Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UAA and Cost of Attendance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • UAA and Cost of Attendance

    This is just another nail in the coffin for me sliding downward of my support for UAA. Just saw a story on KTVA (http://www.ktva.com/uaa-no-stipend-f...y-players-802/) about UAA NOT supporting COA.

    While I understand that the State of Alaska is in this huge fiscal gap and it translates the UA System losing all kinds of money, It is the principle for me that UAA lacks any future plan for any sort of increasing the stature of UAA Athletics. This whole dang school should be focused on the end goal of gaining into a great Division I conference like the Big West, WCC or even Big Sky. Even with the lack of a football team (which we should already have), the goal should be to get into a good conference in DIVISION I.

    Steve Hackett in the interview says "we don't have the revenue from the "big" conference from a TV package...etc. etc.) well, dang it, go out and get into these conferences that provide this money!!! UAA has always had any lack of future vision!!! I am telling you if UAA where in the Big West or WCC and we routinely played Gonzaga caliber teams in basketball, THE STANDS WOULD BE FULL AT THE AAC.

    Look at the other message boards. They are WANTING UAA in their conference! Even Mr. Hurd in the WAC at one time indicated to me that he was going to reach out to UAA! But, the lack of a vision or goal for UAA to increase its Athletic stature in mind-boggling even for the school of it's size.

    It really is a joke. It makes Alumni like me who is very passionate about my School want to PUKE! And now, instead of FIGURING out how to pay COS to be competitive to get the best recruits, we just throw our hands up and say "SO BE IT." Why I ever chose to go to UAA is beyond me. I really have a love/hate relationship with this school.

    Bravo to Bowling Green, and others for vision. Bravo for Arizona State. I bet smaller schools like Minn State and Mich Tech will figure this out.

  • #2
    Re: UAA and Cost of Attendance

    I'm shocked that the NCAA even proposed this.
    Last edited by Suze; 07-08-2015, 03:30 PM.
    Originally Posted by aparch
    I love the "UA_" comment. When I see it, I think of re-runs of Match Game, and Gene Rayburn going "U, A, Blank... UA blank"

    From ADN:

    "According to NCAA, the (UAF) hockey team used ineligible players in every game played from the 2007-08 season to the 2010-11 season. Over that span, the wins and ties will all become losses. 4 wins and 2 ties came against rival UAA".

    UAF is 56-86-12 vs. UAA.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: UAA and Cost of Attendance

      Originally posted by Suze View Post
      I'm shocked that the NCAA even proposed this.
      The NCAA didn't propose this. A handful of schools with football programs who make millions in profits annually, with money to burn, in an arms race for top talent, who feel that giving their "student-athletes" a larger "salary", excuse me "cost of attendance" will make them more competitive against their rivals proposed this silly concept. Hockey just got swept up in this joke of legislation because it is a D-I sport.

      Quite frankly, if your scholarship (full or part) isn't enough for you to attend college, find a less expensive school, a better scholarship offer, take out a loan or get a job. To try and convince people that only getting a portion of your education costs covered is an unbearable hardship, I'm sure there are plenty of kids out there that would love to have that "hardship". This has nothing to do with kids affording college, it is all about recruiting and making sure the "have" schools stay as far ahead of the "have-nots" as possible.

      Ryan J
      Preserving Michigan Tech's Hockey History
      https://www.johnsonsjerseys.net
      Originally posted by geezer
      Tech has the best of everything, even the best jersey nerd.
      Originally posted by manurespreader
      ...I really enjoyed listening to Ryan Johnson. He sounded intelligent.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: UAA and Cost of Attendance

        Originally posted by Wolfman View Post
        Bravo to Bowling Green, and others for vision.
        I don't think BGSU has much choice in the matter, but not at all thrilled with what it means for college hockey.
        And we may be able to cover the costs, but there will be a piper to pay. Hello, increased student fees. And there's this:

        "BGSU essentially will pay for cost of attendance with football games away from home. The Falcons’ football team plays three road games during the nonconference schedule — as opposed to the normal two — earning three six-digit guarantees and paying only one.
        This season, the Falcons play at Maryland and at Purdue, and they will go to Nashville for a game against Tennessee."
        That's five and seven, home and away. bah.

        http://www.bcsn.tv/news_article/show/530967
        Bowling Green St. Univ. '88 SUNY Potsdam '79

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: UAA and Cost of Attendance

          Another nail in the coffin of the NCAA as we know it.
          “We offer no apology for our location at 64 51’21’’ north latitude. We are building for the future and we are confident that well directed effort and education are the forces which make progress possible”

          —UA President Charles E. Bunnell, 1925

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: UAA and Cost of Attendance

            Originally posted by JohnsonsJerseys View Post
            The NCAA didn't propose this. A handful of schools with football programs who make millions in profits annually, with money to burn, in an arms race for top talent, who feel that giving their "student-athletes" a larger "salary", excuse me "cost of attendance" will make them more competitive against their rivals proposed this silly concept. Hockey just got swept up in this joke of legislation because it is a D-I sport.

