Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Bone Buff, Oct 27, 2011.
non BCS school are screwed
Kind of a big deal.... looks like some of our facility upgrades will have to wait a little longer.
Pretty f-ing lame.
eh. good for us, bad for non-bCS
It will be a lot easier to keepsome agents/boosters away from some students. Kids like Herrod will be able to have their mom's see them play because they could afford to buy them the plane ticket (see this article from Woody Paige). Nembot might even be able to see his parents/family before he graduates. It's kids like these that were being most ****ed over by the NCAA's approach...
This will solve all the NCAA problems.
Cam Newton's dad would not have needed to solicit $150,000+ from colleges, Terrel Pryor would have kept all his memorabilia and nobody would have questioned him about his 5 cars in 3 years and Reggie Bush's parents would have been able to make the $300,000+ payments on the house they were given er rented.
Did ya catch the word "some" in my first sentence? Of course it doesn't fix everything, but it does solve some of the really difficult situations.
Seriously, let's say Nembot develops like we all hope he does, and is looking like a 1st/2nd rounder by his senior year. Think about how much it would mean to both him and his parents if they could be there on Senior Day in 2015. Without this change, the only way that happens is if some agent just sort of ignores the rules. With this change, it can actually happen without any rules violations. This is a good thing.
With the size of these new media contracts, I'm glad to see that some of this money is going to be passed along to the student athletes to make their college experience better.
So exactly what is "additional athletics aid?" Is that cash in hand? Or is that payment for fees, expenses, etc. that are not covered by the typical athletic scholarship.
"Full cost of attendance" doesn't sound to me like it would include cost of plane tickets, coats, jackets, sweaters in the winter. Rather, it sounds like it will pay for parking passes, and all those little nitpicky fees and so forth that are tacked on to every student's bill.
So if the CU student athlete has $436 in fees/costs associated with their annual bill to attend/play for CU -- they will get $436. If an athlete has $15,000 in fees/costs associated with their bill -- they get $2,000.00
Also some pretty harsh academic penalties. How are CU's APR numbers looking these days? CU's 4-year APR number was 920 not too long ago. That number would make CU ineligible for post-season play under the new APR rules. Those new requirements that only 2 hours of PE courses can transfer in are pretty nice for schools like CU.
It was a long article, but two things that I didn't glean from it were A) is the $2,000 every year, semester, four years, what? B) who pays the $2,000 - schools or conferences?
I also note the money only goes to those who receive FULL ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS which means that non-revenue sports are specifically excluded. i.e. baseball, softball, soccer, volleyball, etc. No soup for you!
I would expect to see some lawsuits from this.
It will be very interesting to see how different schools handle this. Very rapidly I think every FBS school (BCS or otherwise) will have to grant $2k per football schollie student. The football centric schools presumably will not grant the $2k to very many other sports programs. Will Title IX concerns force them to give a similar number of grants to female athletes? Over here at Berkeley there will be a strong egalitarian push to give the $2k to every athlete. But given the numbers involved, that essentially means you are going to skim about $750,000 a year from the football program as welfare/social spending to the other programs. That's on top of the the current situation which is that football generates 90% of revenues already.
The change that few people are talking about is the ability to give multi-year scholarships. I think this helps a program like Cal. Here at Cal we are somewhat infamous for never yanking a scholarship even if the kid never performs. We were carrying three place kickers on scholarship who showed so little motivation that they were all passed over by a walk-on freshman PK. So we essentially offer 4 year scholarships already. The change to allow multi-year scholarships really hurts some SEC teams that institutionalize the practice of scholarship attrition on underperforming sophomores and juniors. To compete with schools like Cal that will offer 4 year scholarships, they will have to follow and that will cut down on their ability to have large incoming freshman classes.
But the multi-year thing is discretionary at the school level. If LSU / Alabama / SEC schools want to stick to the one-year scholarship rule they can.
I am guessing that the "full cost of attendance" is going to be the number that the university uses for student-aid (loan) purposes. That number typically includes all the things you would expect: tuition, fees, housing, food and books (which are things I'm pretty sure "full athletic scholarships" cover). The number also includes a sort of "catch all" number for miscellaneous expenses, like toiletries, clothing, snacks, etc. This part is usually pretty modest, I would guess for most schools it's between $800 and $1,500. There is a separate line for "transportation," which is supposed to capture both getting around on a daily basis as well as trips home.
Here are the non-resident numbers for CU - Arts and Sciences:
Tuition and Fees*: $30,330
Total Cost of Attendance: $49,170
*I am 99% sure that current "full athletic scholarships" cover all of these expenses. What they don't cover are the last two, which add up to $3,338. As I am understanding this NCAA rule change, CU can now give stipends to the student athletes to cover $2,000 of this last bit.
Is that per semester? Or per year?
Those are annual numbers.
Edit to add: annual numbers assuming no summer school. Summer school changes things somewhat, but it's the same general principle.
