• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Cost of attendance and the Big Sky

billings_poke

Well-known member
MWC teams are beginning to announce what they will pay athletes on top of the full ride scholarships they are offered in order to cover the full cost of attending the university. New Mexico Just announced that they will pay $2,700 stipends starting with athletes in Football, Men's and Women's Basketball and Volleyball on top of the normal full ride scholarship. Eventually they will offer to all sports at about an additional $1 million a year in new costs. All MWC teams have announced they will offer full cost stipends to the athletes,

Wyoming has received an additional $4 million from the state budget (including a match component) to up their athletic budget to also offer this and is estimated to offer about $3,500 in additional cash to each athlete.

I Read that Nprth Dakota State also wants to offer full cost of attendance stipends to their athletes.

Any Big Sky schools looking at doing this to get an advantage during recruiting?

here is a san Diego Newspaper article on the estimates from the MWC and the PAC for each school

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/mar/03/aztecs-football-penn-state-cost-of-attendance-5000/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
The Montana legislature really would just as soon not fund education at all. No way would those fools go along with an idea like this,
 
Meh. It's all about the top line. The MWC is doing it because they can afford it. The revenue is there to cover the expense. If UM were there, they too could offer this kind of stuff.

Currently, however, we're stuck in a conference in which the teams can't even afford airfare to get their teams to the conferences' basketball tournament.


Huh. Which model is more attractive....
 
EverettGriz said:
Meh. It's all about the top line. The MWC is doing it because they can afford it. The revenue is there to cover the expense. If UM were there, they too could offer this kind of stuff.

Currently, however, we're stuck in a conference in which the teams can't even afford airfare to get their teams to the conferences' basketball tournament.


Huh. Which model is more attractive....
Small College is - - - - small college.
 
EverettGriz said:
Meh. It's all about the top line. The MWC is doing it because they can afford it. The revenue is there to cover the expense. If UM were there, they too could offer this kind of stuff.

Currently, however, we're stuck in a conference in which the teams can't even afford airfare to get their teams to the conferences' basketball tournament.


Huh. Which model is more attractive....

As usual, your financial and other analyses are faulty. While the MWC "model" brings in more revenues, it's additional expenses more than offset additional revenues--and MWC schools require higher subsidies from schools/states and students, than the Big Sky schools, on average and in absolute dollars.

The MWC teams have bigger athletic budgets because the schools/states subsidize the athletic budget more. Every MWC school is subsidized by its school/state more than Montana. In 2013, Montana received $7.0 million, according to the USA Today-compiled stats. The MWC average school subsidy is $13.7 million, for 12 teams including Hawaii. 5 MWC school's have subsidies under $10.0 million. If the state would give Montana an extra $7.7 million per year, UM could pay the cost of living stipend too.

All MWC, except the AFA, also receive more in student fees than Montana does, $1.6 million. Only Hawaii and Wyo. are close to Montana's low amount. SDS is $9.7 million.

7 MWC schools have less ticket revenue than Montana's. $5.2 million. Boise is the highest at $8.3 million. No other school is over $7.0 million.

For you numbers-challenged head-in-the-sanders, this means that the extra revenues of virtually all of the MWC schools are more than offset by the higher expenses of the schools.

Eyeballing the info, it looks like North Dakota is the only Big Sky school that has a higher (slightly, $76,000) subsidy from the school/state and student fees than the lowest MWC school, which is Nevada.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Sorry PR, the move-up people do not consider financial facts. Their ego drives them to the move-up-and-ignore-the-risk decision and they disregard all financial facts. :roll:

The entire University is facing tough decisions and budget cuts. Truth. Fact.
http://www.montanakaimin.com/news/collection_2ed64f94-9827-11e2-a876-0019bb30f31a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
i'm all for stipends because the hypocrisy of the ncaa is becoming insufferable. the report last year of the uconn kid who went hungry while leading his team to an ncaa championship--while making millions for his school--was heartbreaking.

