EagleOutsider.com

As soon as i saw the vote count, I just knew BC had to be the one nay. And yuuup:

FORT WASHINGTON, Md. -- The power players in collegiate athletics enacted historic change Saturday at the NCAA convention, passing the first package of autonomous legislation, headlined by a full cost-of-attendance measure that will supplement student-athletes' scholarships with unprecedented dollars.

"It's a big day for student-athletes," Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said. "The benefits now available to student-athletes are more significant. This is a big step forward and a response to a changing circumstance for the 21st-century athlete."

The discussion and vote Saturday outside Washington thrust fully into the spotlight the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, SEC and Pac-12 after the Division I Board of Directors granted autonomy to the Power 5 conferences last August to create rules free of the full NCAA membership.

Full cost of attendance passed on a 79-1 vote from the panel comprised of 15 student-athletes -- a historic event in its own right -- and the 65 schools of the football-driven leagues.

Boston College cast the lone dissenting vote, according to NCAA tabulations.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12185230/power-5-conferences-pass-cost-attendance-measure-ncaa-autonomy-begins

BC does have to deal with a much higher cost of living compared to most schools.....but still not a good look

That's fucking disgusting

Correct me if I'm wrong but it's an in or out deal correct? BCs vote was simply BC being BC?

Edit I'm wrong

StratEagle {l Wrote}:BC does have to deal with a much higher cost of living compared to most schools.....but still not a good look

No worse than Stanford, Cal, Northwestern, UCLA, USC, Washington

I'm sure opposing coaches won't use this against us on the recruiting trail at all

ACC commissioner John Swofford described the events of Saturday as "very appropriate and long overdue."

"It's one afternoon, but it's really been the last two years that a lot of this has been vetted and discussed," Swofford said. "Full cost of attendance was critical. It had to pass. It was a part of modernizing the collegiate model."

Swofford said he was especially pleased with the involvement of the student-athletes -- three from each Power 5 league -- in the discussion forum on autonomy before the late-afternoon vote. His colleagues agreed.

Does this mean we are going to get KICKED OUT of the ACC? Who casted the vote from BC?

Eh, who gives a fuck, they are going to have to pay the players regardless. If that moron priest wants to cast a nay vote, no one cares.

Everyone is thinking in terms of money sports. However, you can't just pay money sports (Title IX). As a result, aren't ALL SCHOLARSHIPS going to get this adjustment? If that is the case, you can rest assured that schools will be shedding varsity sports like Osh Kosh in a Ped State lockerroom. Further... your dreams of a lax team now has as much chance of happening as a dome for alumni and naval battles on the Rez.

I'd also mention that I recall an article from a little while ago where some SEC school coach was claiming they should be allowed to pay kids as much as public schools (i.e. if Stanford costs $50k more, the mouth-breathing school should be able to match that in cash "to be fair"). I have to assume that you will see "true cost" calculations sky-rocket so schools can pay more. Why go to BC and get paid 2k when you can go to UGA and get paid 8k? I will tell you right the fuck now that this doesn't end well.

An interesting measure passed that has not yet been mentioned: "prevent schools from removing scholarships based on athletic performance."

This is good for a school like BC which generally honors all scholarships for four years except in circumstances related to breaking team rules etc. it will surely hurt the factories who love to cut players based on performance. I've seen a lot of the SEC schools do this in the past.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Eh, who gives a fuck, they are going to have to pay the players regardless. If that moron priest wants to cast a nay vote, no one cares.

this

BC statement on the vote:

“Boston College is concerned with continuing to pass legislation that increases expenses when the vast majority of schools are already institutionally subsidized. The consequence of such legislation could ultimately hurt student-athletes if / when programs are cut.

This legislation further segregates student-athletes from the general student population by increasing aid without need-based consideration. Legislation already exists for student-athletes in need through pell grants and the student-assistance fund.