Good thing we got that fat new Pac 12 TV deal when we did. When accounting for the increased revenue from the Pac 12 network, I think Colorado will not be overly extended by this added expense.
Pandora's box. Lets see. Only athletes on full scolarship. So soccer, skiing, track, cross country, and all sports that, generally, only offer partial scholarships will be exempt. The majority of those athletes are female. See ya in court. I also have a feeling, but no rational argument, that this will actually open the door for more under the table payments by the cheaters.
As far the academic standard crap, this will aid schools that have lower standards and "easy" major programs. It is bull****. Didn't CU have the lowest APR for football in the NCAA a couple of years ago? Yet our grad rate was quite a bit higher than Texas, for instance. The problem with APR, in my mind, is that every school has a different baseline. For instance, a student who passes an easy curriculum carries the same weight as a student who passes an engineering major. Another repercussion of the academic rules is that there will be pressure on high schools and junior colleges to "pass" students with the opportunity to earn an athletic scholarship even though they can't cut it academically. You will see a lot of books getting cooked to help these kids get into college. In other words, cheating will be on the rise.
People bitch when the NCAA does nothing and then they bitch when the NCAA actually tries to do something. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Publish date: Oct 27, 2011
DI Board adopts improvements in academic standards and student-athlete support
By Michelle Brutlag Hosick
The Division I Board of Directors continued the quick-action precedent set earlier this summer, adopting a package of proposals Thursday that toughen academic standards and provide increased academic and economic support to student-athletes.
“These changes demonstrate a remarkable resolve by presidents,” said NCAA President Mark Emmert. “They represent a return to and a focus on values that are at the core of what intercollegiate athletics are all about. They also represent a clear signal to the world about what we care about and what we stand for.”
The Board approved an implementation plan – which includes all football bowl games – that mandates a certain level of academic performance in order to participate in postseason competition. The eligibility requirement will begin phasing in with the 2012-2013 academic year.
The Board also adopted legislation giving student-athletes who receive full athletics scholarships the opportunity to receive additional athletics aid up to the full cost of attendance or $2,000, whichever is less.
The working group that made the recommendation told the board the $2,000 figure is meaningful in addressing the miscellaneous expenses student-athletes now have. Institutions will not be required to offer the benefit, but conferences are encouraged to consider common application within their membership.
Earlier this year, the Board had voted to set the minimum academic standard for post-season participation as a 930 Academic Progress Rate (APR). The 930 APR predicts roughly a 50 percent Graduation Success Rate (GSR).
Based on the most recent multi-year APR, here are the number of teams that would be subject to penalties at those levels:
900 – 30 teams
930 – 99 teams
FBS Football900 – 0 teams
930 – 17 teams
FCS Football900 – 6 teams
930 – 37 teams
The new post-season eligibility structure will take effect in the 2012-13 academic year, with a two-year implementation window before the benchmark moves from 900 to 930. For access to post-season competition in 2012-13 and 2013-14, teams must achieve a 900 multi-year APR or a 930 average over the most recent two years to be eligible.
In 2014-15, teams that don’t achieve the 930 benchmark for their four-year APR or at least a 940 average for the most recent two years will be ineligible for post-season competition.
In 2015-16, the 930 benchmark for post-season competition participation – and additional penalties – will be implemented fully. The APR requirement for post-season competition participation would be waived only in extraordinary circumstances.
The structure will allow for some adjustments for teams that improve once they enter the second level of penalties. The Board provided special allowances for historically black colleges and universities (HBCU) and low-resource schools and supported the creation of an HBCU advisory group to study academic performance of student-athletes at those institutions.
In addition, the Board also approved a new three-level penalty structure:
The first level of the new structure limits teams to 16 hours of practice a week over five days, with the lost four hours to be replaced with academic activities. This represents a reduction of four hours and one day per week of practice time.
The second level adds competition reduction, either in the traditional or nontraditional season, to the first level penalties.
The third level, where teams could remain until their rate improves, provides for a menu of penalty options, including coaching suspensions, financial aid reductions and restricted NCAA membership.
The current process for data collection and penalty announcement will continue, though Committee on Academic Performance members are interested in studying ways to speed up the process.
Additionally, the presidents adopted new standards for two-year transfer student-athletes. Data show that transfers from two-year colleges often struggle academically after arriving at a four-year institution.
The Board approved an increase in the transferrable grade-point average from 2.0 to 2.5 and limited the number of physical education activity courses to two. Also, two-year college transfers who didn’t qualify academically out of high school will be required to complete a core curriculum that includes English, math and science courses.
The new transfer requirements will apply to any student-athlete enrolling full-time in college for the first time in August 2012 or later.
The Board also adopted new initial eligibility standards. The presidents support a model that creates a higher academic standard for incoming freshman to compete than to receive aid and practice, creating an academic red shirt year.
Student-athletes who achieve the current minimum initial eligibility standard on the test score-grade-point average sliding scale with at least a minimum 2.0 core-course GPA would continue to be eligible for athletically related financial aid during the first year of enrollment and practice during the first regular academic term of enrollment. Student-athletes could earn the second term of enrollment for practice by passing nine semester or eight quarter hours.