but make no mistake, unless the ncaa strictly monitors these stipends, this is the beginning of free agency in college athletics. if the amount of the stipend is left to the discretion of the schools, we will see huge amounts of money offered to athletes, and soon. as we see in the nfl, no matter how much a coach makes, it's not as much as the star players. no reason to think it will be any different in college football. and when top collegiate coaches are making $5 to $7 million, you get some idea where the ceiling is here.

as for us, we need to decide: do we play with the big boys, or do we join the carroll colleges of the world. or this: do we go where the tv revenue is, or are we shut out from the money that is currently financing coaching salaries and will these stipends too. which leads to a simple conclusion: do we move up to a conference where there's a chance of getting in on the tv revenue, or do we stay in the 7-eleven conference of mini-tv markets and zero revenue sources. cause if it ain't on tv, it doesn't really matter in the 21st century.
 
BadlandsGrizFan said:
Well we better get ready to do it too, or else well be playing for D2 championships in about 3-4 years.

Champagne taste, but on a Beer budget.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=to+have+a+champagne+taste+on+a+beer-bottle+budget" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

images


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=big+hat%2C+no+cattle" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

images


images
 
Proud Griz Man said:
Sorry PR, the move-up people do not consider financial facts. Their ego drives them to the move-up-and-ignore-the-risk decision and they disregard all financial facts. :roll:

The entire University is facing tough decisions and budget cuts. Truth. Fact.
http://www.montanakaimin.com/news/collection_2ed64f94-9827-11e2-a876-0019bb30f31a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for moving up, I am neutral these days, due to the finances to move up and I love the FCS playoff format. On the other side of the debate, the "let's stay put" people disregard how much positive impact a move would be for men's basketball, women's basketball, volleyball, and softball.

There are many positives to moving up, unfortunately, the biggest negative is the costs, which would really be hard to support in this state. :thumb:
 
If you start paying stipends to Big Sky Conference student athletes where does it stop?
If you pay one to Brady Gustafson, you're going to have to pay one to Dan Yustin and Paul Pastore, too. If you pay one to Jordan Gregory, you're going to have to pay one to Kyle Wambold. Now you're hurting the schools that make the Big Sky Conference what it is.
 
Well sadly I think that's the direction that any college football programs that don't want to basically be D2 are going. But honestly if this is the case Montana is a lot luckier than most schools in that we have the perfect Conference to step into like the Mountain West. Geographically, facility wise, fan support, and financially the UM would fit right in with those schools. So I guess were lucky for that. Could you imagine being a team like NDSU trying to find a conference that fits....what would it be? The Mid American?
 
BadlandsGrizFan said:
Well sadly I think that's the direction that any college football programs that don't want to basically be D2 are going. But honestly if this is the case Montana is a lot luckier than most schools in that we have the perfect Conference to step into like the Mountain West. Geographically, facility wise, fan support, and financially the UM would fit right in with those schools. So I guess were lucky for that. Could you imagine being a team like NDSU trying to find a conference that fits....what would it be? The Mid American?

I don't get the FBS or D-II thing. I've seen no suggestion that the number of scholarships are proposed to be increased. Thus, virtually all recruits who get offered an FBS scholarship (and stipend) and want to play FBS are going to go to FBS--just like they do now. The number of FBS scholarships doesn't increase because there are additional stipends. Looking at football, who on the Griz would be at an FBS school if there were stipends? Will the Griz lose a recruit a year to Idaho because they have a $3500 stipend? If so, who cares? Would Jesse Sims go to Oregon St. because of the stipend? Jeez, the additional cost for him to get to and from school and for his family to attend games, would be more than $3500.

