FCOA WAR COMMENCES Cincinnati pays $7434 FCOA

[robinreed]

I would think private schools would tend to have higher costs of attendance.
I would think that non-football schools would have fewer athletes that need to be compensated.
Each of our 10 schools are in cities that have a higher cost of living than the average land grant university.

I mean, i don't understand all the nuances, but i can't really see this as a doomsday issue for us. The Big East will be in an equal or better position than we are now.

Billyjack,

I agree it is NOT a doomsday issue for us and that all or almost all schools will announce some FCOA. My concern is that we do not become involved in a ACC type situation where Boston College announces a FCOA of $1400 per year and Louisville in the same conference (and in a city much less expensive to live in than Boston) announces a FCOA of $5100. A similar thing happened in the PAC where USC announced their FCOA would be about 1/3 of that of UCLA. Both obviously in the same city but one school private and the other public.

[jfan]

Maybe the league could set a minimum base and individual schools could add to the base depending on cost of living issues. Not too great of a differential, so no perceived recruiting advantage. I really think the league will
stay on top of this issue and with no meaningful football (sorry football schools) we can afford this!!

[Xudash]

Robin, please take a breath on this, it seems like you are panicking, but you shouldn't be. As has been said time and again, the Big East schools do not need to release FCOA numbers and might not care to do so. I can tell you that from my discussions with members of Creighton's athletic department a few months ago that the league was at the time discussing the matter. For all we know, they could have settled it already, but have or will not make that information public.
The Big East has said multiple times that they will work to stay competitive and since the FCOA is now a requirement to do so, the Big East will clearly take care of it.

Exactly.

The ACC Conference meetings just broke down here on Amelia Island earlier this week. It remains an open item for them.

Xudash,
Please see the following website: http://chronicle.com/article/At-Least-15...ms/229229/

The ACC schools decided and announced their FCOA amounts over a month ago. Ergo the matter does not remain an open item for the ACC. The decision has been made and amounts announced. Please also note several of the ACC schools are private (BC, Cuse, Wake, Duke, Miami) and yet they made announcement a month ago.

Robin,

From the Florida Times-Union, Friday, May 15, running a reprint of the Orlando Sentinel's article covering the conclusion of the ACC annual spring meetings at the Ritz-Carlton on Amelia Island:

Blah, blah, blah blah blah blah blah....

One of those issues generating much discussion was how to provide athletes stipends to more accurately cover the true cost of college attendance. Power 5 conferences like the ACC voted in January to allow schools to provide stipends to cover expenses beyond the traditional tuition, room and board and books.

Swofford said while league officials addressed the issue, no action was taken. However, he believes there is interest in delving back into the issue at a later date.

"I think cost of attendance is like a lot of things – it's here and were very supportive of it – but a lot of times when you take a step like that in which people haven't lived with it before, there is a certain level of discomfort particularly with something like this where there is a federal formula that gives leeway from institution to institution, "Swofford said.

He explained there has always been differences in values of scholarships, but the differences in cost of attendance raise concerns.

..................................

So, I don't know what to tell you. The meetings concluded this week, and the statements came from the ACC Commissioner.

Beyond all of that, I believe two things, as far as this matter goes: we have very bright people navigating our conference, and we can afford to do what we will need to do as far as this matter is concerned in order to remain competitive.

[hoyahooligan]

I would think private schools would tend to have higher costs of attendance.
I would think that non-football schools would have fewer athletes that need to be compensated.
Each of our 10 schools are in cities that have a higher cost of living than the average land grant university.

I mean, i don't understand all the nuances, but i can't really see this as a doomsday issue for us. The Big East will be in an equal or better position than we are now.

Billyjack,

I agree it is NOT a doomsday issue for us and that all or almost all schools will announce some FCOA. My concern is that we do not become involved in a ACC type situation where Boston College announces a FCOA of $1400 per year and Louisville in the same conference (and in a city much less expensive to live in than Boston) announces a FCOA of $5100. A similar thing happened in the PAC where USC announced their FCOA would be about 1/3 of that of UCLA. Both obviously in the same city but one school private and the other public.

I'm not sure why that's an issue. If a school doesn't want to pay a competitive FCOA and wants to be a bottom dweller in the conference fine. Someone has to finish 10th each year.

[stever20]

I would think private schools would tend to have higher costs of attendance.
I would think that non-football schools would have fewer athletes that need to be compensated.
Each of our 10 schools are in cities that have a higher cost of living than the average land grant university.

I mean, i don't understand all the nuances, but i can't really see this as a doomsday issue for us. The Big East will be in an equal or better position than we are now.

Billyjack,

I agree it is NOT a doomsday issue for us and that all or almost all schools will announce some FCOA. My concern is that we do not become involved in a ACC type situation where Boston College announces a FCOA of $1400 per year and Louisville in the same conference (and in a city much less expensive to live in than Boston) announces a FCOA of $5100. A similar thing happened in the PAC where USC announced their FCOA would be about 1/3 of that of UCLA. Both obviously in the same city but one school private and the other public.

