Unless they add UCF, USF, Cinn & BYU.
My guess is if they do expand it will only be to 12. If that happens it will be one of the Fla schools & Cinn or BYU. We get ducked again
NCAA exploring Big 5 conference autonomy
- Thread starter RuffRuff
- Start date
- Status
Unless they add UCF, USF, Cinn & BYU.
My guess is if they do expand it will only be to 12. If that happens it will be one of the Fla schools & Cinn or BYU. We get ducked again
Even if the AAC does pay the stipend it doesn't guarantee the conference a seat at the playoff table. All it does is give the winner of the conference a "chance" if they are ranked high enough.
Plus the number is probably closer to $2MM. $5000 stipend X 400 athletes. that means that our entire tv contract would go to paying stipends to athletes. Regardless of the exit fee money we can't survive very long trying to play in that world
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 30,622
- Reaction Score
- 53,225
I'm not sure if most P5 universities are going to be able to keep up. Some of the regular students are going to notice what is happening. And yeah, tough for them, but maybe they won't come to the games if they develop an attitude against the sports teams. Then what?
Fishy
Elite Premium Poster
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 19,343
- Reaction Score
- 180,008
I don't - we'd be long dead in that scenario.
The kicker is that with costs going up, conferences are going to be less willing to split their pie with new additions.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 30,622
- Reaction Score
- 53,225
Or their older additions. Revenue flows to the top. Some schools are still in position to make some well placed threats (i.e. Florida St., Texas, etc.)
Not sure about that. Fla St has no place to go. SEC & B1G are not taking them & they already make the same amount as they would in the Big 12.
While the ACC may whore themselves to Texas like they did with ND, as long as they are cashing Longhorn Network checks it is doubtful they would leave the Big 12.
I know we are desperate for something to happen to get us out of this dump but I don't think anything will happen CR wise until some of these GOR agreements get close to their end.
The real question is can we hold on long enough? Once the exit fee money dries up we are screwed
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 30,622
- Reaction Score
- 53,225
Once there are only 65 schools left, the big boys are going to start threatening the Baylors and Iowa Sts and Wake Forests etc. They are not going to want to share with them as much. They will figure out ways to further divide the pie.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2013
- Messages
- 925
- Reaction Score
- 1,844
if and when that happens, the college presidents will look to the multi billion dollar windfall they are currently whiffing on called the FBS playoff system. This coming year we will see a 4 team playoff. Our hope resides in expansion to an 8 team or 12 team playoff (fat chance). The bowls need to be revamped as the FBS playoffs have a model called the FCS system. The TV $$$ from March madness is exceptional and the funds flowing back to the schools from an expanded playoff would help cure tight school athletic budgets. IMHO, as tighter budgets prevail, schools on the "bubble" will be mandate that 60 schools can't control the other 70 schools. When the ALL the presidents actually get involved (slim chance) and understand the potential revenue model, IMO and HOPE, they will move control across the country back to the Presidents' offices and control their own financial destiny. If we leave it to the Delaney's and Swoffords etal, we and 70 other FBS schools face a slow death.....
Or, they can look at the billion dollar hoops tournament that the NCAA is making all the money off of & say we should run our own tournament like we do for football.
Granted it won't be the same because you won't have the Cinderella runs but even if they got half the money that CBS is paying the NCAA they only have to split it between 5 conferences & not the entire Division 1
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2013
- Messages
- 34
- Reaction Score
- 50
I don't see UCONN needing to do this alone. Everything that has come out from Aresco suggests he wants to make the AAC run with the P5. It may be tight, but I think, as a conference, if this passes, the AAC will adopt it as well. It will then give the AAC a competitive advantage vs all the other non P5 conferences. It might actually help push the whole conference forward relative to the rest.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 9,159
- Reaction Score
- 27,158
Tulane.......
CL82
James Breeding sucks
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 63,726
- Reaction Score
- 250,114
or just pay for uniforms, a nice participation trophy, and a pizza party at the end of the season.
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 30,622
- Reaction Score
- 53,225
6 BCS bowls is currently $140 million a year, add in 20 other bowls at $2-5m a pop, and you have $60m more. So, they are already looking at well over $200m in revenue. As the expanded playoffs take shape, the other bowls lose total interest, and even if the playoffs double the interest, and you start having, say, $400m a year for them, you're looking at an extra $200 million. That in itself pays for the stipends in scholarships, but no more than that.
You're still going to have schools losing tens of millions on student fees, direct institutional support, and the building of facilities. As much revenue as they bring in, they are never going to make it into the black, because every revenue increase is met with new expenditures. This is a prime example. The extra money from football playoffs goes to athlete stipends, and the big majority of schools that are currently losing a lot of money will continue to lose a lot of money.
Upstate - I generally agree with your comments but the issue here is that almost every school is already losing money so what changes? Yes every revenue increase comes with new expenses but, what choice do these schools have?
