Tweet
Since this would be on a conference-by-conference basis, wonder how the MVC would vote?
-
Since this would be on a conference-by-conference basis, wonder how the MVC would vote? -
I think it's a good thing. I wonder if this will be for "all" student-athletes, or just scholarship athletes. I'm hoping walk-ons will be able to get it, as that wouldn't be very fair.
I'm definitely in the camp of thinking that student athletes deserve some sort of financial compensation for playing.
(let the insane bickering about paying players to begin.) -
Interesting proposal. Obviously it wouldn't curtail those that want/seek more than what they are allowed now which is nothing but their education. It would put more distance between the haves and the have nots. It says it would allow each conference to vote as to whether or not to grant a stipend and I would imagine it would be up to each conference to decide how much to grant up to 2,000.Comment
-
With the financial condition of many Valley schools, I can't imagine the Valley going for this, which will hurt recruiting.The future's so bright - I gotta wear shades.
We like to cut down nets and get sized for championship rings.Comment
-
If this goes thru WSU needs to pay it. I know it would be expensive, but if they don't pay it they will basically become a lower division without actually dropping down. I think CU and WSU about the only two schools in position to handle this. Maybe the other non football schools, thats a huge maybe. The football schools just wouldn't be able to do it I don't think. I would be very pissed if WSU wanted to pay it and the league voted it down and WSU couldn't find a conference to go to that did pay it.Comment
-
If this goes through and the MVC doesn't adopt it, I think there will be enough clamoring from the WSU and CU fanbases that we will find another home.
If the MVC does adopt it, I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple more MVC schools drop baseball or football.Comment
-
In August, WSU announced 94 of 166 WSU student-athletes had a 3.0 GPA or better. 166 athletes = $332,000. At 10,000 per 17 home games and 3000 at 40 baseball games, a $1 per ticket increase would amount to $290,000. Teams with 65 football scholarships would add an additional $130,000. which would require 21,666 average attendance over six games; or 26,000 over five games."I not sure that I've ever been around a more competitive player or young man than Fred VanVleet. I like to win more than 99.9% of the people in this world, but he may top me." -- Gregg Marshall 12/23/13 :peaceful:
---------------------------------------
Remember when Nancy Pelosi said about Obamacare:
"We have to pass it, to find out what's in it".
A physician called into a radio show and said:
"That's the definition of a stool sample."Comment
-
I can't imagine this going through as proposed. Recruiting for any conference that didn't pay the $$ would be impossible. Commitments would be broken the moment any school paying $2K showed up. Most players would never sign a LOI to an unfunded conference. They'd all wait to see if they could get an offer from a school paying them some bucks. A coach in an unfunded league would never know who he had coming in until the players enrolled.
If the Valley is questionable for affording this, what about all the lower conferences that don't have TV contracts? I think the "poor boy" schools will outvote the "fat cats" on this. But, since this is the NCAA - anything could happen - and probably will.The future's so bright - I gotta wear shades.
We like to cut down nets and get sized for championship rings.Comment
-
Every reason you stated as why it won't pass, is exactly why it WILL pass. The BCS schools know exactly what will happen, and they're constantly trying to elevate themselves above the lower conferences. This will pass if it is truly brought forward and voted on.Originally posted by Aargh View PostComment
-
Spot on. Every BCS conference will vote for it, some "mid-majors" won't, and the resulting widening of the recruiting differential is exactly what the BCS conferences are hoping for.Originally posted by _kai_ View Post
By the way, lost in this debate is the realization that we already pay student athletes--it's called a scholarship and free education."It's amazing to watch Ron slide into that open area, Fred will find him and it's straight cash homie."--HCGMComment
-
Not siding one way or another on whether this is a good idea, but it is important to note that the reason this is being proposed is not about pay-to-play, but rather about studies that have indicated that current NCAA scholarships regularly fail to cover the cost of a student-athletes college attendance.Originally posted by Rocky Mountain Shock View Post
In theory this move is intended to fulfill the promise of a free education."Cotton scared me - I left him alone." - B4MSU (Bear Nation poster) in reference to heckling playersComment
-
If this is passed and WSU does not join in for whatever reason, the already unlevel playing field for recruiting would more than likely take not one, but two serious hits. This includes not only our ability to compete for quality players, but could affect our ability to recruit for quality coaches as well.Comment
-
I believe walk-ons are not restricted to working like a scholarship athlete is. It is tough to work and play, could see a reduction in walk-ons.Comment
-
This is only about the BCS buying more of an advantage to supplement the huge advantages they already have. If any non-BCS school votes for this, they are idiots. We need to get to CUSA ASAP before its too late. I think its a big mistake to just "monitor" the situation. We need to act or we will be left behind.Comment
-
It's the right thing to do and not that much money - less than $1M for just about any school. Less than most head coaches in football and basketball make in a year.
Considering the money and ink that these athletes bring to their schools it's a pittance.Comment
Comment