Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by cmgoods, Jan 17, 2015.
Now we're talking. This is great for the athletes.
Not sure yet, but I'll post anything I can find.
I wonder what school voted against cost of attendance. I don't think that they say who exactly voted against it, but it was an ACC school.
Could have been Wake Forest. They're struggling as a Villanova type school trying to be a P5 football program.
[h=1]Athletes speak forcefully, vote historically at NCAA convention[/h]http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...hletes-ncaa-convention-sec-football/21921785/
Boston College I believe.
How are they going to over-sign and cut people for not bring talented athletes now?
Not sure how this is controlled without begging for some future really bad press stories. Young men and debt...
Let's hope there's a working model for that in place with other merit scholars.
So, now more borderline athletes will not be given a shot. But, come to think of it, maybe this'll help a school like CU.
Not as many diamond in the rough types. Overall I'd say it's better for the students, since a lot of them will probably have better academic support. The APR of many teams, especially for black athletes, is abysmal. I think this will help them.
If anyone is wants to know why Boston College voted against full cost of attendance.
In large part, I agree with him.
This means that ticket prices, fees, parking, seat licenses, minimum donations, concessions are going to start to sharply rise in an effort to keep up with the Alabama's of the world.
The gulf between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' is also going to grow substantially wider.
can you imagine a world where the Pac, B1G and ACC didn't try? where they decided to remain actual academic organizations and let the XII and SEC go onto become the quasi-NFDL they seem to want to be?
RyanK mentioned that there is a new Buff Gold Card that allows, in addition to unlimited on-campus meals, up to 2 meals a week ($11 max per) at places like Whole Foods and Tokyo Joe's.
Right on, Boston College. I believe these types of legislation will have an adverse effect on college sports and will hurt the more "fringe" athletes. Especially the non-revenue sports and women's sports. I believe there is a lot of media and social pressure on the voters to pass this crap. Eventually, there will be far fewer kids getting the advantage of having much of their school paid for via athletic scholarship.
Also, CU is putting together its budgets to start offering full cost of attendance to its student athletes and enacting for the upcoming 2015-16 school year.
Ringo had an article: http://www.dailycamera.com/sports/ci_27366798/cu-assessing-costs-power-5-legislation
An athlete who receives a full scholarship will be eligible to receive the maximum amount of the stipend, estimated to be between $2,000 and $4,000. An athlete who receives only a percentage of a full scholarship will be entitled to the same percentage of the stipend. Schools are not required to enact full cost of attendance, but those that don't would likely be at a severe disadvantage in recruiting.
"It's something that we've been planning for," George said. "So I don't think it will impact our budget in a way that we weren't prepared for moving forward."
Other athletic departments around the country already have said they expect the full cost of attendance to add $1 million or more to their annual expenditures.
Do not like
This is starting to make D2 ball more interesting.
Which sports, given Title III, will CU cut in order to have a competitive football team? Oh, wait. I forgot. In order to remain "D-1" or whatever they call it now, a program must have a minimum number of sports. I think we are at that minimum. So, where do we get the funding? The new TV contract, season tickets, etc?
What will be interesting is to see how the 'bama's, Ohio State's and Texas' of the world will play the system to their advantage?
Separate names with a comma.