We have concerns that the Federal Financial aid formula is sufficiently ambiguous that adjustments for recruiting advantage will take place.”

http://bcheights.com/news/2015/bc-athletics-votes-alone-dissent-full-cost-attendance-scholarship-measure/

Walsh601 {l Wrote}:BC statement on the vote:

“Boston College is concerned with continuing to pass legislation that increases expenses when the vast majority of schools are already institutionally subsidized. The consequence of such legislation could ultimately hurt student-athletes if / when programs are cut.

This legislation further segregates student-athletes from the general student population by increasing aid without need-based consideration. Legislation already exists for student-athletes in need through pell grants and the student-assistance fund.

We have concerns that the Federal Financial aid formula is sufficiently ambiguous that adjustments for recruiting advantage will take place.”

http://bcheights.com/news/2015/bc-athletics-votes-alone-dissent-full-cost-attendance-scholarship-measure/

Good for BC.

All of this is really the result of the money grabs first done by the Big Ten... then closely followed by P12 and SEC. Essentially, they decided to kill the golden goose and now the Big 5 are trying to enact legislation to revive it. Do you really think paying players is going to somehow strengthen the legal argument against the NW union case? Honestly... this is all so terribly predictable. What else would you expect from a bunch of college administrators charged with running a multi-million dollar business.

And that is the critical point to focus on, it's a multi-million soon to be billion dollar operation run by ex jocks who have known no other employment other than working in an athletic department. Add in the presidents who have zero business experience and we are well on our way to being just 2 varisty scholarship sports left at the college level that bid for players. These idiots could not control coaches salaries and they will not be able to control what will be player's salaries. There will have to be scholarship reductions in football, at least ten and layoffs in the athletic departments.

On a positive note this should give BC a leg up on getting hockey talent over every eastern school.

I know I'm tilting at windmills here, but I think it is very unfortunate that this passed and I agree with HJS on this one.

BC's "no" vote was the right thing to do, even if it was just a symbolic gesture. And I'm sure that even though we voted no, we will still go ahead and pay the stipends since they passed - you've got to keep up with the Joneses. No one will remember BC's vote in 6 weeks though, so it is not going to hurt us on recruiting.

But now we've all made paying pure cash for players part of the arms race in college sports, and there is absolutely nothing good that can come from that.

And where does that cash come from? Well, you either cut expenses or raise revenue to fund it, right? Cutting expenses means fewer sports or scholarships in other sports, which sucks. Raising revenue means we all either pay more for our tickets, and/or the schools get more for the TV rights, which means we pay more for ESPN access. Why should any fan of college athletics be happy about this?

I'm with BC on this. I never really bought the whole "I can't affort a ticket home to see my family" nonesense- there are and have been plenty of student loan programs available for kids with legitimate need above and beyond the cost of tuition.

But the era of cash for players is here, so this will be my last old man rant on this and then I'll get used to the new reality.

if this gives us an excuse to disband our baseball program I'm all for it

As long as coaches are making millions of dollars and schools are adding to the endowment on the backs of the players, there is no moral high ground for any one involved. BC's play here is disingenuous as much as it is irrelevant.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:As long as coaches are making millions of dollars and schools are adding to the endowment on the backs of the players, there is no moral high ground for any one involved. BC's play here is disingenuous as much as it is irrelevant.

I hear you, but I'm continually blown away that so many have bought into this idea that a scholarship providing a free college education, including room and board, is somehow not enough.

Bryn Mawr Eagle {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:As long as coaches are making millions of dollars and schools are adding to the endowment on the backs of the players, there is no moral high ground for any one involved. BC's play here is disingenuous as much as it is irrelevant.

I hear you, but I'm continually blown away that so many have bought into this idea that a scholarship providing a free college education, including room and board, is somehow not enough.

For those engaged in revenue sports, when you compare it to the profits made on their abilities, it's not even in the ballpark.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

Bryn Mawr Eagle {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:As long as coaches are making millions of dollars and schools are adding to the endowment on the backs of the players, there is no moral high ground for any one involved. BC's play here is disingenuous as much as it is irrelevant.

