CA Mustang wrote:DanFreibergerForHeisman wrote:The one thing that concerns me is if our actual raw published number that gets reported by the media is low because we have some sort of great package (books, etc.) that is actually a better deal - don't we understand kids won't really understand this and think we are low?
It seems like you should rig your number to be as high as possible.smusportspage wrote:Yes, that would make sense. The published number needs to be high because that is what will get bragged about and compared. It is only human nature. Does not matter if it makes sense or not. That is at least initially until everyone becomes used to the stipends and is educated on how they are calculated.couch 'em wrote:We need to work the formula to maje it as desceptively high as possible.
I doubt that strategy will work. If SMU claims its CoA stipend its $6K but a kid only gets $2.7K, how do you think that will go over? Do you honestly think SMU will be able to win the battle of public opinion when they are accused by a player of over-promising/exaggerating a CoA stipend?
You miss their point. They are suggesting that rather than accounting for the books (or whatever) some other way, you make them pay for the books (or whatever) out of the stipend. That way they get the large amount of cash, they then have to spend some on books (or whatever). They end up in the same place and SMU gets to been seen as having a larger stipend.