They either stay in a P5 conference & take the additional revenues (by the way the new playoff deal is 12 years/$7 Billion & every P5 conference has seen a significant increase in their media rights in the last few years except the B1G which will see a massive jump in a few years) or you get out.
Given the athletic departments & infrastructure that is already in place at all these schools no one is going to say "we do not want to pay the stipend & our preference is to step down"
The monster has already been let out of the box. It's not going back in. It sucks for us because we are on the outside looking in but , take your Husky colored glasses off for a second & think about how you would feel if we traded place with BC or Rutgers. You would say "F them, we're in & they aren't so I hope they die"
Regardless of what Warde says publically, our situation is dire & we need to hope like hell we get a life raft soon
- Joined
- May 21, 2012
- Messages
- 181
- Reaction Score
- 206
I don't know how the stipends would work, but hopefully sanity will prevail and the stipends won't have to go to every student athlete. That way, schools can just use the stipends for the sports they choose to use them for, normally just football and men's basketball. If I were still a student, and swimmers and tennis players were not only getting a free ride, but also being paid for it, I would be protesting. What a terrible thing that would be. College is supposed to be about education. To think that schools are having financial troubles, and we are paying people to swim? It's okay for the revenue producing sports because they are producing that revenue. It's just a business decision. But to pay all these athletes in sports that no one cares about? Let's say Texas or Notre Dame wants to pay their swimmers. No problem. Let them waste their money. They will have just bought their championships, and the rest of the schools will care even less about those sports.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 103,796
- Reaction Score
- 428,434
Say hello to Title IX implications - http://cw.ua.edu/2013/10/28/stipends-for-college-athletes-unrealistic-problematic-proposal/
"The courts would not likely hold that providing stipends only to male football or basketball athletes would be legal. Only giving the money to those male athletes would show a disparity in the opportunities that the university gave male and female athletes."
Title IX says if you want to pay football & men's basketball you have to pay 100 women's athletes (85 football & 15 hoops schollies). Then try to get away with not paying soccer , baseball, track etc .
Not sure how many student athletes UConn has but I read somewhere that Ohio St has almost 500. 500 athletes X $5000 stipend = $2.5MM
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 7,637
- Reaction Score
- 26,210
Here's the question for Title IX experts, if UCONN gives 100 male athletes stipends (football and basketball) along with 100 female athletes stipends can they stop there (at 200 stipends) or do they have to give every scholarship athlete on the campus a stipend?
I'm sure we would prefer to stop at 200. If we have to give every athlete a stipend expect many sports to get cut.
.-.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2011
- Messages
- 490
- Reaction Score
- 2,856
I'm not familiar with labor law so this is an honest question: If players are being paid what would stop them from organizing into a player's union?
Most people assume Title IX to be black and white, 1 girl for each 1 boy, $1 for girls and $1 for boys. It's much more complicated than that. Title IX forces a school to provide both males and females equal treatment for most aspects of sports, including number of teams, level of compitition, equipment, scheduling, facilities, educational benefits, housing, treatment, medical, allowances, publicity, etc. A school can try its best to equalize everything, but it is accepted that big time football and basketball will benefit more than other sports in a few categories (publicity, facilities if you include stadiums, etc). The DOE looks at each school to see that they have made an honest effort to provide as equal as reasonable benefits to members of each sex, manely looking at the number of teams/athletes and dollars spent on each sex.
As for your question, I would think the simple answer is that a school could choose whom receives the stipend as long as equal funding is distributed amongst males and females. Could you pay 100 males $5000, and 100 females $5000 (or 200 females $2500)? Maybe under Title IX, but expect a lawsuit from every other mens sport? A school could possibly consider spending additional revenue on womens sports and argue total dollars spent is equal, but I see that as a losing arguemnt. Unless schools can get an exemption from Title IX for revenue producing sports, I expect that a school will be required to share equal benefits with every athlete. I am sure every athletic director in the coutry is looking for loopholes and exemptions in the system as we speak, and many are looking for loopholes to stuff a little extra in the FB/BB stipend envelope.
Graduate students have formed unions at some schools to push back on PIs that take advantage of students. Some schools have sued and forced the union to disband. Some schools have sued and lost, allowing the union to remain.
Would be interesting to see if an athlete's union at a school is attempted, or a players union across a given sport is attempted. With fast turnover because athletes only spend a few years in college and without the help or legal counsel and such, a union would be very disorganized and hard to get started.
If very bright graduate students with legal resources have trouble forming a union, how would less bright college athletes without legal resources form a union?
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 30,622
- Reaction Score
- 53,225
I agree with you, but I was just pointing out that there is now a new dynamic in play. The players are de facto employees, IMO, with these stipends. In the same way that TAs are given stipends (but not room & board). They provide a service.
