Power 5 Voting Going on Right Now | Syracusefan.com

Power 5 Voting Going on Right Now

Czar

All Conference
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
2,166
Like
1,471
Power Five’s concussion safety protocol proposal passes: 64 yes, 16 no. Scattered applause.

Proposal to allow schools to purchase loss-of-value insurance for players w/o using student assistance fund passes 80-0.

OK, now: Power Five passes full cost-of-attendance scholarship proposal: 79-1. (1 ACC school voted against)

Power Five votes to prevent scholarships from being cut for athletic reasons. 50 votes for.
 
Czar said:
Power Five’s concussion safety protocol proposal passes: 64 yes, 16 no. Scattered applause. Proposal to allow schools to purchase loss-of-value insurance for players w/o using student assistance fund passes 80-0. OK, now: Power Five passes full cost-of-attendance scholarship proposal: 79-1. (1 ACC school voted against) Power Five votes to prevent scholarships from being cut for athletic reasons. 50 votes for.
 
Which ACC school voted no? Wake? That should have been a 80-0 as well.
 
Which ACC school voted no? Wake? That should have been a 80-0 as well.
It was Boston College. Can only speculate why. They have a hefty athletic department with 31 sponsored sports. Perhaps for cost reasons.
 
anyone have any idea if and/or when they will be voting for autonomy? I don't actually think that is the proper term however, I'm specifically talking about conferences being able to set schedules as they want and match up who they want for conference championship games without needing divisions.
 
BC doesn't really seem to try in anything, except hockey. Oh Lord
 
http://coachingsearch.com/article?a=Power-5-pass-full-cost-of-attendance-What-does-it-mean

The biggest news to come out of Saturday was allowing the full cost of attendance in financial assistance, which passed by a 79-1 vote. Student-athletes no longer can only be paid the cost of an athletic scholarship (tuition, room and board, books, etc.). Instead, there will be a federally-determined actual cost of attendance that schools can offer — what a normal student would spend annually. The new legislation goes into effect on Aug. 1.
This cost of attendance will vary between schools, and some coaches at the AFCA Convention in Louisville last week said they could see it affecting recruiting. Although the full cost will be covered, that full cost could be higher at another school, and that could be used in a recruiting pitch.
For example, the Austin American-Statesman reports student-athletes at the University of Texas will receive an extra $4,500-$5,000. At another school, a student-athlete could receive more money, but their expenditures would theoretically be more, too. Still, as one coach at the AFCA convention said, some families of recruits will hear “more money” and may be influenced by that. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Another passed proposal states coaches in the Power 5 can no longer pull or reduce scholarships for athletic reasons, and scholarships are guaranteed for four years.
In addition, student-athletes can borrow against their future earnings with loss-of-value insurance, and there will be new concussion management protocol.
There are 80 votes on the proposals: the 65 schools and 15 student-athlete representatives. The bottom line with autonomy is this: The schools with more money can use it, without needing support from the smaller schools that can’t afford it.
Passing Saturday's proposals was the start of a new era.
 
It was Boston College. Can only speculate why. They have a hefty athletic department with 31 sponsored sports. Perhaps for cost reasons.

You are correct in that Boston College has more sponsored sports than it's peers. As the attached article below notes, the gap in its current cost-of-attendance is already among the smallest in the ACC. I suspect these two reasons factored into their no vote. Mostly academic, IMO, as I think they will do what everybody else does.

http://bcheights.com/news/2014/cost-of-attendance-gap-boston-college-acc-ncaa/
 
Does "sponsored sports" mean 100% scholies, partial scholies or can it mean the school buys the equipment and everyone is a "walk-on"?
 
Don't worry, Saban will still convince underperforming players that their "injury" is better tended to outside the world of football. The university will pick up the rest of the scholarship tab.
I think that scholarships can also be yanked for academic reasons. If so, I for one am enthused. The scandals are going to be fantastic when someone realizes that there will be a strong correlation between grades, year, and playing time at some of our nation's finer southern universities.
 
For example, the Austin American-Statesman reports student-athletes at the University of Texas will receive an extra $4,500-$5,000. At another school, a student-athlete could receive more money, but their expenditures would theoretically be more, too. Still, as one coach at the AFCA convention said, some families of recruits will hear “more money” and may be influenced by that. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

So, what's everyone's take on this? Benefit SU or is it going to make it even harder for SU to recruit? I think this is going to present several problems (not specific to SU): 1) Schools are going to inflate "cost of attendance" in order to make the payout bigger, particularly at the cash-rich football factories, 2) It will definitely be used as a recruiting tool, 3) not having a flat rate across all schools will provide an uneven playing field.
 
texascpa said:
For example, the Austin American-Statesman reports student-athletes at the University of Texas will receive an extra $4,500-$5,000. At another school, a student-athlete could receive more money, but their expenditures would theoretically be more, too. Still, as one coach at the AFCA convention said, some families of recruits will hear “more money” and may be influenced by that. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. So, what's everyone's take on this? Benefit SU or is it going to make it even harder for SU to recruit? I think this is going to present several problems (not specific to SU): 1) Schools are going to inflate "cost of attendance" in order to make the payout bigger, particularly at the cash-rich football factories, 2) It will definitely be used as a recruiting tool, 3) not having a flat rate across all schools will provide an uneven playing field.

Yeah - any time money is involved with out the goal being a level playing ground - it will be a mess.
 
1) Schools are going to inflate "cost of attendance" in order to make the payout bigger, particularly at the cash-rich football factories
Not so fast, my friend.

TCoA is a University-wide figure, it isn't just limited to athletics. Bumping the figure up by $1,000 could have an impact on other students as well.
 
Our TCoA is $2,974. That's a bit more than the average at this point.

It's a number than can be audited by the federal government (as if they didn't have enough to do or mess up) and should act as a check against inflating it for no reason. But I'm sure the SEC will find a way.
 
Our TCoA is $2,974. That's a bit more than the average at this point.

It's a number than can be audited by the federal government (as if they didn't have enough to do or mess up) and should act as a check against inflating it for no reason. But I'm sure the SEC will find a way.

Is that an annual number or a per semester number? BTW, where did you get that number from?
 
texascpa said:
Thanks. I can't believe books are only $1,400. That seems real low.

Wait till you see how much they cost SEC students...
 
Annual, I think. It's here.

Okay, just read this from the link: Due to federal guidelines, we are unable to award financial aid that exceeds the total Cost of Attendance.

The $2,974 number seems to be outside of TCoA, so if we pay that are we violating federal guidelines and risking any federal funding the school receives?
 
Okay, just read this from the link: Due to federal guidelines, we are unable to award financial aid that exceeds the total Cost of Attendance.

The $2,974 number seems to be outside of TCoA, so if we pay that are we violating federal guidelines and risking any federal funding the school receives?

I don't think so. I think that number is included.
 
Wait till you see how much they cost SEC students...
Here is what some enterprising booster should do. Make a donation of about $1 - $2M to endow an academic-related university fund to assist with buying textbooks for students in need. Wire it into the AD so that it is only used for football players. Buy their books from this fund and let them keep the book-related portion of the TCoA stipend.

Better yet, steer all football players into taking the same course (where possible) so that you don't have to buy as many books, and let the players share the texts.
 

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Threads
170,361
Messages
4,887,403
Members
5,996
Latest member
meierscreek

Online statistics

Members online
344
Guests online
1,585
Total visitors
1,929


...
Top Bottom