Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

[LtPowers]

Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

It was mostly about those 50, but it did say: "Schools that are mainly in Division II or III but play in Division I for hockey can offer the stipends, and it’s clear from the numbers that some will."

Those are two separate subjects. Most D-II and D-III colleges that play D-I hockey offer athletic scholarships. And the majority of colleges that don't are full D-I members.


Powers &8^]

Edited to add the list of non-athletic-scholarship universities in men's D-I hockey:

RIT (D-III, non-grandfathered)
Union (D-III, non-grandfathered by choice)
Air Force (service academy)
Army (service academy)
Harvard (ivy league)
Cornell (ivy league)
Brown (ivy league)
Dartmouth (ivy league)
Princeton (ivy league)
Yale (ivy league)

[Split-N]

Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

Bloomberg Television is reporting that a Federal appeals court has blocked the payment of stipends to college athletes. Stipends are outright cash payments and do not relate directly to COA, which is not affected. No other details yet.

[komey1]

Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

Part of me thinks that this won't change much because the teams that would likely offer COA will be the teams that were already getting the better recruits.

[Split-N]

Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

Part of me thinks that this won't change much because the teams that would likely offer COA will be the teams that were already getting the better recruits.

You got it: The rich will get richer.

[blackswampboy]

Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

Fear The Triangle @FearTheTriangle 16 minutes ago
Fear The Triangle retweeted UMass Athletics
Big news. @UMassADBamford announces that UMass will provide Cost Of Attendance stipends for ALL sports

[LTsatch]

Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

God knows what the Ivies will do with all of this, although as non scholarship schools, I believe they have experience in performing the "end around" to support athletes.

[joecct]

God knows what the Ivies will do with all of this, although as non scholarship schools, I believe they have experience in performing the "end around" to support athletes.

Oliver Barrett V will not have a problem.

[LTsatch]

Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

Oliver Barrett V will not have a problem.

I did not know Oliver IV had a son, most likely a recruit Harvard has stolen from Yale

[blackswampboy]

Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

"Colorado College athletic director Ken Ralph confirmed recently that CC will award an additional $2,142 to Americans and $2,906 to international students as part of their athletic scholarship packages for the Mountain West and National Collegiate Hockey Conference programs."

http://gazette.com/colorado-college-...rticle/1557224

[blackswampboy]

Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

As of June 2015, UMaine was not planning to fund CoA.

http://bangordailynews.com/2015/06/1...dent-athletes/

[joecct]

I did not know Oliver IV had a son, most likely a recruit Harvard has stolen from Yale

I got my numbers screwed up. IV went to Harvard in the late 60's. Let's say he got remarried in the late 70's after the fling with Candace Bergan and had a kid soon after.

V would have been at Harvard around the turn of the century. That would make VI about 10-15 years away.

But he's going to Bowdoin.

[BGFan]

Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

As of June 2015, UMaine was not planning to fund CoA.

http://bangordailynews.com/2015/06/1...dent-athletes/

Perhaps Stephen Kin could help with that... ;-)

[blackswampboy]

Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

Add Tech to the list, according to Schlossman.

[Split-N]

Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

COA stipends are just not good for college hockey, IMO. Rationale copied from the Northeastern thread:

I have found myself really torn about this whole COA stipend issue. But really, this is nothing less than another power grab by Power-5 football and hoops powerhouses that let the athletic tail wag the institutional dog. Basically, it's a scam that lets them legally give their players, most of whom don't attend class, will never graduate, and have poor career prospects, some "walking around" money (something most of them have been doing under the table for years anyway). All this does is expand the D1 financial arms race beyond football and hoops to other sports. If you have boxcar-loads of money coming in from your own league TV network (hi there, B1G) and/or lucrative deals with commercial networks (hello, ND) then it's no big deal. The only certainty I see coming out of this is that the uber-rich will get richer and those that can't keep up and/or won't let athletics run the institution will become perennial bottom feeders in their respective leagues. I found it interesting that BC was the only P5 school to vote against stipends, even though they're going to pay them. At least they're smart enough to know they won't be able to keep up forever.

I've been a vocal critic since student days of Northeastern's reluctance burnish its image as a world-class university by applying the same standard of excellence to its marquee sports programs (hockey and hoops--maybe even soccer) as it does to other endeavors, and, in the process, create a proud and energized fan base of both alumni and "subway alumni," some of whom, because of pride induced by successful intercollegiate sports programs, might be more inclined to contribute to various capital campaigns going forward. But player stipends, I think, is where I have to draw the line.