The proposal increases the standard for immediate access to competition to at least a 2.3 GPA and an increased sliding scale. Specifically, incoming student-athletes would need to earn a half-point higher GPA for a given test score compared to the current standard. For example, an SAT score of 1,000 would require a 2.5 high school core-course GPA for competition and a 2.0 high school core-course GPA for aid and practice.
The presidents also agreed with a recommendation to require prospects to successfully complete 10 of the 16 total required core courses before the start of their senior year in high school. Seven of the 10 courses must be successfully completed in English, math and science.
This legislation will impact student-athletes enrolling in college in August 2015 and later.
The proposal granting two-year college student-athletes a year of academic readiness remains in the 2011-12 legislative cycle and will be voted on for the first time at the NCAA Convention in January 2012.
“We’re trying to balance being tough with being fair. These are noticeably higher standards than in the past, but we recognize we need some time to change behavior,” said Walter Harrison, the Division I Committee on Academic Performance Chair and president of the University of Hartford.
The academic standards recommendations were presented by Harrison and came from his committee, with the help of the Division I Academic Cabinet.
Student-athlete welfare improvements
The Board also adopted legislation that addresses the miscellaneous costs of attending college. Student-athletes who receive full athletics scholarships or get other school financial aid will have the opportunity to receive additional athletics aid (or other institutional aid, including use of the Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund) up to the full cost of attendance or $2,000, whichever is less.
The figure will be adjusted according to the consumer price index, so the presidents will not need to approve new figures when the cost-of-living changes. The Board resolved to not revisit the $2,000 amount for three years.
The new rule makes the additional aid available to student-athletes in head-count sports (football and basketball) and those in equivalency sports who reach the value of a full scholarship.
Pell Grants will be exempted from the calculation, and the Board adopted a best practice to encourage all student-athletes to fill out the federal application for student financial aid. In equivalency sports, only athletically related aid will count toward team limits.
The Board also approved multi-year grants up to the full term of eligibility, though one-year grants will remain the minimum. A prescribed minimum award value should apply to all scholarships (percentage amount to be decided in the coming months), and institutions could increase the allotted aid during the period of the award.
The current restrictions and processes for reducing or canceling aid will be maintained and only non-athletically related conditions for reduction or cancellation will be permitted in aid agreements. Student-athletes will continue to have a hearing opportunity for any reduction or cancellation of aid.
Presidents also voted to allow institutions to provide financial aid to former student-athletes who remain at or return to the institution to complete their degrees after they have exhausted their eligibility.
Penn State President Graham Spanier chaired the working group established to examine student-athlete well-being issues.
“We understand the situation of our student-athletes. This isn’t about paying student-athletes, but it is about being fair and recognizing that in Division I it ought to be important to meet this need,” Spanier said. “We all have lots of different choices to make, but we felt that these proposals are right for our student-athletes.”
The Board also heard updates from the other groups considering reform out of the Aug. 9-10 presidential retreat:
The presidents adopted a resolution from the rules working group approving the group’s principle-based outcomes approach to reshaping the Division I manual. The presidents will hear final recommendations from this group in April.
The enforcement working group is examining new violation and penalty structures, more efficient investigation and adjudication processes and a new approach to public communication of enforcement and infraction issues. This group begin making recommendations to the Board in January 2012 and will finalize its legislative recommendations by October 2012.
Yep. So what? All I want is a level playing field. And the NCAA's is far from level. So, if they "try" to do something that I don't agree with, and I know you weren't singling me out, am I supposed to just say, "Oh well, good for them. They are trying something," and keep my mouth shut?
So, in order to meet the APR standard, either a kid does better or, hell, the school lowers their academic standard. Hmm. Lets see how that works.
There is no such thing as a "level playing field".
Two general thoughts on this topic:
1. I really like that they exempted pell grants from the limitations - this should make a big difference for those to whom it is most important. (In other words, the really, really dirt poor students will actually be able to get the true full cost of attendance in aid - at CU, instead of $2,000, they'll get $3,338 - which is probably appropriate.)
2. In a lot of the criticisms of this, I think it's important to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Sure, the changes aren't perfect, and won't result in a perfect system. But, they are probably an improvement to the current situation, and that is a good thing.
Thats my point. And these new regs will make it even worse.
And my point is you want something that is impossible to achieve. Nothing the NCAA does (or doesn't do) is going to satisfy you if that is your standard.
No. I've pretty much given up on any kind of equity or anything close to equity in college football. It will never be the same as it was even 20 years ago. I get that. But I'm allowed to disagree with what the NCAA is doing. I'm pretty tired of the SEC winning the MNC every year and these rules will just exacerbate it. I just need to lower my hopes. I'll have to dream of us winning the Pac.
so you miss the good old days when the SEC and SWC didn't pay players?
Separate names with a comma.