Again, if UM doesn't pay a stipend, then they need to go to D-II? That argument doesn't even make sense.
 
citay said:
i'm all for stipends because the hypocrisy of the ncaa is becoming insufferable. the report last year of the uconn kid who went hungry while leading his team to an ncaa championship--while making millions for his school--was heartbreaking.

but make no mistake, unless the ncaa strictly monitors these stipends, this is the beginning of free agency in college athletics. if the amount of the stipend is left to the discretion of the schools, we will see huge amounts of money offered to athletes, and soon. as we see in the nfl, no matter how much a coach makes, it's not as much as the star players. no reason to think it will be any different in college football. and when top collegiate coaches are making $5 to $7 million, you get some idea where the ceiling is here.

as for us, we need to decide: do we play with the big boys, or do we join the carroll colleges of the world. or this: do we go where the tv revenue is, or are we shut out from the money that is currently financing coaching salaries and will these stipends too. which leads to a simple conclusion: do we move up to a conference where there's a chance of getting in on the tv revenue, or do we stay in the 7-eleven conference of mini-tv markets and zero revenue sources. cause if it ain't on tv, it doesn't really matter in the 21st century.

Or, just continue to play FCS and be in the Big Sky. Just because the rich schools get richer, doesn't mean that there isn't a nice viable option in the middle.
 
PlayerRep said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
Well sadly I think that's the direction that any college football programs that don't want to basically be D2 are going. But honestly if this is the case Montana is a lot luckier than most schools in that we have the perfect Conference to step into like the Mountain West. Geographically, facility wise, fan support, and financially the UM would fit right in with those schools. So I guess were lucky for that. Could you imagine being a team like NDSU trying to find a conference that fits....what would it be? The Mid American?

I don't get the FBS or D-II thing. I've seen no suggestion that the number of scholarships are proposed to be increased. Thus, virtually all recruits who get offered an FBS scholarship (and stipend) and want to play FBS are going to go to FBS--just like they do now. The number of FBS scholarships doesn't increase because there are additional stipends. Looking at football, who on the Griz would be at an FBS school if there were stipends? Will the Griz lose a recruit a year to Idaho because they have a $3500 stipend? If so, who cares? Would Jesse Sims go to Oregon St. because of the stipend? Jeez, the additional cost for him to get to and from school and for his family to attend games, would be more than $3500.

Again, if UM doesn't pay a stipend, then they need to go to D-II? That argument doesn't even make sense.


I say D2 sarcastically, because I think sooner rather than later down the road there is going to be a division of haves and have nots. Schools that pay their players...and schools that don't. The schools that do will be the ones that play on TV even for small markets like Montana. I don't think programs like ours will be able to sustain what were used to as a fan base in the future if we don't jump on board with the big ship. The ones that don't will eventually be irrelevant and waaaay underfunded. That's just my opinion but again I use the D2 reference as a sarcastic word for what the non stipend paying schools will become.
 
PlayerRep said:
citay said:
i'm all for stipends because the hypocrisy of the ncaa is becoming insufferable. the report last year of the uconn kid who went hungry while leading his team to an ncaa championship--while making millions for his school--was heartbreaking.

but make no mistake, unless the ncaa strictly monitors these stipends, this is the beginning of free agency in college athletics. if the amount of the stipend is left to the discretion of the schools, we will see huge amounts of money offered to athletes, and soon. as we see in the nfl, no matter how much a coach makes, it's not as much as the star players. no reason to think it will be any different in college football. and when top collegiate coaches are making $5 to $7 million, you get some idea where the ceiling is here.

as for us, we need to decide: do we play with the big boys, or do we join the carroll colleges of the world. or this: do we go where the tv revenue is, or are we shut out from the money that is currently financing coaching salaries and will these stipends too. which leads to a simple conclusion: do we move up to a conference where there's a chance of getting in on the tv revenue, or do we stay in the 7-eleven conference of mini-tv markets and zero revenue sources. cause if it ain't on tv, it doesn't really matter in the 21st century.

Or, just continue to play FCS and be in the Big Sky. Just because the rich schools get richer, doesn't mean that there isn't a nice viable option in the middle.
We're going to be lower-middle if other FCS schools start offering money and we don't
 
I also think the coming split in Division 1 football will be between those will to pay Full cost of attendance and those who will/can not.

That is the split and it looks like Everyone in the MWC will not slide down to a FCS middle division if all are willing to pay that cost.

Idaho on the other hand? well maybe

North Dakota State for one is wanting to pall full cost stipends and will do so it appears
 
Back
Top