Then there's the student activity fee. As I look at the amount given to athletic departments in student fees and then I divide that number by the student body, the majority of the P5 schools are giving $1k per student in fees to the AD.
That's beyond direct institutional support.
I opened this up by saying that if there's any transparency about what is happening, the students are going to start resenting their athlete classmates. And that's going to have new ramifications. Before, when students were paying that $1k fee, the athletes weren't getting $5k in cash.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 30,622
- Reaction Score
- 53,225
But, but, but.... I'd submit that even the so-called revenue sports at many schools are in the red. When you take into account the cost of stadiums and arenas, trainers and facilities. So, you could actually make the same argument about the revenue sports.
I'll be surprised if this doesn't become controversial on campuses since this is precisely the sort of thing that is regularly covered in student newspapers, and it's only on campuses with a very wide loyalty for sports (SEC?) where the student body doesn't resent money from their pockets going to such programs.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 5,285
- Reaction Score
- 9,284
Good question. I'm Not positive, but if it is a stipend as part of their scholarship, then they technically are not employees of the University. If not employees, I don't think they can organize (again, I'm not sure). If they do move to these stipends, the Universities are opening up a Pandora's box of legal maneuvering on topics they are not even thinking about.
.-.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2013
- Messages
- 34
- Reaction Score
- 50
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20140119/COLUMNISTS01/301190057/?nclick_check=1
Here's an article from a Louisville columnist. He agrees with many of the posters on this thread about the bleak prospects for UCONN if more realignment shuffling does not happen soon.
Here's an article from a Louisville columnist. He agrees with many of the posters on this thread about the bleak prospects for UCONN if more realignment shuffling does not happen soon.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2011
- Messages
- 343
- Reaction Score
- 490
Analogy...UConn is the low chip holder in a game of Texas Hold'em and is all in...BC, Pitt, Cuse, Florida St, Miami. Louisville and Clemson are at the table and just call the pot instead of raising to make sure every hand is in so they all have a better chance of knocking out UConn. Hate feeling sorry for ourselves but this is one of those few times in a card game where your chances are low and everything has to fall just right. This f...ing sucks!!!
Thanks for posting the link.
It is detestable that we are getting "sympathy" from Louisville. Manuel can't say any more or less than he is saying even though we all know it is BS. While we need to forget the past, we have to start judging UConn leaders on their success in getting us out of the horrid conference situation now. IMO, SH is doing her part. We need creativity and action from our AD and our BOT. Let's hope they are "conspiring" to provide it.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 30,622
- Reaction Score
- 53,225
It's not up to the universities to decide this question. It is up to the taxing authorities. I have longexperience on this question, and I can tell you that it is a gray area. For many years, various states would not touch TA stipends as income. Other states did. Some local taxes (ie. city, borough, school taxes) would also tax such scholarship stipends. It all depends on the taxing authority and how they treat these stipends. Heck, I used to have SS taken out of mine when I was at Penn State. The federal government a few years ago declared such stipends income, but the issue was controversial and there is still no federal guideline.
In short, it doesn't matter what the schools say. This is similar to taxing frequent flyer miles. It's not up to the employer to determine whether the benefits you receive are taxable or not.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 30,622
- Reaction Score
- 53,225
This is what we call run-of-the-mill pooor journalism. A crappy article with little research behind it. I'm talking about the stuff having to do with lack of resources and UConn not investing in facilities. Football facilities were built at UConn, and now bball. UConn definitely invests in sports, and it runs a lot more sports than Louisville, and has a lot of broad-based success in those sports.
Yes, its opening the Pandora's box for many reasons. Classification of stipends and student/employee status is just another area that will be very gray. Like Upstater said, stipends are not treated universally in each state or university and sometimes vary even within a University depending on the type of stipend. Status of funding during summer semester is also treated different for some people. Speaking for Pitt, some fellowships and stipends are taxable at local/state/federal and for SS/Med/UC, while others are only taxable for federal returns. The best thing to do is take everything to the tax man and let them figure it out. As a general rule that I have seen with students at Pitt, most post doc fellowships and TA stipends are considered income and taxable by all authorities and SS/Med/UC is taken out each month. Most education/research stipends and NSF scholarship/stipends are considered scholarship/stipend and taxable only by federal taxes and no SS/Med/UC is taken out. I have spoken directly with State and Local tax authorities and they have said this to be true. Pitt also defines grad students as both students and employees, and interchanges your status depending on the situation. Again, leading to confusing when preparing taxes or other forms that require employment status.
Like you touched on: Are athletes going to be considered students or employees? Is the stipend considered a scholarship, a stipend, a grant, income, etc? Sounds like it could be messy, and tax considerations are not something the schools can simply solve themselves. It would require states and federal government support. Good luck with that.
I
.-.
- Status