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

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Are they willing to give $2,000 to the women's team? Because they have to do both.

UND might be able to give out $2,000 but what about SCSU, Miami, UMD, etc?

Finally, the NCAA also said the whole conference have to be playing by the sam rules.

Makes it easy for the ECAC, only 5 schools would have to pay out (potentially 4, given whomever HE invites for #12).

[bronconick]

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

Does it say about whether it's a requirement across the entire athletic department, or can a school pay out football and both basketball teams, then dole out 85 scholarships worth that across their other women's teams?

[Bertogliat]

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

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...8151728AALH1yo

Someone who sounds like they know what they are talking about suggests that Major Junior players get about $45-55 per week stipend which is not taxable (in Canada).


Interesting excerpt from Wikipedia-
"Note: that the Major Junior level is considered professional by some authorities, including the NCAA, as its players earn a small stipend."

Interesting because the stipend they earn is on the same level as that the NCAA is allowing. The major junior players play twice as many games though.

[FlagDUDE08]

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

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...8151728AALH1yo

Someone who sounds like they know what they are talking about suggests that Major Junior players get about $45-55 per week stipend which is not taxable (in Canada).


Interesting excerpt from Wikipedia-
"Note: that the Major Junior level is considered professional by some authorities, including the NCAA, as its players earn a small stipend."

Interesting because the stipend they earn is on the same level as that the NCAA is allowing. The major junior players play twice as many games though.

The per week, if you looked at the math I did earlier, is the same. In fact, it's a couple bucks more.

Therefore, the only legs on which the NCAA has to stand are the number of games Major Junior plays, and attempting to claim they are a private entity (and we know how well that worked for football). Paul Kelly, THIS IS YOUR CHANCE! Call this out!

[Ralph Baer]

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

The per week, if you looked at the math I did earlier, is the same. In fact, it's a couple bucks more.

Therefore, the only legs on which the NCAA has to stand are the number of games Major Junior plays, and attempting to claim they are a private entity (and we know how well that worked for football). Paul Kelly, THIS IS YOUR CHANCE! Call this out!

Aren't you assuming that the MJ players get paid in the off season also? Do they?

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Aren't you assuming that the MJ players get paid in the off season also? Do they?

I am actually doing quite the opposite, Ralph. I'd explain, but I've been instructed that posters have been told there'd be no math. My calculation was off of 35 weeks, about the amount of time the students are in session. It'd be about the same length, maybe a little shorter, for the Major Junior players. At $55 a week for 35 weeks, that's $1925.

[Bertogliat]

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

Aren't you assuming that the MJ players get paid in the off season also? Do they?

I assUme no since the stipend is to help pay for gas, junk food, rye, etc. while the kids are away from home.

[FlagDUDE08]

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

I assUme no since the stipend is to help pay for gas, junk food, rye, etc.

Don't forget Kraft Dinner.

[SteveF]

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.

It is good for any sport besides football and basketball. At least hockey provides revenue through tickets and tv - though probably not net income for most sports

[Split-N]

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

...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.

I have to reluctantly agree. Unless the economy suddenly picks up, the smallish state schools that are largely dependent on state funding and smallish private schools with modest endowments are going to have to deal with budgetary realities and one of the ways to make ends meet may well be to simply tank varsity hockey. Also remember that this "reform" is being driven by the BCS schools (only nine of which even have hockey) as part of their relentless drive to find ways to cut the college sports revenue pie into fewer pieces.

So the college hockey universe is likely to be much smaller a few years down the road. Hope everyone enjoys what is being foisted upon us.

[dggoddard]

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

Lets face it, most US born hockey players come from families that spent approx. $200,000 developing their sons playing ability in equipment, travel, camps, elite leagues and Junior hockey expenses w/ billet families. They aren't going to "need" $2,000 and the stipend isn't going to impact their decision to attend Harvard, BC, Notre Dame or UND.

So even if the BIG10 goes ahead and approves the $2,000 for hockey, I doubt any other hockey conference will follow suit. And does a school like Ohio State, which loses $1-2 million a year on hockey want to pizz away another $44,000?

At the end of the day its not very much money.

From what I've read from Sconnie posters, Wisconsin mostly hands out 90% scholarships so the families still have to come up with 10% of the Tuition which is probably $2,000.

[D2D]

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

Lets face it, most US born hockey players come from families that spent approx. $200,000 developing their sons playing ability in equipment, travel, camps, elite leagues and Junior hockey expenses w/ billet families. They aren't going to "need" $2,000 and it isn't going to impact their decision to attend Harvard, BC, Notre Dame or UND.

A couple of points here. First, how long do you think the stipend will be stuck at $2,000? Now that they got the rule implemented, I see this amount growing very quickly. You are right about $2,000 not being a lot of money to most U.S. hockey families, but there are still some excellent hockey players out there that don't come from a lot of money (maybe more so in parts of Canada?) to whom $2,000/yr in extra spending money would be significant. Certainly it's going to get the attention of many 16 year olds who are getting recruited.

So even if the BIG10 goes ahead and approves the $2,000, I doubt any other hockey conference will follow suit.

Is it a conference decision or is it up to individual schools? For example, I can see where North Dakota would want to implement it right away but SCSU probably wouldn't (with their budgetary problems - they were talking about eliminating football even).

[MavsFan]

Don't forget Kraft Dinner.

And ramen noodles.

[Patman]

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

A couple of points here. First, how long do you think the stipend will be stuck at $2,000? Now that they got the rule implemented, I see this amount growing very quickly. You are right about $2,000 not being a lot of money to most U.S. hockey families, but there are still some excellent hockey players out there that don't come from a lot of money (maybe more so in parts of Canada?) to whom $2,000/yr in extra spending money would be significant. Certainly it's going to get the attention of many 16 year olds who are getting recruited.

Agreed, this has nothing to do with the exact dollar figure... its about the upper echelon schools trying to price out the competitors.

[bunt_q]

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

The problem is that the NCAA doesn't allow scholarship athletes to work. So great, you got free room, board, and tuition, but if you want to buy a pack of bubble gum, unless you have other money coming in from somewhere, you have an instant incentive to work around the rules however you can.

I don't know what the answer is. Not all sports? Need based? (I like that idea) But you can't tell kids they can't work AND that they can't take gifts unless you are fulfilling their every financial need, which a scholarship alone doesn't.

I think it's a load of crap to tell kids they have to take out loans to pay for gas, cheetos, and god forbid, a six-pack.