Full cost of attendance passes 79-1 | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Full cost of attendance passes 79-1

Status
Not open for further replies.
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".
 
billybud said:
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".
Expand ...
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.
 
coachcap said:
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.
Expand ...
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....
 
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?
 
CTFAN4LIFE said:
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....
Expand ...
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.
 
.-.
Dooley said:
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.
Expand ...

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."
 
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.
 
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 said:
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.
Expand ...

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/
 
.-.
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.
 
huskymedic said:
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
Expand ...

"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.
 
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.........
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj
uconndogs said:
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....
Expand ...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
.-.
1999.2004.2011 said:
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.
Expand ...

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

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

For example...FSU has eight men's sport programs as opposed to UConn's ten (no hockey or soccer)....and ten women's vs UConn's 12 (no hockey or rowing)

But 18 or 19 sports vs the 31 that BC puts up is a big difference.

Note...some schools may play a non varsity team...like FSU plays a Rugby team in the South Independent Rugby Conference
 
The P5 schools don't want to alienate the rest of college football, but I hear they are going to implement a new policy: Only schedule programs getting more than $20 million per year from TV. They can't help it if some schools fall a bit short of that.
 
Mr. Conehead said:
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."
Expand ...

BC makes excellent points here.

Poor to lower middle class athletes at BC already get $5k.

The new funding doesn't increase those grants. They are offset.

So what we have here are regular students subsidizing upper income athletes.
 
I don't know a major program that runs their athletic scholarship program on a needs based formula.

Chris Weinke, a former pro baseball millionaire driving a $60,000 Escalade, got the same football scholarship that the ghetto kid from central Miami got.

Johnny Football, with his silver spoon background, got the same scholarship as anyone else.

Athletic scholarships, like social security receipt, is not based on need.
 
.-.
billybud said:
I don't know a major program that runs their athletic scholarship program on a needs based formula.

Chris Weinke, a former pro baseball millionaire driving a $60,000 Escalade, got the same football scholarship that the ghetto kid from central Miami got.

Johnny Football, with his silver spoon background, got the same scholarship as anyone else.

Athletic scholarships, like social security receipt, is not based on need.
Expand ...

How wrong can you be?

Do you know how scholarship packages work? For every student including athletes?

Any scholarship or Pell Grant that an athlete is eligible for offsets the scholarship commitment that a school makes to the student or student athlete.

You are actually telling me here that schools all over the nation are turning down $5.5k in Pell Grant money? No, Pell grants are part of the full scholarship package for lower income students. This is a federal subsidy. Schools are not going to turn that down. They are not in the business of turning down free money.
 
Pell grants are need based....but they are not athletic scholarships. They are open to all students.

That they may be combined is another thing entirely....the athletic scholarship is not needs based.
 
I agree that BC made valid points and although no other school voted no, I have to believe they do not necessarily support the new plan. It's a shame no other school stood up and voted against it. Any kid getting a free ride can afford some out of pocket expenses and this is most likely not the case with other deserving students.
Eh, the hypocrisy of it all.
I think BC's point is that athletes will be receiving additional funds not based on need, which is wrong.
 
And...Johnny Football did not make less than any kid with an athletic/Pell grant scholarship.
 
If all football players receive the same amount of benefits regardless of personal or family circumstances...obviously those benefits don't derive from need.

How they are packaged may be different...but the end result is that rich kids and poor kids end up with the same total value of benefits.
 
billybud said:
Pell grants are need based....but they are not athletic scholarships. They are open to all students.

That they may be combined is another thing entirely....the athletic scholarship is not needs based.
Expand ...

Sigh. Schools use pell grants to offset the cost of athletic scholarships for poorer students, and anyone who knows what these offers look like knows that they already consider the federally mandated full cost of attendance estimate as part of the package.

In other words, what the schools have done here is increase their federally mandated cost of attendance so as to provide athletes with money beyond tuition and room & board. The schools could NOT elect to simply give stipends of $10k or whatever beyond the federally mandated number, because that would be considered income.

There is a limit as to what they can do in these instances, and those limits are girded by the federally mandated numbers that each school provides.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,336
Messages
4,565,425
Members
10,467
Latest member
Eil Rule


Top Bottom