            Quite frankly, if your scholarship (full or part) isn't enough for you to attend college, find a less expensive school, a better scholarship offer, take out a loan or get a job. To try and convince people that only getting a portion of your education costs covered is an unbearable hardship, I'm sure there are plenty of kids out there that would love to have that "hardship". This has nothing to do with kids affording college, it is all about recruiting and making sure the "have" schools stay as far ahead of the "have-nots" as possible.

            Ryan J
            As a scholarship athlete, you can't get a part time job, say at the local tattoo parlor, while your non scholarship girlfriend is getting her spending money at the same place.
            CCT '77 & '78
            4 kids
            5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
            1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

            ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
            - Benjamin Franklin

            Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

            I want to live forever. So far, so good.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: UAA and Cost of Attendance

              Originally posted by JohnsonsJerseys View Post
              The NCAA didn't propose this. A handful of schools with football programs who make millions in profits annually, with money to burn, in an arms race for top talent, who feel that giving their "student-athletes" a larger "salary", excuse me "cost of attendance" will make them more competitive against their rivals proposed this silly concept. Hockey just got swept up in this joke of legislation because it is a D-I sport.

              Quite frankly, if your scholarship (full or part) isn't enough for you to attend college, find a less expensive school, a better scholarship offer, take out a loan or get a job. To try and convince people that only getting a portion of your education costs covered is an unbearable hardship, I'm sure there are plenty of kids out there that would love to have that "hardship". This has nothing to do with kids affording college, it is all about recruiting and making sure the "have" schools stay as far ahead of the "have-nots" as possible.

              Ryan J
              The part about this whole ordeal that makes me laugh is the stipend talk started out of compensating football and basketball players. Sure, they're the ones getting the big TV deals, but when you think about it, the non-revenue kids need it more. Those football and basketball players are already earning full rides. If they're truly poor they can get Pell Grants, per diems, and some other NCAA rules for some extra cash. It's the kids playing hockey, baseball, and soccer that need the stipends. They're only getting partial scholarships despite putting in the same effort and commitment.
              Go Green! Go White! Go State!

              1966, 1986, 2007

              Go Tigers, Go Packers, Go Red Wings, Go Pistons

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: UAA and Cost of Attendance

                Originally posted by JohnsonsJerseys View Post
                The NCAA didn't propose this. A handful of schools with football programs who make millions in profits annually, with money to burn, in an arms race for top talent, who feel that giving their "student-athletes" a larger "salary", excuse me "cost of attendance" will make them more competitive against their rivals proposed this silly concept. Hockey just got swept up in this joke of legislation because it is a D-I sport.

                Quite frankly, if your scholarship (full or part) isn't enough for you to attend college, find a less expensive school, a better scholarship offer, take out a loan or get a job. To try and convince people that only getting a portion of your education costs covered is an unbearable hardship, I'm sure there are plenty of kids out there that would love to have that "hardship". This has nothing to do with kids affording college, it is all about recruiting and making sure the "have" schools stay as far ahead of the "have-nots" as possible.

                Ryan J
                But still, the NCAA was in favor of and approved it. Considering their track record when it comes to student athletes and money, it's ludicrous.
                Originally Posted by aparch
                I love the "UA_" comment. When I see it, I think of re-runs of Match Game, and Gene Rayburn going "U, A, Blank... UA blank"

                From ADN:

                "According to NCAA, the (UAF) hockey team used ineligible players in every game played from the 2007-08 season to the 2010-11 season. Over that span, the wins and ties will all become losses. 4 wins and 2 ties came against rival UAA".

