C-USA schools to offer "Cost of Attendance" scholarship boosts

[UNT90]

Come on now. How does anyone get by on free tuition, room, board, books and fees alone? That's not a living wage. Try raising a family on that. It can't be done. Unfair I tell you. Something needs to be done.

I sense some awesome sarcasm in this post...

[Eagle1855]

I hope so. I want a cap.

I hope so too. Baseball is tops.

But if we are to start paying student-athletes, I have concerns about the university's willingness to add more to the payroll.

There are currently six -- SIX -- Texas universities in the Top 25 of NCAA baseball (seven in the Top 27, if you want to include Baylor). If we're not going into this thing with winning -- and winning often -- in mind, I'd just as soon forget about it.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Eagle1855

[UNTexas]

I sense some awesome sarcasm in this post...

I sense you are on gmg an unhealthy amount of time. I want you to sleep tonight, a full night sleep.

[Ben Gooding]

Whatever. I have never met 90, but I wish we had an entire fan base full of him. He cares. I want people who care. Not kind of care. Not act like they care. But people that deep down want nothing but the best for the University as a whole. I hope 90 triples his posts in 2015. They are always sarcastic in nature, but always accurate or not very far from accurate.

Supply and Demand....He's doing the demanding...waiting on the supplying. In his thought process we should all get on the bus because it's the type of bus that drives programs to success.

[BillySee58]

One thing I don't understand has never been proposed has been a grant and loan program through the NCAA. Have the student athletes do the FAFSA and see what situation they really are in and how much financial support they do have from their parents.

If a student doesn't have parents who can provide them with spending money, then they should be eligible for grant money too. If a parent has enough disposable income to provide their scholarship student athlete with ample spending money then they should. And if a student athlete is caught in between, like so many regular college students, where their parents make too much for grants but can't provide their kids with much money, then they should look into taking out a loan here or there. They'll take out a lot less loan money on non-essential stuff than a kid in that situation who doesn't have a scholarship will. Normal students who don't get help from their parents and aren't eligible for grant money, even if they work, will have to take out a lot of loan money to pay for tuition (My semester cost $5K for 15 hours), rent, books, and other living expenses.

Also, the NCAA could do a loan forgiveness program where student athletes get parts of their loans forgiven if they excel in the classroom. But that's obviously not how this is going to happen.

I'm kind of torn on this though. If schools are allowed to pay whatever they choose then those players who have P5 offers (even lower tier P5 offers) are even more unlikely to choose a school like us. It could really widen the ever-increasing gap between P5 and G5 that much more.

But at the same time, those are the schools who the players are actually making money for them. Those are the kids who are generating huge crowds and large TV audiences. So they do generate more money, thus should theoretically be paid higher than G5 players. But I don't see any problem with a little spending money for student-athletes.

Edited February 19, 2015 by BillySee58

[oldguystudent]

But at the same time, those are the schools who the players are actually making money for them. Those are the kids who are generating huge crowds and large TV audiences.

Well that's kind of the whole argument, isn't it? We here in the lowly G5 are, perhaps rightfully, very upset at this move that will further separate the haves from the have nots.

But the side of the coin that we don't ever look at is how much money these players are making for their universities, for ESPN, for the NCAA, and they've historically been receiving tuition and books for their efforts.

Big time college football money approaches MLB money. Do you see anybody in the bigs playing for books and a bunk bed? If we're advocates of the free market, we should advocate the players getting their fair share of the revenue they're generating.

We hate this idea because it nearly certainly means that the flash in the pan real estate magnates down on Mockingbird will be throwing together a payroll the size of Microsoft sometime soon and will be buying themselves office bragging rights. You know, the office where we work beside them, with the same jobs, the same income, the same car, the same houses, but much more reasonable wives who don't run us into the ground with tiger skin seat covers and shark fin facial cream?

[UNT90]

One thing I don't understand has never been proposed has been a grant and loan program through the NCAA. Have the student athletes do the FAFSA and see what situation they really are in and how much financial support they do have from their parents.

If a student doesn't have parents who can provide them with spending money, then they should be eligible for grant money too. If a parent has enough disposable income to provide their scholarship student athlete with ample spending money then they should. And if a student athlete is caught in between, like so many regular college students, where their parents make too much for grants but can't provide their kids with much money, then they should look into taking out a loan here or there. They'll take out a lot less loan money on non-essential stuff than a kid in that situation who doesn't have a scholarship will. Normal students who don't get help from their parents and aren't eligible for grant money, even if they work, will have to take out a lot of loan money to pay for tuition (My semester cost $5K for 15 hours), rent, books, and other living expenses.

Also, the NCAA could do a loan forgiveness program where student athletes get parts of their loans forgiven if they excel in the classroom. But that's obviously not how this is going to happen.

