Full cost of attendance passes 79-1

[Dooley]

In my opinion, schools like Boston College and Wake will likely discuss what to do going forward with their full book of athletics. I doubt they would think about cutting any revenue sports. The loss of TV revenue from playing in a P5 conference would be too great, especially if the ACC gets their ducks in a row and launches an ACCN. But for the non-revenue sports, I think you'll see some of the smaller privates (and maybe others?) that will make massive cuts to their sports programs.

 

[djct1999]

In my opinion, schools like Boston College and Wake will likely discuss what to do going forward with their full book of athletics. I doubt they would think about cutting any revenue sports. The loss of TV revenue from playing in a P5 conference would be too great, especially if the ACC gets their ducks in a row and launches an ACCN. But for the non-revenue sports, I think you'll see some of the smaller privates (and maybe others?) that will make massive cuts to their sports programs.

agreed. the silver lining is that realignment isnt a total loss for uconn athletics. i see this as a slight positive for the uconn women's field hockey team.

 

[Dooley]

agreed. the silver lining is that realignment isnt a total loss for uconn athletics. i see this as a slight positive for the uconn women's field hockey team.

I get the feeling that, eventually, kids will go to G5 schools to play non-revenue sports and go to P5 schools to play revenue sports.

 

[billybud]

...At the present time the AAC, CUSA, MWC, MAC and SBC have stated they will support the guidelines that will be formally structured by the five power conference.

MAC back in October...

Cleveland, Ohio – With a strong commitment to sportsmanship, integrity and a student-first student-athlete experience, the Mid-American Conference (MAC) Council of Presidents affirms its commitment to the collegiate experience. The MAC will support the redefinition of an athletics grant-in-aid to include cost of attendance if autonomous legislation is enacted during the annual NCAA Convention in January, 2015.

 

[BoatShow]

Lone dissenter BC was confused and thought it was a vote to admit UConn to ACC.

 

[billybud]

BC was worried....why if you provided FCOA (full cost of attendance) to football athletes, next you know, here comes Hockey and Lacrosse...and then Title IX kicks in and the Women's Hockey and Lacrosse...and next thing that you know, they have women as priests.

Stuff proliferates....as Barney Fife said..."You have to nip it in the bud".

 

[UCFBfan]

BC was worried....why if you provided FCOA (full cost of attendance) to football athletes, next you know, here comes Hockey and Lacrosse...and then Title IX kicks in and the Women's Hockey and Lacrosse...and next thing that you know, they have women as priests.

Stuff proliferates....as Barney Fife said..."You have to nip it in the bud".

Am I wrong in reading that this vote means FCOA for ALL scholarship sports teams? Hence BC will need to provide it for Hockey, Lacrosse, etc...?? Or is this just for football? I can't imagine that being the case that just one sport is allowed FCOA scholarships while others, like basketball, are not. Plus the whole Title IX issue.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

I'm wondering if the Thunder Chickens' NAY vote will bite them in the in future recruiting. It surely could be used against them in negative recruiting by other institutions. If a prized recruit has a choice between the institution on 'Nut Hill & another P5, this vote can easily be referenced with the implication that at some point BCU could downsize & that recruit could be out on the limb looking to transfer out in order to continue competing.

That is what I was asking about above - can a school and choose the sports that it does and does not extend the 2-4k to? It might not sound like a lot to some folks on this board but to an 18 year old kid with no money that would be 8-16k over four years and could be a difference maker in terms of deciding who they sign their LOI with....

 

[Skiblets]

Wonder if the FCOA might lead to a rolling back of Title IX. Or if at least football is excluded from the Title IX calculation going forward?

 

[noeynox]

That is what I was asking about above - can a school and choose the sports that it does and does not extend the 2-4k to? It might not sound like a lot to some folks on this board but to an 18 year old kid with no money that would be 8-16k over four years and could be a difference maker in terms of deciding who they sign their LOI with....