I hear you, but I'm continually blown away that so many have bought into this idea that a scholarship providing a free college education, including room and board, is somehow not enough.

For those engaged in revenue sports, when you compare it to the profits made on their abilities, it's not even in the ballpark.

I don't think that any of that is necessarily true at a school like BC.

HJS {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

Bryn Mawr Eagle {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:As long as coaches are making millions of dollars and schools are adding to the endowment on the backs of the players, there is no moral high ground for any one involved. BC's play here is disingenuous as much as it is irrelevant.

I hear you, but I'm continually blown away that so many have bought into this idea that a scholarship providing a free college education, including room and board, is somehow not enough.

For those engaged in revenue sports, when you compare it to the profits made on their abilities, it's not even in the ballpark.

I don't think that any of that is necessarily true at a school like BC.

Because the scholarships are "worth" an imaginary number that is $45K more than that of a state school? Or because BC is not good enough at sports so you are downgrading their portion of the 7 billion TV money even though is split relatively evenly?

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

Bryn Mawr Eagle {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:As long as coaches are making millions of dollars and schools are adding to the endowment on the backs of the players, there is no moral high ground for any one involved. BC's play here is disingenuous as much as it is irrelevant.

I hear you, but I'm continually blown away that so many have bought into this idea that a scholarship providing a free college education, including room and board, is somehow not enough.

For those engaged in revenue sports, when you compare it to the profits made on their abilities, it's not even in the ballpark.

I don't think that any of that is necessarily true at a school like BC.

Because the scholarships are "worth" an imaginary number that is $45K more than that of a state school? Or because BC is not good enough at sports so you are downgrading their portion of the 7 billion TV money even though is split relatively evenly?

i think he was going more of the ticket sales, boosters and endorsements and ignoring the fact that all this adds a termite fart compared to the tv money

BC has too many varsity sports anyway, I think most in the ACC. Cut baseball, it's an embarrassment when the southern schools have to come up here and play on a field that matches a little league baseball field in terms of quality. I can't believe the program has continued to operate in this way.

commavegarage {l Wrote}:if this gives us an excuse to disband our baseball program I'm all for it

I'm also all for getting rid of baseball. There's a 0% of long-term success. You can use that land and the $ saved to start in the football practice facility or a hockey practice rink. Hockey shouldn't be practicing at local high schools, that's insane. Football also shouldn't be practicing in a bubble, which is equally nuts.

Sounds like this is going to be really bad news for non-revenue sports, which is really too bad but not surprising. Good for BC for being the sole voice of reason.

Good for BC.

Who will be the next University of Chicago or Holy Cross that waives the white flag in the insane arms race of big time college sports?

What must other countries think? Is there another country in the world where college athletes are worshiped?

Take your scholarship and be happy with it. If you want to be paid, join the D-League or the minor league system.

The problem is football, where there is not holding station prior to the NFL. Colleges have whored out these largely functionally illiterate kids and made millions. People have called bullshit on the millions that have been made, so now the charade continues by paying the kids.

When will a university president have the balls to say said school is not a training ground for the NFL or NBA? Oh, but it raises so much money for endowments. Last time I checked, the biggest endowments were the IVY's, NYU, Washington Universities of the world.

The older I get, the more allure the NFL and NBA have. Am I really supposed to get excited watching Calipari field a team of kids who have to enroll in any 2 classes the first semester and pass them, and then simply enroll in two more the second semester, only to drop out after March? Why wouldn't I just get my titillation watching the Nuggets play the Timberwolves?

College sports is starting to suck ass. The masses are asses, and this latest move is just one more reason why I am starting to care less and less.

The NBA still exists?

Not in Boston from what I've seen of the C's.

hawaiirob {l Wrote}:Not in Boston from what I've seen of the C's.

Not anywhere from what I have seen of the league.