For one thing, the whole concept seems to denigrate the already stupendous monetary value of a Northeastern athletic scholarship. There are kids in school now who struggle to keep up financially and otherwise successful alums out there who will be carrying a significant student debt burden around for years. And with no significant television money coming in, the cost of stipends, if we ever award them, will inevitably be paid from increases in tuition and fees that, IMO, are already obscenely high. This, in turn, is likely to drive an unhealthy wedge between mainstream students and at least some student-athletes. (It's already happening in parts of P5-land.)

So, somewhat surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with the no-stipend policy. Much as I salivate for a Beanpot and want our marquee programs to to be perennial championship contenders, I don't want that to come at the price of institutional integrity and certainly don't want to financially burden current and future undergrads any more than they are already.

[HHound]

Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

COA stipends are just not good for college hockey, IMO. Rationale copied from the Northeastern thread:

I have found myself really torn about this whole COA stipend issue. But really, this is nothing less than another power grab by Power-5 football and hoops powerhouses that let the athletic tail wag the institutional dog. Basically, it's a scam that lets them legally give their players, most of whom don't attend class, will never graduate, and have poor career prospects, some "walking around" money (something most of them have been doing under the table for years anyway). All this does is expand the D1 financial arms race beyond football and hoops to other sports. If you have boxcar-loads of money coming in from your own league TV network (hi there, B1G) and/or lucrative deals with commercial networks (hello, ND) then it's no big deal. The only certainty I see coming out of this is that the uber-rich will get richer and those that can't keep up and/or won't let athletics run the institution will become perennial bottom feeders in their respective leagues. I found it interesting that BC was the only P5 school to vote against stipends, even though they're going to pay them. At least they're smart enough to know they won't be able to keep up forever.

I've been a vocal critic since student days of Northeastern's reluctance burnish its image as a world-class university by applying the same standard of excellence to its marquee sports programs (hockey and hoops--maybe even soccer) as it does to other endeavors, and, in the process, create a proud and energized fan base of both alumni and "subway alumni," some of whom, because of pride induced by successful intercollegiate sports programs, might be more inclined to contribute to various capital campaigns going forward. But player stipends, I think, is where I have to draw the line.

For one thing, the whole concept seems to denigrate the already stupendous monetary value of a Northeastern athletic scholarship. There are kids in school now who struggle to keep up financially and otherwise successful alums out there who will be carrying a significant student debt burden around for years. And with no significant television money coming in, the cost of stipends, if we ever award them, will inevitably be paid from increases in tuition and fees that, IMO, are already obscenely high. This, in turn, is likely to drive an unhealthy wedge between mainstream students and at least some student-athletes. (It's already happening in parts of P5-land.)

So, somewhat surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with the no-stipend policy. Much as I salivate for a Beanpot and want our marquee programs to to be perennial championship contenders, I don't want that to come at the price of institutional integrity and certainly don't want to financially burden current and future undergrads any more than they are already.

Split-N
You have it right.
I'm not a political animal in any way shape or form, but this sounds like a plan designed by the Republican party. It rewards the "haves" while ignoring the "have nots". As I understand it, the stipends will be pro-rated so that, for example, a "student" athlete with a 50% scholarship will get a half stipend. A full scholarship athlete will get the full stipend. To my way of thinking, this plan is perfectly "bass ackwards" .

The full scholarship athlete has been rewarded with an education that would cost an average student as much as $250,000 over 4-5 years. Isn't that enough??? For 98%+ of them, this is the most they will ever earn from their sport. It's not easy to make a living as a pro swimmer, field hockey player or (real) wrestler.

Except for several major sports like FB and Basketball, rosters are filled with athletes on partial scholarships or with no meaningful aid at all. Why not reverse the pro-ration schedule and give the full stipend to the athlete who has nothing and give nothing to the athlete who already has a full ride? If someone has no scholarship, but has financial aid from his college, that aid should be accounted for as though it was a scholarship to determine his stipend. A bit of thoughtful planning will go a long way to plug potential loopholes/abuses in whatever system is adopted.

I don't want to get started on the methodology used by each school to determine the size of their stipend. When I'm older and wiser, I hope I'll understand why it costs so much to attend Tennessee and so little to attend Boston College.

I don't agree with our AD on many (almost any) things, but I'm glad that he's trying to avoid participating is this charade.