I'm kind of torn on this though. If schools are allowed to pay whatever they choose then those players who have P5 offers (even lower tier P5 offers) are even more unlikely to choose a school like us. It could really widen the ever-increasing gap between P5 and G5 that much more.

But at the same time, those are the schools who the players are actually making money for them. Those are the kids who are generating huge crowds and large TV audiences. So they do generate more money, thus should theoretically be paid higher than G5 players. But I don't see any problem with a little spending money for student-athletes.

All very common sensical. Problem is none of it benefits the power 5 money schools, so none of it will ever happen.

It's about adding onto an already overpowering competitive edge and really nothing else.

[UNT90]

Well that's kind of the whole argument, isn't it? We here in the lowly G5 are, perhaps rightfully, very upset at this move that will further separate the haves from the have nots.

But the side of the coin that we don't ever look at is how much money these players are making for their universities, for ESPN, for the NCAA, and they've historically been receiving tuition and books for their efforts.

Big time college football money approaches MLB money. Do you see anybody in the bigs playing for books and a bunk bed? If we're advocates of the free market, we should advocate the players getting their fair share of the revenue they're generating.

We hate this idea because it nearly certainly means that the flash in the pan real estate magnates down on Mockingbird will be throwing together a payroll the size of Microsoft sometime soon and will be buying themselves office bragging rights. You know, the office where we work beside them, with the same jobs, the same income, the same car, the same houses, but much more reasonable wives who don't run us into the ground with tiger skin seat covers and shark fin facial cream?

And if they use the system to their benefit, they add around 660k of future earning value to their résumé.

Pretty fair exchange.

Compare that to the way baseball works. Drafted straight out of high school, unless a kid is a top 5 round pick, he isn't getting a signing bonus worth much, then he gets no education and very little pay while trying to work his way through the minors.

No free education.

Which is really the better system for the kid?

Edited February 19, 2015 by UNT90

[greenit]

As far as I know, in baseball if a kid gets drafted out of high school, part of the deal is that the MLB team has to agree to pay for college should the baseball gig not work out. I don't know the particulars, but maybe one of our baseball aficionados could fill us in.

If the kids basically get a full ride after baseball, it is not a bad deal since they get to fully immerse themselves into baseball and not have to worry about school while attempting to play baseball.

[UNT90]

As far as I know, in baseball if a kid gets drafted out of high school, part of the deal is that the MLB team has to agree to pay for college should the baseball gig not work out. I don't know the particulars, but maybe one of our baseball aficionados could fill us in.

If the kids basically get a full ride after baseball, it is not a bad deal since they get to fully immerse themselves into baseball and not have to worry about school while attempting to play baseball.

Never heard of this, and frankly would be surprised if it is true.

[GMG24]

I know two kids from liberty did that, got drafted and part of their contract negotiations was once baseballs done they could chose their school to be admitted and receive their 4 year degree... Doesn't mean that's everyone but two cases I've heard of this.

[MeanGreenDadx2]

Ya, it's the cost of a college degree these days.

Actually, if you add in their increase in earning potential if they take advantage of the opportunity given, it's probably at least 30k a year for at least 20 years.

660k to play college ball, yet you think they need more.

Per US News & World report http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/11/study-income-gap-between-young-college-and-high-school-grads-widens

The difference between a college graduate and high school graduate is $17,500. This report is a year old but I suppose the difference could have risen to $30,000 per year.

[VideoEagle]

Per US News & World report http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/11/study-income-gap-between-young-college-and-high-school-grads-widens

The difference between a college graduate and high school graduate is $17,500. This report is a year old but I suppose the difference could have risen to $30,000 per year.

Nice find on the article!

[UNT90]

Per US News & World report http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/11/study-income-gap-between-young-college-and-high-school-grads-widens

The difference between a college graduate and high school graduate is $17,500. This report is a year old but I suppose the difference could have risen to $30,000 per year.

It was a number that I completely pulled outta my butt. Imagine that.

So instead of 660k a year, it's more like 400k.

Still a hell of a deal for a kid that may it not see a college a down of action on the football field.

Edited February 19, 2015 by UNT90

[untjim1995]

Well that's kind of the whole argument, isn't it? We here in the lowly G5 are, perhaps rightfully, very upset at this move that will further separate the haves from the have nots.

But the side of the coin that we don't ever look at is how much money these players are making for their universities, for ESPN, for the NCAA, and they've historically been receiving tuition and books for their efforts.

Big time college football money approaches MLB money. Do you see anybody in the bigs playing for books and a bunk bed? If we're advocates of the free market, we should advocate the players getting their fair share of the revenue they're generating.

