COA will be a nightmare for the NCAA and will eventually lead to all sorts of illegal payments to athletes way beyond the intended use of the program.

William & Mary is 100% right to stay away from it, cost aside. If it eventually leads us, and like-minded universities, to join the Patriot League or a revised CAA I'm certain the college administration wouldn't hesitate.

Our limited sports dollars must go towards scholarship endowments, upgrading of coaching salaries, and the refurbishment of Kaplan Arena.

A link to the actual letter, if you have not yet read it.

https://www.wm.edu/news/announcements/20...letics.php

The RTD has an extensive article on this letter, and the entire COA impact, in today's sports section.

One new piece of info, it mentions the A10 required all members to provide for men's and women's basketball. The amounts vary, VCU offering $4,000+ per athlete, UR $1,300.

This is part of the slippery slope mentioned earlier, the amounts a school can offer are flexible and no one is there to validate that the money is in fact going toward the areas covered - travel, books, etc. It's nothing more than a payment to the athlete.

Should a mandate progress that if you offer for one sport, you must offer for all, it would be interesting to see what members like UR, Fordham, LaSalle, etc. will do. Maybe they will just keep basketball only, maybe there becomes another conference shake-up. It does seem like UR is taking the very cheap route here at $1,300.

(09-27-2015 01:05 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  The RTD has an extensive article on this letter, and the entire COA impact, in today's sports section.

One new piece of info, it mentions the A10 required all members to provide for men's and women's basketball. The amounts vary, VCU offering $4,000+ per athlete, UR $1,300.

This is part of the slippery slope mentioned earlier, the amounts a school can offer are flexible and no one is there to validate that the money is in fact going toward the areas covered - travel, books, etc. It's nothing more than a payment to the athlete.

Should a mandate progress that if you offer for one sport, you must offer for all, it would be interesting to see what members like UR, Fordham, LaSalle, etc. will do. Maybe they will just keep basketball only, maybe there becomes another conference shake-up. It does seem like UR is taking the very cheap route here at $1,300.

How could it cost 3x "to attend" two different schools in the same city? Clearly the rules need clarity. I would expect the $ to be higher in NYC vs Blacksburg, but they should be based on annual cost-of-living estimates from some national source. Im unsure what students need other than clothes and a car/transportation anyway. I think I was able to make about $2k per semester during my "work-study" program 15 years ago, which was specifically limited to that amount. Maybe universities should simply use that number for their estimates.

(09-27-2015 01:05 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  The RTD has an extensive article on this letter, and the entire COA impact, in today's sports section.

One new piece of info, it mentions the A10 required all members to provide for men's and women's basketball. The amounts vary, VCU offering $4,000+ per athlete, UR $1,300.

This is part of the slippery slope mentioned earlier, the amounts a school can offer are flexible and no one is there to validate that the money is in fact going toward the areas covered - travel, books, etc. It's nothing more than a payment to the athlete.

Should a mandate progress that if you offer for one sport, you must offer for all, it would be interesting to see what members like UR, Fordham, LaSalle, etc. will do. Maybe they will just keep basketball only, maybe there becomes another conference shake-up. It does seem like UR is taking the very cheap route here at $1,300.

Schools aren't picking random numbers for their COA. Each school has it's own COA calculation that it creates for the average student. The COA calculation is regulated by a federal statute. UR's number is low because that's the COA number it's financial aid department uses for all students. There are some instances where a school can do an individual calculation but if a school started doing that for athletes without good cause they would be putting their federal funding at risk (ie student loans).

I may be off here, but aren't most UR students on campus vs. VCU's mostly off campus? That could explain the difference if there's a defined formula for determining the value.

There are defined regulations on what can be included within COA (books, travel, daily expenses) - but like expense reports within any company, there is a lot of discrepancy between how it is calculated and monitored.

Each school may have a different methodology within the federal description of items covered and according to the NCAA, much of it is placed on the "professional judgement" of the senior officials in the department.

In other words, it varies and has plenty of slippery movement built in. Classic example is UR and VCU. Where someone lives (board) is already covered and has nothing to with this. Maybe the books just cost more at VCU......

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...trust-laws

Looks like there's at least somewhat of an attempt to maintain the "amateur" status of student athletes.

Court decision essentially caps "paying" players at COA's only. We better get on board for mens/women's basketball at least or we will be left in the dust. Even the freaking Big South schools are paying COA for basketball. The CAA is well on its way to Division II status.

(09-30-2015 04:48 PM)Tribester Wrote:  Court decision essentially caps "paying" players at COA's only. We better get on board for mens/women's basketball at least or we will be left in the dust. Even the freaking Big South schools are paying COA for basketball. The CAA is well on its way to Division II status.

Well said