mksioux Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 There are about a half dozen or so FCS programs that could afford to do this. Three of them are on the schedule next season. That's my point. If stipends were put to a vote to the entire FCS, it would fail for sure. Even if it were put to a vote on a conference-by-conference basis, it would probably fail in every conference. But if each school is left to decide for itself, there will be a select few who will do it. Then the rest of the schools will be forced to do it even if they can't afford it, or face a significant competitive disadvantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxVolley Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 There are about a half dozen or so FCS programs that could afford to do this. Three of them are on the schedule next season.NDSU, Montana, and UCDavis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxVolley Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 That's my point. If stipends were put to a vote to the entire FCS, it would fail for sure. Even if it were put to a vote on a conference-by-conference basis, it would probably fail in every conference. But if each school is left to decide for itself, there will be a select few who will do it. Then the rest of the schools will be forced to do it even if they can't afford it, or face a significant competitive disadvantage. Some P5 schools play as affiliates in G5 or lower conferences, like the women's WCHA. They didn't want to be dictated by lower level schools. In the Big Sky, would expect Weber St for sure to offer stipends in BB. Their interested in competing with Utah State for players. It may be possible to only grant stipends to a select few on a team, but that can create hard feelings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cberkas Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Someone who pays closer attention to this can maybe explain this to me. Media stories say that the P5 conferences voted for stipends. None of the stories mention any non-P5 school getting a vote. Do the P5 schools get the exclusive vote on this issue? Does the P5 vote bind non-P5 schools and conferences? What's stopping FCS schools as a whole from voting to ban it (for FCS football)? Why is left up to each individual FCS school to decide for itself whether to do this? I think most people will agree that FCS, generally, cannot afford stipends. However, all it takes is one school to start the dominoes falling and the arms race will be on. It's a virtual certainty that at least one FCS school will start this, forcing the hand of all the rest. From what I read it was a close door meeting with Mark Emmert and the Power 5 schools, media wasn't even allowed in the meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn-O Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 That's my point. If stipends were put to a vote to the entire FCS, it would fail for sure. Even if it were put to a vote on a conference-by-conference basis, it would probably fail in every conference. But if each school is left to decide for itself, there will be a select few who will do it. Then the rest of the schools will be forced to do it even if they can't afford it, or face a significant competitive disadvantage. And then you have the DI playups in hockey...the change we are going to see shake out are mind boggling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 My opinion- This thing doesn't stand a chance when it's taken to court. Not a chance schools are going to be allowed to pick and choose which sports these are offered in. This will be the death of non revenue sports at schools, including hockey at a lot of colleges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxVolley Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 My opinion- This thing doesn't stand a chance when it's taken to court. Not a chance schools are going to be allowed to pick and choose which sports these are offered in. This will be the death of non revenue sports at schools, including hockey at a lot of colleges. It's just going to stratify programs more. Hockey players will still want DI even without a stipend. It could lead to leveling the playing field vs major juniors. Union doesn't even have scholarships, so how can they compete now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 It's just going to stratify programs more. Hockey players will still want DI. It could lead to leveling the playing field vs major juniors. Union doesn't even have scholarships, so how can they compete now? That's my point, the programs doing it get better by getting a few players who are now going the junior route. The schools that don't, can't compete. It will apply to every sport, widening the gap between the top and the middle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkster Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 This will be the death knell for FCS football at a lot of schools. For us, it makes sense for hockey, even considering that the men are going to have to subsidize the women's COA stipend. I don't see how UND can possible afford to do this for football, especially if we have to pay for a women's equivalent. Just for football, ticket prices are going to have to increase by something like $12-15 and I have no idea where the money comes from for a women's equivalent. I'm not saying we should drop the idea, but I think it's going to be very, very difficult to pull off. The money simply isn't going to be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Any reason und couldn't offer say 10 full cost of attendance stipends for football? Why would we need to offer them to all full scholarship players? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!! Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Are teams going to be able to "slit" the stipends like they do scholarships? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 What I am worried about is having one or two good programs (MH and WBB for example) and be mediocre at best in everything else. I am hoping that we will weather the storm easier than schools like USD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Someone who pays closer attention to this can maybe explain this to me. Media stories say that the P5 conferences voted for stipends. None of the stories mention any non-P5 school getting a vote. Do the P5 schools get the exclusive vote on this issue? Does the P5 vote bind non-P5 schools and conferences? What's stopping FCS schools as a whole from voting to ban it (for FCS football)? Why is left up to each individual FCS school to decide for itself whether to do this? I think most people will agree that FCS, generally, cannot afford stipends. However, all it takes is one school to start the dominoes falling and the arms race will be on. It's a virtual certainty that at least one FCS school will start this, forcing the hand of all the rest. The autonomy group was formed from the vote that happened back in July or August and was ratified in October(I think). The group is made up of one representative from each of the 65 P5 schools, plus three student-athletes from each of the five conferences, for a total of 80 members. All legislation the autonomy group votes on is 'permissive'. This means that schools outside the P5 cannot be forced to adhere to it. However, they may choose to follow these new rules if they want. The only stopping point is the school's conference. Conferences may vote to forbid their members from adopting elements of autonomy legislation. I guess there's nothing stopping the FCS schools from doing the same thing across the entire subdivision. (doubtful) Here's the text of the legislation: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Official%20Notice%20of%20Autonomy%20Proposals%201-12-15.pdf (it's 2014-13; the amendment 2014-13-1 passed, but none of the others) Here's a Q&A on the topic: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2014-15%20Autonomy%20Legislation%20Q%20and%20A.