those schools in most situations and therefore why waste the money?

(05-31-2013 04:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 02:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 02:43 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 02:36 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 02:33 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Clay Travis ‏@ClayTravisBGID 1h
SEC's Slive coming out strong in favor of $4k yearly stipend for all scholarship athletes. All five big conferences support this.

So make that $750,000 $1,500,000. For now.

That would be much tougher for schools in the Sun-Belt, MAC, and bottom of C-USA. Pretty much everyone in the AAC and MWC could pay that, and the top of C-USA financially could make it work as well.

ACtually, isn't it still less than the lower-FBS schools will be getting from the playoff fund?

How much are they supposed to get from the playoff fund? I can't imagine it would be that much.

Non-contract FBS conferences that have at least 12 schools get $12 million a year from the playoff money -- $1 million/school if the league has 12 members.

Hmm, we have 13 so a little less than a million per team. And the stipend would be around 1.5 million? Estimated as I believe we may have somewhat fewer sports than some. So it might be half a mil extra expense to start off.

It's a good question exactly who would get the stipends.

As usual, I figure you start with the power-conferences, and then trickle down. The power conferences spend up to the max, including non-revenue sports.

The lower-FBS conferences pay about 200 stipends, for football, mens' and womens' basketball, and another 85 women's scholarships. (This gives the lower-FBS schools a big leg up on non-FBS schools in womens' sports).

The Big East schools pay stipends for most of our athletes--we have the money, we're not paying for football, and we want to stay competitive in nonrevenue sports.

A few dozen other schools are going to want to do 20-25 dozen stipends in a showcase sport like basketball, hockey or lacrosse. I figure the National Collegiate Hockey Conference schools, a dozen top midmajor programs in basketball, a handful of lacrosse schools.

Does this mean more realignment below the FBS level, or do conferences just accept that some of their top programs have a recruiting advantage?

Some conferences might just decide everyone in the conference will pay the same stipend, if this happens.

(05-31-2013 06:57 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Some conferences might just decide everyone in the conference will pay the same stipend, if this happens.

Which will drive more realignment, as schools find themselves in conferences that aren't a good fit at all.