Thanks 65. So pretty serious. Looks to be very little discussion if it was introduced 10 days before it was voted on and passed unanimously.

(01-26-2015 02:26 PM)tribe_pride Wrote:  Thanks 65. So pretty serious. Looks to be very little discussion if it was introduced 10 days before it was voted on and passed unanimously.

There are so many bills that most legislators rely on the committee members to study the bills. If you get a unanimous vote out of committee (the bill did) then it will past that part of the legislature.

This does not mean it will sail through the VA senate. Time will tell.

I predict it will pass both House & Senate & be signed by the Gov.

Fortunately for ODU, when it went from sub-committee to full committee, it was amended.
Originally, it gave ODU five years to attain the same 20% student fee cap as UVA and VT. It was changed specifically to allow ODU ten years, and to require only a a 55% cap - recognizing the difference between P5 and G5.

I am hoping that we get one more amendment; to exempt the debt service for our new football stadium from the cap.
Del Cox agreed that we would be far more likely to achieve and maintain the 55% cap with the additional long term revenue provided by a new facility.
Since this already passed through the House, I am cautiously optimistic that this can be addressed prior to the Senate vote.

And yes, this is an unusually bipartisan piece of legislation, so I suspect it to easily pass the Senate, and acceptance by the Governor.

(01-24-2015 10:40 AM)wanm65 Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 08:41 AM)wanm65 Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 06:34 AM)Paulbintheburg Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 11:13 PM)wanm65 Wrote:  2-4K does not sound like much until you add it up (remember with Title 9 you have to be "equal" for men & women)

Not on a stipend, that is how the football powers are going to get around title IX. You only have to pay a stipend to both, the $$ amounts are irrelevant. (this is how it was explained t me)

Otherwise a field hockey player is getting the same $$ as a football player and that is simply not going to work, since one sport produces about 80% of the revenue for a AD, and the other produces 0%.

Sorry I don't buy it. There are many dynamics around such funding. Who gets what/how much & who decides. Where do you get the $$$.

VA state schools will not get it from student fees (several bills in the current legislative session to limit fees, especially athletics-probaly won't pass this time). A 2M endowment will generate 90,000 per year (which is more than 3 full in-state scholarships).

The academics will cry foul. While Title 9 may or may not drive the decision but you can bet the women will get their "fair" share (which I support).

As I said I believe this will be a big step in separating schools with $$$ from the rest. And I believe W&M will be way behind or opt not to buy in.

If the CAA allows it will set up a two tiered conference-schools who can fund it & the rest. Pretty hard to recruit against a school that offers another 2-5K bump for 4 years.

Football would need around 200K per year (3K per) to fund it. That would need an endowment of around $5,000,000 to cover it. The numbers get real big real quick. UR & NOVA could do this-not sure about the others.

The 5M endowment for FB did not include parity for women. Worse case is that you would need 10,000,000 to endow it!

And all of a sudden you are at 40% of what we are paying to upgrade Zable.

Power conferences will primarily fund stipends with booster donations, places like Ohio St, Bama, FSU, etc, will have no trouble raising those funds. Keep in mind the power 5 are going to pretty much become their own entity outside the NCAA within a few yrs, so that means everyone else will either have to pony up, or be left out.

I am not exactly sure what the womens "fair" share would be, considering the two biggest revenue generators are football and mens hoops (though one could say in certain schools wmns hoops is a solid #3).

I can see a sliding pay scale so to speak, where a wmns volleyball player gets say $300/yr while a football player at the same school gets 10 times that, I suppose that is "fair"?

Not that you guys care about ODU; but in the interest of accuracy (Tribal), the latest data from the Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts website, shows that, due in large part to game and conference payouts, ODU is now UNDER the Cox cap by 5% to 65% from 73%.
http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/ODUNCAA14.pdf

ODU will not have to cut more than $3/4 million after all.