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 My opinion- This thing doesn't stand a chance when it's taken to court. Not a chance schools are going to be allowed to pick and choose which sports these are offered in. This will be the death of non revenue sports at schools, including hockey at a lot of colleges. Why? That would be like the golf team suing because they aren't funded to the scholarship maximum while FB and MBB are. If there were a case to be made, it would have happened long ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Any reason und couldn't offer say 10 full cost of attendance stipends for football? Why would we need to offer them to all full scholarship players? No. You can do as many or as few as you want. (within certain limits) You can even treat student-athletes on the same team differently. You declare a student as full grant-in-aid, not a sport or a school. It's very individual. Are teams going to be able to "slit" the stipends like they do scholarships? Yes/no. You don't treat the stipend as a separate thing. What you're actually doing is modifying what the value of a full scholarship is. Say a regular full scholarship is worth $5k at your school and the value of a scholarship plus stipend is $10k. Now say you give a student-athlete $5k.If you list the student as a regular GIA, then you calculate the percent of scholarship as $5k/$5k, or 1.0 scholarship counted against your limit. But if you list the student as a FGIA, then you calculate it as $5k/$10k, or 0.5 scholarships against your limit. There's other great info in the Q&A I linked to above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 This will be the death knell for FCS football at a lot of schools. For us, it makes sense for hockey, even considering that the men are going to have to subsidize the women's COA stipend. I don't see how UND can possible afford to do this for football, especially if we have to pay for a women's equivalent. Just for football, ticket prices are going to have to increase by something like $12-15 and I have no idea where the money comes from for a women's equivalent. I'm not saying we should drop the idea, but I think it's going to be very, very difficult to pull off. The money simply isn't going to be there. Money is there if UND cuts a few sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Why? That would be like the golf team suing because they aren't funded to the scholarship maximum while FB and MBB are. If there were a case to be made, it would have happened long ago. Appreciate the Q&A post. Answered a few questions. You should probably send that to your AD. I'm don't think he fully understands how this works. I still have the opinion that when you are giving money for things above and beyond tuition, it's not going to be as easy to say we are doing it for football and nothing else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redneksioux Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 So if the hockey team gets stipends would this classify them as paid professionals and no longer amateur? I'm wondering if this could open the door to potential exhibition games vs chl teams. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!! Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Good info Hammersmith. ------ Hopefully Bubba can get the team going gangbusters this year and the fans follow so revenue starts to increase for football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 The autonomy group was formed from the vote that happened back in July or August and was ratified in October(I think). The group is made up of one representative from each of the 65 P5 schools, plus three student-athletes from each of the five conferences, for a total of 80 members. All legislation the autonomy group votes on is 'permissive'. This means that schools outside the P5 cannot be forced to adhere to it. However, they may choose to follow these new rules if they want. The only stopping point is the school's conference. Conferences may vote to forbid their members from adopting elements of autonomy legislation. I guess there's nothing stopping the FCS schools from doing the same thing across the entire subdivision. (doubtful) Here's the text of the legislation: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Official%20Notice%20of%20Autonomy%20Proposals%201-12-15.pdf (it's 2014-13; the amendment 2014-13-1 passed, but none of the others) Here's a Q&A on the topic: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2014-15%20Autonomy%20Legislation%20Q%20and%20A.pdf Thanks for the information. My thought on this is that on legislation that is permissive in nature, like this legislation, saying it is permissive on the rest of Division I is not much different than saying it's binding on the rest. The bottom line is that P5 just significantly increased the cap on scholarship costs and the rest of Division I had no say in it. If you're a school of an FCS school that will likely do this (NDSU), I can see why you wouldn't want FCS, or your conference, to forbid you from doing it. You may be right that any FCS or conference restriction is doubtful. But I'm curious why you think that. It seems to me there are far more FCS schools that don't want to increase their scholarship costs than those that do. Why is a vote forbidding it so unlikely? I'm not disputing your opinion really, just curious on why you think it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 So if the hockey team gets stipends would this classify them as paid professionals and no longer amateur? I'm wondering if this could open the door to potential exhibition games vs chl teams. Another question someone can answer, How do these stipends compare to what players in Canada Major Juniors make? Could this lead to more players playing collee hockey as apposed to the Major Junior route? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkster Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Money is there if UND cuts a few sports. Women's hockey can't and won't be cut. Baseball doesn't amount to that much and probably isn't worth the hornets nest it would stir up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn-O Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 There is money there to be had in women's hockey without dropping it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Women's hockey can't and won't be cut. Baseball doesn't amount to that much and probably isn't worth the hornets nest it would stir up. Much to my dismay, I agree that UND likely won't be cutting sports anytime soon. Just curious though, as to why women's hockey CAN'T be cut. UND got along just fine without it until a decade ago or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkster Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Much to my dismay, I agree that UND likely won't be cutting sports anytime soon. Just curious though, as to why women's hockey CAN'T be cut. UND got along just fine without it until a decade ago or so. I'm assuming Title IX has a lot to do with us having women's hockey. Even if it doesn't, I think we need to be fair to the women and keep it going, the participation numbers are there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.