Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

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

  • Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

    NCAA approves scholarship changes, tougher academic standards at busy board meeting

    While BCS schools have the money and are expected to swiftly approve additional funding, it may prove too costly for non-BCS schools.
    Slap Shot - 444 might want to consider a restraining order.
    dggoddard - Minnesota is THE ELITE Program in all of college hockey.
    wasmania - you have to be the very best to get ice time with the great gophers!

  • #2
    Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

    Stupid
    If you want to be a BADGER, just come along with me

    BRING BACK PAT RICHTER!!!


    At his graduation ceremony from the U of Minnesota, my cousin got a keychain. When asked what UW gave her for graduation, my sister said, "A degree from a University that matters."

    Canned music is a pathetic waste of your time.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by ExileOnDaytonStreet View Post
      Stupid
      I agree. This will ruin football and basketball for starters. College hockey will eventually be just the Big 10, ND and BC. Will be interesting to see how the schools allocate the money. Do football players get the money and tennis players don't? Could there be lawsuits based on distribution of the funds?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

        Originally posted by scoreboard View Post
        I agree. This will ruin football and basketball for starters. College hockey will eventually be just the Big 10, ND and BC. Will be interesting to see how the schools allocate the money. Do football players get the money and tennis players don't? Could there be lawsuits based on distribution of the funds?
        I am under the assumption it is all or nothing. It is going to be interesting what smaller schools like the BHHC do. Are they a part of it? If not it is a huge blow to them.
        Slap Shot - 444 might want to consider a restraining order.
        dggoddard - Minnesota is THE ELITE Program in all of college hockey.
        wasmania - you have to be the very best to get ice time with the great gophers!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

          This will do nothing for the scandels that have rocked college sports. This will stop some of the - I need $20 for gas in the car stories only. But it won't stop students from selling various memorabelia if they can make money off it, imo.

          What this is really going to hurt is the smaller non-revenue sports. You could see some of these programss cut because the cost of the extra money will be too much.
          2006-07 Atlantic Hockey Champions!
          2008-09 Atlantic Hockey Co-Champions!
          2009-10 Atlantic Hockey Champions!
          2010 Frozen Four participant
          2010-11 Atlantic Hockey Champions!

          Member of the infamous Corner Crew

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

            Originally posted by scoreboard View Post
            I agree. This will ruin football and basketball for starters. College hockey will eventually be just the Big 10, ND and BC. Will be interesting to see how the schools allocate the money. Do football players get the money and tennis players don't? Could there be lawsuits based on distribution of the funds?
            Depends on how the conferences implement the changes, I suspect that most if not all D1 conferences will allow it for both men's and women's basketball, and that as long as the funds are distributed on title IX standards then it shouldn't be an issue to not have all sports receive the extra funding.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

              Does the NCAA think that any of these players(football mostly) really think that $2000 a year will be enough. Funny thing is this rule will probably only
              help those that follow the rules.
              New Arena New Arena where for art thou New Arena

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

                If this helps cut crappy sports from the schools budgets, I am all for it.

                Leave useless things like lacrosse, rowing, golf, cross country, etc. at the club level.
                PSNetwork / XBOX GamerTag: xJeris
                Steam Profile

                Sports Allegiance
                NFL: CHI; MLB: MN, NYM; NHL: MN, MTL; NCAAB: MN, UNLV; NCAAF: MN, MIA; NCAAH: MN; Soccer: USA, Blackburn

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

                  This is great. Let's give these kids some money to buy synethetic marijuana and coke. Or bankroll their dogfighting enterprise.
                  Originally posted by Greg Ambrose on 3/7/2010
                  The fact that you BC fans revel in the superiority of your team in an admittedly weak league leads me to believe you will be more sorely disappointed when the end comes than we will.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

                    Originally posted by JF_Gophers View Post
                    If this helps cut crappy sports from the schools budgets, I am all for it.

                    Leave useless things like lacrosse, rowing, golf, cross country, etc. at the club level.
                    What's your problem with lacrosse? And rowing has a long and storied intercollegiate history.


                    Powers &8^]

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

                      Originally posted by JF_Gophers View Post
                      If this helps cut crappy sports from the schools budgets, I am all for it.

                      Leave useless things like lacrosse, rowing, golf, cross country, etc. at the club level.
                      The problem is that most people not on this board think hockey is one of those "crappy sports" you refer to.

                      This is not a good thing for most schools, especially those without football/basketball to generate the $$.
                      Not a real doctor, nor do I play one on TV!
                      Clarkson 1990

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

                        Originally posted by drshoen View Post
                        The problem is that most people not on this board think hockey is one of those "crappy sports" you refer to.

                        This is not a good thing for most schools, especially those without football/basketball to generate the $$.
                        Except I was stating what I wanted. Not what others wanted. I know my school won't cut hockey. It makes money.
                        PSNetwork / XBOX GamerTag: xJeris
                        Steam Profile

                        Sports Allegiance
                        NFL: CHI; MLB: MN, NYM; NHL: MN, MTL; NCAAB: MN, UNLV; NCAAF: MN, MIA; NCAAH: MN; Soccer: USA, Blackburn

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

                          2000 bucks...

                          College students are in session probably about maybe 35 weeks...

                          give or take...

                          I am whiting out part of my post for the benefit of the posters that constantly complain about math...

                          2000 / 35 = $57 1/7...

                          And how much do the Major Junior players get "paid", again?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

                            Originally posted by JF_Gophers View Post
                            Except I was stating what I wanted. Not what others wanted. I know my school won't cut hockey. It makes money.
                            That's true, but when the 58 (no, sorry 57) schools left start looking at budgets, some of them will. Not Big Ten schools, but schools that have to "pay" for FB/BB players may find the $250K by dropping their hockey team. And in the long run, those choices aren't good for hocley as a sport.
                            Not a real doctor, nor do I play one on TV!
                            Clarkson 1990

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

                              Originally posted by 4four4 View Post
                              I am under the assumption it is all or nothing. It is going to be interesting what smaller schools like the BHHC do. Are they a part of it? If not it is a huge blow to them.
                              You think the University of North Dakota won't find 50 grand for their 25 hockey players?
                              That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X