I'm not sure why that's an issue. If a school doesn't want to pay a competitive FCOA and wants to be a bottom dweller in the conference fine. Someone has to finish 10th each year.

I think in a larger conference, that's much more the case than in a conference like the Big East. Why? Because in Big East everyone sees that team 2x. In a bigger conference- that team is seen only 1x by all but 4-6 teams tops. Also, that team will become a much bigger RPI bomb(think DePaul this year entering the conference type at 275).

[BEwannabe]

He explained there has always been differences in values of scholarships, but the differences in cost of attendance raise concerns[b][/b]Really? Talk about stating the obvious! But seemingly the way governing bodies work, Congress and the ACA, just create policy and deal with the fallout later. It took me about 30 minutes to figure out this plan has serious holes in it and you really don't need to do much analysis past Pac12 Pell grant $'s to get a good handle on cost of attendance. Crosstown rivals USC and UCLA are $4,000 apart, sure UCLA campus borders Beverly Hills but they're not living there and there are other crazy #'s in Pac- Tuscon campus Zona pays more than Phoenix ASU and Cal Berkley significantly more than Stanford.

[hoyahooligan]

I think in a larger conference, that's much more the case than in a conference like the Big East. Why? Because in Big East everyone sees that team 2x. In a bigger conference- that team is seen only 1x by all but 4-6 teams tops. Also, that team will become a much bigger RPI bomb(think DePaul this year entering the conference type at 275).

I seriously doubt this will have that big of an impact that it will make any team significantly better or worse.

[stever20]

I think in a larger conference, that's much more the case than in a conference like the Big East. Why? Because in Big East everyone sees that team 2x. In a bigger conference- that team is seen only 1x by all but 4-6 teams tops. Also, that team will become a much bigger RPI bomb(think DePaul this year entering the conference type at 275).

I seriously doubt this will have that big of an impact that it will make any team significantly better or worse.

I definitely think it would. I mean if you have team Y(normally would say team X but don't want to act like it's Xavier)- who is only doing 1500 for the FCOA, while the other teams in the conference are doing 5000 for FCOA- over a 4 year period that's $14,000. That's a good bit of money for a 18 year old. For I think a good amount of kids, that's going to be an automatic DQ. Also, with teams in not just the P5 conferences having higher FCOA's- but also some in the A10, AAC, MWC, and other G5 conferences- those would become much more of a threat as well to get those players over team Y. Also, for team Y, they would be playing OOC against some of those teams armed with a higher FCOA- which would lead to worse OOC records.

I mean- just watch what happens with BC. They are going to fall apart. Not only with their other conference mates offering more- but hopefully PC, St John's, Seton Hall as well(not to mention UConn, UMass, or even Rhode Island).

[hoyahooligan]

I think in a larger conference, that's much more the case than in a conference like the Big East. Why? Because in Big East everyone sees that team 2x. In a bigger conference- that team is seen only 1x by all but 4-6 teams tops. Also, that team will become a much bigger RPI bomb(think DePaul this year entering the conference type at 275).

I seriously doubt this will have that big of an impact that it will make any team significantly better or worse.

I definitely think it would. I mean if you have team Y(normally would say team X but don't want to act like it's Xavier)- who is only doing 1500 for the FCOA, while the other teams in the conference are doing 5000 for FCOA- over a 4 year period that's $14,000. That's a good bit of money for a 18 year old. For I think a good amount of kids, that's going to be an automatic DQ. Also, with teams in not just the P5 conferences having higher FCOA's- but also some in the A10, AAC, MWC, and other G5 conferences- those would become much more of a threat as well to get those players over team Y. Also, for team Y, they would be playing OOC against some of those teams armed with a higher FCOA- which would lead to worse OOC records.

I mean- just watch what happens with BC. They are going to fall apart. Not only with their other conference mates offering more- but hopefully PC, St John's, Seton Hall as well(not to mention UConn, UMass, or even Rhode Island).

I mean is team Y really getting any recruits now that their FCOA will prevent them from getting? I'm not sure kids are going to ignore all the other factors that go into making a college decision for a few thousand dollars. I don't think kids are that short sited that they'll ignore everything else.

[BEwannabe]

breaking down these #'s by the week, no they don't go to school 52 weeks a year but they do train 52 weeks a year.

So $5666 is $108 per week.

$3900 is $75 per week

$2600 is $50 per week

$1300 is $25 per week


$100 per week while the athletes are on campus is a lot of coin because they have no expenses but is what I would think is a fair figure, $75 minimum


$25 a week? That's not paying them.


^^^^
This is in part what I wrote on page 1 of this thread. Not sure if the $'s will be disbursed on a calendar or academic year but the analysis is still valid and I most certainly believe kids will make decisions based on $'s if it's $108 per week vs $25. Maybe not so much the case $100 vs $80.