The P5 conferences passed a measure to allow for full cost of attendance in addition athletic scholarships. Full cost of attendance passed on a 79-1 vote from the panel comprised of 15 student-athletes and the 65 schools of the football-driven leagues. I know you are curious, Boston College was the only school to vote '"no". This basically allows for schools to pay additional stipends, which have federal guidelines, estimated to be between $2,000 - $4,000 per year. Without knowing what the guidelines are, I would think a school like Miami could justify larger stipends than VT could in a place like Blacksburg. This seems like one more way to make it harder to "keep up with the Jones". Is this a win for the students that closes the gap on what the school earns on their performance or just a way to taint college athletics with money? Will this help or hurt Virginia Tech Athletics?
Also approved (from ESPN)
Other approved measures establish a concussion safety protocol and a discretionary student-athlete assistance fund, allow for student-athletes to borrow against potential future earnings to purchase loss-of-value insurance, and prevent schools from removing scholarships based on athletic performance.
Comments
I like the prevention of removing the scholarships based off of athletic performance. If a player is showing up to meetings, PT, and keeping up with grades, but simply didn't pan out the way coaches expected then (to me) they are living up to their end of the deal to get a free education. This to me moves the needle back toward student athlete and away from unofficial minor leagues.
There are few instances of scholarships being pulled solely for performance. Unfortunately, this won't prevent schools like Bama from more or less encouraging kids to transfer in order to free up scholarship spots. On a positive note, it does let kids hold on to that scholarship regardless of what coaches may want and eliminates the few instances where this may occur.
Also approved from this round of meetings, early signing period as a "trial" two year program.
I don't see how this would help schools in certain areas of the country more than others. Schools will pay for room and board, books, materials etc NOT off campus luxury apartments.
Some schools ride on the hairy edge of being able to fund their own Football programs and others cannot do it at all. VT is fair to middlin within the profitable schools. the bar is now raised for those that are trying to get there,
I'm not sure how many scholarship athletes we have, we should be able to do ok but, I bet lower tier coaches and bonuses will need to be examined in terms of raises. I wonder if thi stipend money will come from the Hokie Club?
schools that want to keep up will be forced to cut scholarships for non-revenue sports.
some already have a pretty decent sized activity fee to help defray some of the costs.
Some may need to raise costs here in order to pay a stipend to athletes.
virginia house of delegates is looking at legislation to put a firm cap on athletic fees so this might happen anyway.
All that will happen is that these costs will be passed down to every non student athlete at these schools as an additional fee with their annual tuition. Don't for a second think the schools themselves are going to take the financial hit to do this.
So, you know... Good for the athletes... Bad for everyone else.
This is generally the way these things go. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Somebody has to come up with this money.
With all the money in college sports ( ahem coaches ahem) it seems outrageous that tuition would need raised to cover the extra stipends. I thought only money raised by the athletic dept could be spent on scholarships. Can fees be charged in tuition that go to the athletic dept?
A lot of coaches salaries are being paid by booster type groups now. Not the whole salary and not all coaches but many.
So am I reading this right? They can borrow against potential future earnings for potential loss of [subjective] value? Do the future earnings include their job selling insurance or managing hotels, or is it assumed that only the true NFL prospects will take advantage of this? Would a player with a "pre-existing lack of value" have a harder time getting the loan? Is 5* Johnny Redshirt as valuable as 3* Jimmy I Just Won My Second ACC Title As A Sophomore First String, III (the 3rd; he's a legacy)?
Summary: if I lose my potential value, affecting my potential earnings, who's really paying for the insurance?
I think the key word here is "borrow" - the players will be allowed to effectively take out a loan, leveraged against their likely future earnings. That amount would be decided by the lender, as would repayment terms. Just a guess, as I haven't read up on anything related to the new plan.
That sounds like the student loans we all had to take out, except not backed by the Federal Government? I guess that's good if you can't borrow/earn enough to pay for everything.
EDIT: redacted
If they can only borrow for this specific purpose then they shouldn't have any problem repaying the loan. I doubt that many lenders would be willing to loan money to potential pros without having some level of assurance that they'll be able to actually repay.
In short the insurance company is paying if you loose value.
I'm guessing it would be something along the lines of the insurance company projects that the athlete will be able to make this much in their first pro contract, if an athlete has an injury that prevents them from being able to go to the pros or leads to them getting paid significantly less the insurance company pays them a certain percentage of the amount the projected. To cover the cost of the insurance the athlete would either take our a loan against their potential earnings or sign a contract with the insurance company that they will pay the company a percentage/fixed amount (or a percentage capped at a fixed amount) from the athlete's first NFL contract. If the athlete isn't able to go pro or makes significantly less when they do go pro due to an injury sustained in college, the amount that they get paid by the insurance company would be enough to cover the full amount of the loan or in the second example it would be covered in the contract. (The cost could be taken out of what the company pays the athlete or they might just have the payout amount be lower than a policy with monthly payments over the same time period would warrant, i.e. if a $1 million policy would normally cost $50,000 the athlete would only receive $950,000)
Full story: http://www.hokiesports.com/football/recaps/20150122aaa.html
Pylons of Promise ~~~~ Thanks Whit.