                UAF is 56-86-12 vs. UAA.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: UAA and Cost of Attendance

                  Originally posted by Spartanforlife4 View Post
                  The part about this whole ordeal that makes me laugh
                  Bet you all are rolling on the floor that the cost of attendance in East Lansing is only $1,866, but PSU gets to hand out $4,788 for living in Happy Valley. And who knew that the cost of attendance at middle-of-nowhere Auburn is four times BC's? ho ho ho.
                  Bowling Green St. Univ. '88 SUNY Potsdam '79

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Suze View Post
                    But still, the NCAA was in favor of and approved it. Considering their track record when it comes to student athletes and money, it's ludicrous.
                    They probably only went along with it to keep the Ohio States and the Alabamas around to prevent them from splitting off and creating their own professional league.
                    BGSU Class of 2017

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: UAA and Cost of Attendance

                      Originally posted by Squarebanks View Post
                      Another nail in the coffin of the NCAA as we know it.
                      As usual the UA_ hangover has clouded your thinking.
                      NCAA did this to keep the lawyers from coming after them for making kbillions on "amateur" athletes backs and the "amateurs" got nothing.
                      Compared with football & basketball TV revenues do you really think the NCAA gives a hoot about the niche sports?
                      Really?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Seawolf Fan View Post
                        As usual the UA_ hangover has clouded your thinking.
                        NCAA did this to keep the lawyers from coming after them for making kbillions on "amateur" athletes backs and the "amateurs" got nothing.
                        Compared with football & basketball TV revenues do you really think the NCAA gives a hoot about the niche sports?
                        Really?
                        Well duh. NCAA is going along with it because they know **** well the power 4 (I say 4 because the Big 12 is a joke right now) conferences are more and more interested in autonomy. Heck, the SEC by itself is one of the wealthiest sports entities in the country, college or professional.

                        What this move will ensure (and hence my original comment) is that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. And that disparity will likely be even greater in college hockey. The somewhat even footing that our WCHA paupers once had with the Minnesotas and Michigans of the world is long, long, long gone.

                        I think Wolfman is right to a degree, eventually us smaller schools need to look seriously at a COA of some sort to stay competitive. But it won't happen anytime soon in Alaska with our present fiscal environment and legislators chomping at the bit to wipe out UAF/A athletics.

                        If I had to make a long term guess, I think the power 4 conferences will break away to some degree and the NCAA will become an entity for smaller programs. But what do I know, I sell bait out of a van.
                        “We offer no apology for our location at 64 51’21’’ north latitude. We are building for the future and we are confident that well directed effort and education are the forces which make progress possible”

                        —UA President Charles E. Bunnell, 1925

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: UAA and Cost of Attendance

                          Wait until we see a lawsuit claiming that staying in college and forfeiting a professional entry level salary should be part of cost of attendance (lost opportunity). It would be interesting to see the bidding wars among those athletic programs with money to burn.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: UAA and Cost of Attendance

                            Originally posted by mmf View Post
                            Wait until we see a lawsuit claiming that staying in college and forfeiting a professional entry level salary should be part of cost of attendance (lost opportunity). It would be interesting to see the bidding wars among those athletic programs with money to burn.
                            Did UA_ burn up their entire “lost opportunity funds” when the NCAA mucky-mucks stuck them with a compulsory fine?
                            Alaska Dispatch .... Doyle Woody
                            UAF made the kind of hockey history on October 10th 2015 that no team wants to claim – the Nanooks became the first NCAA Division I victim of Arizona State.


                            Originally Posted by WeWantMore At least you guys have Packers colors.

                            I Must be Famous ....a School named their program after me

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: UAA and Cost of Attendance

                              Originally posted by JohnsonsJerseys View Post
                              The NCAA didn't propose this. A handful of schools with football programs who make millions in profits annually, with money to burn, in an arms race for top talent, who feel that giving their "student-athletes" a larger "salary", excuse me "cost of attendance" will make them more competitive against their rivals proposed this silly concept. Hockey just got swept up in this joke of legislation because it is a D-I sport.

                              Quite frankly, if your scholarship (full or part) isn't enough for you to attend college, find a less expensive school, a better scholarship offer, take out a loan or get a job. To try and convince people that only getting a portion of your education costs covered is an unbearable hardship, I'm sure there are plenty of kids out there that would love to have that "hardship". This has nothing to do with kids affording college, it is all about recruiting and making sure the "have" schools stay as far ahead of the "have-nots" as possible.

                              Ryan J
                              Bull****. Young adults entering into an agreement with a public or private institution to trade their considerable athletic talents in ways that generate revenues (in some cases huge revenues) fully deserve compensation. The NCAA has long taken advantage of essentially "slave labor" conditions on a wide range of athletes. It's been shameful and it's time it is beginning to end.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X