This is a moot discussion, at least for W&M. Reveley has already stated publicly that W&M will not provide athletic scholarships that cover the true cost of attendance (i.e., W&M will not provide what some of you are calling "stipends"):

"William & Mary will not offer the full cost of attendance to our varsity athletes -- or free food 24/7 from trucks roaming the campus catering only to varsity athletes, or any other 'autonomy' measures whose effect would be to turn varsity athletes into a privileged cohort apart from other students. It’s very important on our campus that varsity athletes be students in actual fact, not just theory. This means our athletes take the same courses as other students, are held to the same rigorous academic standards, eat in the same places as their fellow students, and take part generally in the larger life of the campus, while simultaneously engaging in serious, successful intercollegiate competition. Varsity sports matter a lot at William & Mary, but always in ways consistent with the mission and nature of the university.

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/fairban...-post.html

Also, some of you have been discussing how Title IX would play into this. Here is a summary. Among its requirements, Title IX requires that the total amount of athletic scholarship aid awarded to men and women must be substantially proportionate to their overall varsity athletics participation rates at the university. This has been interpreted to mean that there can be a 1% variance between the percentage of male and female athletes at a school and the percentage of total athletic aid men and women are receiving.

As an example, assume that 50% of W&M's athletes are men and 50% are women (this counts scholarship and non-scholarship athletes). In this scenario, women must receive at least 49% of the total athletic scholarship aid awarded by W&M. If they are only receiving 48%, W&M is not in compliance with Title IX.

It all depends on what a school's participation and scholarship aid numbers look like, but you can assume that for most schools every dollar that is added for male scholarships will require that a dollar be added for female scholarships. So it's unlikely that schools will be able to award COA scholarships to football and/or basketball players without also doing so for a corresponding number of female athletes. And, yes, "stipends" counts as athletic scholarship aid. So a school can't get around Title IX by calling something a stipend instead of part of an athletic scholarship. It doesn't even matter where the funding for the stipend comes from. A school can't get stipend funding from a booster to avoid Title IX. The booster will just have to provide some $$ for women too. The football power schools aren't going to have a problem coming up with the money needed for COA scholarships. Most are expecting to get it from increased TV revenue, increased ticket prices, and/or increased donations. Many can afford it without finding new sources of revenue.

(01-27-2015 03:45 PM)Old tribe Wrote:  .

Also, some of you have been discussing how Title IX would play into this. Here is a summary. Among its requirements, Title IX requires that the total amount of athletic scholarship aid awarded to men and women must be substantially proportionate to their overall varsity athletics participation rates at the university. This has been interpreted to mean that there can
A school can't get stipend funding from a booster to avoid Title IX. The booster will just have to provide some $$ for women too. The football power schools aren't going to have a problem coming up with the money needed for COA scholarships. Most are expecting to get it from increased TV revenue, increased ticket prices, and/or increased donations. Many can afford it without finding new sources of revenue.

Essentially the "Haves" will keep "Having" and the "Have Nots" will well, not.

If you are talking about the Power 5, keep in mind there will not really be anyone to regulate them, they have effectively shot the middle finger to the NCAA, and now can manipulate things however they like.

I do think WM should make certain the entire CAA is on board with no stipends before making those statements, otherwise that could create a bevy of issues.

(01-28-2015 07:37 AM)Paulbintheburg Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 03:45 PM)Old tribe Wrote:  .

Also, some of you have been discussing how Title IX would play into this. Here is a summary. Among its requirements, Title IX requires that the total amount of athletic scholarship aid awarded to men and women must be substantially proportionate to their overall varsity athletics participation rates at the university. This has been interpreted to mean that there can
A school can't get stipend funding from a booster to avoid Title IX. The booster will just have to provide some $$ for women too. The football power schools aren't going to have a problem coming up with the money needed for COA scholarships. Most are expecting to get it from increased TV revenue, increased ticket prices, and/or increased donations. Many can afford it without finding new sources of revenue.