We hate this idea because it nearly certainly means that the flash in the pan real estate magnates down on Mockingbird will be throwing together a payroll the size of Microsoft sometime soon and will be buying themselves office bragging rights. You know, the office where we work beside them, with the same jobs, the same income, the same car, the same houses, but much more reasonable wives who don't run us into the ground with tiger skin seat covers and shark fin facial cream?

I wish the P5s would just finish this. WIth the new scheme of "legally" paying players, they will just increase this each year until the SBCs, MACs, and CUSAs of the college world wave the white flag. Eventually, the AAC and the MWC schools will, as well. Then the P5 teams run their own system, fully independent of the G5 or FCS for good. That day cannot come soon enough for me, at least when it comes to UNT.

I wanted UNT to become a P5 eventually. I wanted us to play in a conference that was full of bigger schools. I wanted us to be a place that other Texas colleges wanted to be associated with us as conference mates. The only problem is that when that could have happened, back in the 70s, the small privates, pun intended, of Texas said no. So, instead of looking in other directions for conference affiliation other than the SWC to see about joining, like say, a MIdwestern conglomerate of schools with no Texas team inside of it known as the Big Eight, or even a collection of western teams in the US that already included a Texas step-child like us (UTEP) that was known as the WAC, we decided the very best thing we could do was to instead just quit I-A football and join the Southland Conference for the next 12 years. You cannot tell me that either of those conferences that I mentioned wouldn't have taken a long hard look at getting a presence in DFW. But, nope, the SMU-led privates said we couldn't get in their country club, so our leadership took that as being better to just avoid ever trying to get into any other country club ever again. So the SWC schools said no to us, the leadership at UNT said give up without completely quitting the sport, and the other bigger schools in the region just kept building and building, becoming P5 behemoths that we know have nothing in common with athletically, except for being a bought opponent for early season drubbiings. Even when we finally decided to come up from the i-aa purgatory in 1995, we weren't really ready to move up, fiscally or physically. We played in a dump of a stadium, in conferences that were just full of newbies to i-a, and we lost a lot. We literally fell about 30 years behind the P5s. Oh, I hoped we could bridge the gap with the right coach, winning the right league title or bowl game, and have new facilities that better conferences would want to play in, but it all came too late. And now, with the paying of players "legally", you basically see the true line of demarcation between us in CUSA, UH in AAC, Tech in the Big 12, and A&M in the SEC. The higher or farther you go out, the smaller and smaller we are. A lot of that is our fault, a lot of it isn't our fault. But what is now certain is that we are forever meant to be a G5 program. The funding to pay this out will never be the same--and no P5 recruit will ever choose a G5 school, just on the grounds of money. Yes, they could always transfer down to a G5, and many of them still will, but that permanently slants the playing field even steeper than it already was--and for us, it was already a mountain side because of our apathy and losing history.

In the coming years, when the P5s finally get their wish, I want the G5s and the FCS to do something to separate themselves--play on a different day or night than the P5s or the NFL. Promote the heck out of being scholarship-only football. We aren't IVY League, but we aren't NFL-lite factories, either. When the P5s commit infractions from still funneling money under the carpet to recruits, hammer them in the media about the hypocrisy of it all. Highlight former G5s that play in the NFL still, but also those kids who went on to become very successful in their non-sports career. Create regional and geographic conferences that feed into a very predictable and UNDERSTANDABLE playoff system that can be played in December while the P5s toil away for practice in their bowl games or for their own playoff system. Make your championship like the College World Series, where everyone knows where the ultimate landing spot is at the end of the year--say its San Antonio every year at the AlamoDome or Indianapolis at the Lucas Oil Stadium--just make it something that becomes synonymous with our championship pursuit.

ADs and presidents at the G5s are going to have to come to these realities at some point. Yes,SMU has millions of dollars, but nobody will ever want them in a P5 league--they don't have enough fans. Yes, UH has a big market and a large enrollment, but nobody in a P5 league wants them--they already have those markets taken. These schools can keep throwing cahs at the problem, but the problem is incurable at this point. Its like having gangrene in your foot, but thinking that you can still run a marathon because you used to. Eventually, that foot has to get amputated. Sure, you can still run that marathon eventually, but you'll never be able to run it like you used to, so you have to come to a new reality. The G5 leagues and schools are going to have to do the same. Or else they are going to waste even more money on paying players that won't help your bottom line at all, nor will it ever give you enough on-field success to finally get rewarded with a P5 spot (unless you are one a very select few in the G5 that would fit geographically with an open slot in a P5 league). Its why I just don't see us playing this pay the players game for very long at any competitive rate. We will never be that school that moves up to P5 status--our location, our history, and our apathy killed that chance from ever happening. And quite frankly, it has too for every school in the G5 that resides anywhere near this region of the country, whether they believe it or not.