Oh absofrigging lutely. You'd have to dumb to choose to play where you get a stipend vs where you wouldn't, all other things being equal. Its a game changer, one we knew was coming, but given our current TV payout, one that is really going to force a lot of schools to reconsider. Over time, anyone in FBS not getting P5 TV money is in trouble.

You see a school like Houston fire a coach after back to back 8-5 seasons, and you realize just how crucial life outside the P5 is. Packing your stadium is a huge priority right now. Mediocre records with no high profile opponents will lead to poor attendance. Poor attendance will lead to a lot of firings for coaches outside the P5. G5 schools better get creative in how they write contracts going forward. Being tied at the hip to a losing, boring coach, cause you can't afford the buyout is a death sentence.

 

[Kolumbo]

http://www.bcinterruption.com/bosto...-passed-ncaa-power-conferences-boston-college

 

[DarthGrumpy]

marc tracy ‏@marcatracy 15m15 minutes ago
The one cost of attendance nay: Boston College

George Schroeder ‏@GeorgeSchroeder 20s20 seconds ago
Boston College cast the lone vote against paying full cost-of-attendance scholarships. BC also only vote against overall vision resolution.

From USA Today - "The single "No" vote on COA was Boston College, according to a record of the electronic voting provided by the NCAA. BC released a statement late Saturday that said, in part, the school "is concerned with continuing to pass legislation that increases expenses when the vast majority of schools are already institutionally subsidized. The consequence of such legislation could ultimately hurt student-athletes if/when programs are cut. This legislation further segregates student-athletes from the general student population by increasing aid without need-based consideration. Legislation already exists for student-athletes in need through Pell grants and the student-assistance fund."

 

[billybud]

The Title IX stuff will have to be worked through. Title IX requires comparable treatment of women when it comes to collegiate athletics. How that applies under FCOA will need to be determined. There is a three pronged test for Title IX compliance.

From ESPN>>>

AUTONOMY'S BOTTOM LINE: The rich will get richer.
WHAT ABOUT WOMEN'S SPORTS? Again, the rich will get richer.
HOW? If you're among the top 100 or so athletes at one of the top 65 schools, you're golden. Because Title IX means that whatever the 85 scholarship football players and 12 scholarship men's basketball players get, there must be equitable treatment for a like number of women athletes.

So a lot of women's basketball, volleyball, softball and soccer players will benefit from things such as travel stipends and increased scholarship money when the full cost of attendance calculations come in. Colleges that receive federal funding have "an obligation to ensure that their athletics programs comply with applicable federal and state gender equity laws," said Title IX attorney Janet Judge. Increasing benefits to football players without increasing them for women most likely violates those laws.

 

[Fishy]

Shame on Boston College for trying to make sense.

Or pretending.

But, let's call a spade a spade....this is Boston College doing what Boston College does - they're guarding the little pile of gold they tripped into.

 

[BC1978]

Shame on Boston College for trying to make sense.

Or pretending.

But, let's call a spade a spade....this is Boston College doing what Boston College does - they're guarding the little pile of gold they tripped into.

Fishy, two points. One you are probably aware of. The other probably not.

BC already sponsors among the highest numbers of varsity sports..I think 31...so this is going to be more expensive for them ultimately, I would think.

The second point, of which you are probably not aware, is that BC already has just about the lowest gap in the cost of attendance of all the ACC schools. See the article below.

http://bcheights.com/news/2014/cost-of-attendance-gap-boston-college-acc-ncaa/

 

[Fishy]

So basically you're saying I'm right.

Thanks.

 

[huskymedic]

SportsBizMiss 11:46am via TweetDeck
Cost of attendance is approved by Power Five, but Boston College raises some legitimate concerns:
http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...or-student-athletes-at-ncaa-convention-011915

 

[CL82]

My hope is that other ACC schools will cry poverty as well and their will be rumblings about teams looking at other conferences, such that ESPN will decide to pump more cash into their house band. Since their standard mechanism to do this is expansion based TV contract renegotiation, perhaps UConn will be the vehicle they use for that. I know that based on CR Rule 1, it would be likely be another school in our conference, but maybe, just maybe, this time Lucy won't pull the ball away.

