PonyFans.com

And its done. The vote was approved 79-1. Only a single ACC school voted against the Full Cost of Attendance proposal. Exact amount not know as it will vary from school to school. It expected that Texas athletes will receive $4500 to $5000 a year.

Brian Davis ‏@BDavisAAS · 6m6 minutes ago
It's official: Cost-of-attendance proposal passes, 79-1. Exact $ amount isn't known, but Texas athletes will get $4,500 to $5,000 per year.

So, will this count against the $15-20K some are already getting? Will UNC athletes be able to use this to pay for classes to cover their 2nd degree in African American studies?

Soooo, am I wrong in reading that if G5 schools wish to utilize the same payments, they will have to wait until fall of 2016?

"Group of Five and other non-football playing Division I conferences can opt to enact the proposals passed Saturday as early as next fall."

Pretty much a big joke...and a great way to drive a wedge between football and basketball and every other sport on campus...especially since only a few schools even operate in the black regarding football.

baseball and soccer players commented in that article. so they and the equestrian team players can get $5000 a year? ALL college athletes get this? what about walk on?

Still don't see how this is that big of a deal. Even at $4k for every SMU student athlete it's only around $1M a year.

Granted, not pocket change, but not Earth-shattering if The American follows the P5 as advertised.

Wonder if if trying to reduce the budget by $35 million and laying off all those people is after they have taken into account paying athletes their money?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Do we have to pay it for every athlete (or just certain sports)?

I think the limited it to FB and BB.

mrydel wrote:I think the limited it to FB and BB.

If that is the case then it really is no big deal.

DanFreibergerForHeisman wrote:Still don't see how this is that big of a deal. Even at $4k for every SMU student athlete it's only around $1M a year.

Granted, not pocket change, but not Earth-shattering if The American follows the P5 as advertised.

Why do athletes deserve such special compensation if they are student athletes?????? Now we have a category of hired, under paid professionals who parade as students and will later end up suing the university because the university failed to force them to acquire any skills when their 6% chance of becoming full time pro do not materialize.

Not too different from grad student stipends.

PoconoPony wrote:

DanFreibergerForHeisman wrote:Still don't see how this is that big of a deal. Even at $4k for every SMU student athlete it's only around $1M a year.

Granted, not pocket change, but not Earth-shattering if The American follows the P5 as advertised.

Why do athletes deserve such special compensation if they are student athletes?????? Now we have a category of hired, under paid professionals who parade as students and will later end up suing the university because the university failed to force them to acquire any skills when their 6% chance of becoming full time pro do not materialize.

A typical scholarship at SMU may not include a stipend, but that student also has the opportunity to work a little in their spare time in order to have some spending money. A football player is putting in a lot of time to be able to compete, and they may not have the ability because of that commitment to have a job. Paying them a small stipend to cover the amount of money they might make if they were able to work a little on the side makes sense to me. Especially because with the background of a lot of the players, they come from a background that would necessitate the need to work.

Wouldn't this be for all sports and not just men's football and basketball? What about sports like baseball, soccer, swimming, etc. where you can get less than a full ride? Does everyone on the roster with financial aid (i.e., non-walk ons) get the stipend? Heck, athletes in the Ivy League play about as much as the football P5 schools and they're not even on scholarship. At least 10 games vs. 12-13 in Div. I for football but more comparable for hoops.

tristatecoog wrote:Wouldn't this be for all sports and not just men's football and basketball? What about sports like baseball, soccer, swimming, etc. where you can get less than a full ride? Does everyone on the roster with financial aid (i.e., non-walk ons) get the stipend? Heck, athletes in the Ivy League play about as much as the football P5 schools and they're not even on scholarship. At least 10 games vs. 12-13 in Div. I for football but more comparable for hoops.

Not 100% certain currently, but recent history will tell you the Ivy League example doesn't hold weight. While they don't offer athletic scholarships, pretty much everyone there who is not the recipient of a trust fund or a hedge fund at the age of 18 is on some form of financial aid. The Ivy League requirements for academics are strict, but they will use the total-person concept to allow athletes in based on the potential impact their presence has on campus and the need it fills, just as they would a first violinist. It's sort of their not-so-secret secret.