Essentially the "Haves" will keep "Having" and the "Have Nots" will well, not.

If you are talking about the Power 5, keep in mind there will not really be anyone to regulate them, they have effectively shot the middle finger to the NCAA, and now can manipulate things however they like.

I do think WM should make certain the entire CAA is on board with no stipends before making those statements, otherwise that could create a bevy of issues.

If you are talking about whether the Power 5 will give stipends to women and that they can do what they want because the NCAA won't control them, realize that Title IX is a Federal law and has not controlled by the NCAA.

This is the lynch pin of the marginalization of the NCAA and may eventually lead to its disillusion. It is a pure power grab by the larger schools in order to further differentiate their product from the rest of the schools and create a further talent gap.

It pains me to refrain from discussing the evils of Title IX...........

(01-28-2015 09:35 AM)LeadBolt Wrote:  This is the lynch pin of the marginalization of the NCAA and may eventually lead to its disillusion. It is a pure power grab by the larger schools in order to further differentiate their product from the rest of the schools and create a further talent gap.

It's a combination of factors driving it.

1. The Power 5 can afford it and it does give them a competitive advantage. It could also weed out some of the pretenders and result in more $$ for those left standing.

2. The biggest factor though is the lawsuits that have been filed or that the NCAA lost. The O'Bannon decision required the scholarship limit to be raised to COA so it had to be done regardless of whether the schools wanted to do it (assuming the NCAA doesn't win on its appeal). The O'Bannon decision also allows schools to provide trust fund payments of up to $5000 per year to football and basketball players. The players can only access the money once they leave school.

There are two pending cases (In re GIA Antitrust Litigation and Jenkins v. NCAA) that are seeking to go further than O'Bannon. They are seeking a world where there are no limits on how much a school can give its athletes.

These cases, and the bad PR they have brought with the focus on huge coaching and administrator salaries, have forced the NCAA's and the Power 5's hand. They have been forced to share some of the $$ with the athletes. They are trying to make smaller changes before the courts force them to make big ones. When they tried to make even smaller changes in the past (such as allowing schools to offer a $2000 stipend), the smaller DI schools voted it down. To ensure that would no longer happen, the Power 5 said give us our own voting powers or we are out of here. Since the Power 5 holds all if the value for college athletics the other schools and conferences gave in (all except the CAA and the Ivy, they were the only 2 conferences that voted against the changes in the governance structure that gave the Power 5 autonomy).

As a result of this litigation and actual and potential rule changes, I think there will be a reshuffling of college athletics at some point in the near future (at least for football and basketball).

(01-28-2015 08:06 AM)tribe_pride Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 07:37 AM)Paulbintheburg Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 03:45 PM)Old tribe Wrote:  .

Also, some of you have been discussing how Title IX would play into this. Here is a summary. Among its requirements, Title IX requires that the total amount of athletic scholarship aid awarded to men and women must be substantially proportionate to their overall varsity athletics participation rates at the university. This has been interpreted to mean that there can
A school can't get stipend funding from a booster to avoid Title IX. The booster will just have to provide some $$ for women too. The football power schools aren't going to have a problem coming up with the money needed for COA scholarships. Most are expecting to get it from increased TV revenue, increased ticket prices, and/or increased donations. Many can afford it without finding new sources of revenue.

Essentially the "Haves" will keep "Having" and the "Have Nots" will well, not.

If you are talking about the Power 5, keep in mind there will not really be anyone to regulate them, they have effectively shot the middle finger to the NCAA, and now can manipulate things however they like.

I do think WM should make certain the entire CAA is on board with no stipends before making those statements, otherwise that could create a bevy of issues.

If you are talking about whether the Power 5 will give stipends to women and that they can do what they want because the NCAA won't control them, realize that Title IX is a Federal law and has not controlled by the NCAA.

I am well aware of that, hence my "Have" and "Have not" statement.