 

[Dooley]

SportsBizMiss 11:46am via TweetDeck
Cost of attendance is approved by Power Five, but Boston College raises some legitimate concerns:
http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...or-student-athletes-at-ncaa-convention-011915

"Boston College is concerned with continuing to pass legislation that increases expenses when the vast majority of schools are already institutionally subsidized. The consequence of such legislation could ultimately hurt student-athletes if/when programs are cut."

Read: BC (and others too, probably) will be cutting half of its athletic department programs within the next few years.

 

[uconndogs]

I think Bates has a perfectly reasonable point. It's ironic in a lot of ways given the way that institution has behaved during CR, but I guess that's besides the point.

The other point I will make, is that the SEC and certain other institutions of higher learning will turn this into one giant recruiting boondoggle. The abuses will be enormous and the NCAA will be just about powerless. College athletics as we once knew it and loved it is about to be blown into oblivion.

NFL and NBA light......developmental leagues really. No thanks, I'll simply watch my football on Sunday instead of Saturday thank you very much.........

 

[Dooley]

The other point I will make, is that the SEC and certain other institutions of higher learning will turn this into one giant recruiting boondoggle. The abuses will be enormous and the NCAA will be just about powerless. College athletics as we once knew it and loved it is about to be blown into oblivion.

NFL and NBA light.developmental leagues really. No thanks, I'll simply watch my football on Sunday instead of Saturday thank you very much....

That's really what this is turning into - a defacto development league for the pros. But instead of there being a salary cap to attempt to level the playing fields, the model more closely resembles the old MLB model of the 90s (pre luxury tax) when big market teams held the advantage and best shot at winning. The same will likely play out in college with the mega ADs like Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, Alabama, etc being able to pay for the top coaches and top players year in and year out, while the rest of the P5 field is just hoping to put together a Tampa Rays type of run every now and then.

 

[captainron2]

It won't be a big deal for Uconn. The Big East has already approved this policy for those schools that elect to do so. Providence has stated they will add the additional money to men and women's hockey and men and women's basketball. I'm sure the ACC will do the same.

 

[1999.2004.2011]

I guess this is what's most confusing for me: the P5 is allowed to create it's own set of rules that the G5 could hypothetically adopt (economically can't), further creating the divide between power and non-power football schools. I have very limited legal knowledge, but how in the world is this not seen as anti-trust/monopolization of collegiate football? The P5 conferences are in essence pricing out the majority of G5 schools out of football.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I guess this is what's most confusing for me: the P5 is allowed to create it's own set of rules that the G5 could hypothetically adopt (economically can't), further creating the divide between power and non-power football schools. I have very limited legal knowledge, but how in the world is this not seen as anti-trust/monopolization of collegiate football? The P5 conferences are in essence pricing out the majority of G5 schools out of football.

This is one in a long list of anti-trust problems that the P5 have. The biggest issue is finding a plaintiff.

 

[itgoeslike]

The Title IX stuff will have to be worked through. Title IX requires comparable treatment of women when it comes to collegiate athletics. How that applies under FCOA will need to be determined. There is a three pronged test for Title IX compliance.

From ESPN>>>

AUTONOMY'S BOTTOM LINE: The rich will get richer.
WHAT ABOUT WOMEN'S SPORTS? Again, the rich will get richer.
HOW? If you're among the top 100 or so athletes at one of the top 65 schools, you're golden. Because Title IX means that whatever the 85 scholarship football players and 12 scholarship men's basketball players get, there must be equitable treatment for a like number of women athletes.

So a lot of women's basketball, volleyball, softball and soccer players will benefit from things such as travel stipends and increased scholarship money when the full cost of attendance calculations come in. Colleges that receive federal funding have "an obligation to ensure that their athletics programs comply with applicable federal and state gender equity laws," said Title IX attorney Janet Judge. Increasing benefits to football players without increasing them for women most likely violates those laws.

Non revenue Men's sports will be eliminated to balance the Title IX budget at many schools.