WTH? There is simply no reason for being cheap like this? Ranked dead last in the Big 12. No excuse for this.
New stipend to WVU athletes a measily $1,970?
- Thread starter ThePunish-EER
- Start date
It's not a completely random number....aka a salary.
There actually is a formula that schools are suppose to use in a manner of good faith. ...not that all will.
There actually is a formula that schools are suppose to use in a manner of good faith. ...not that all will.
Have you looked at the list of rankings? WVU ranks dead last in the Big 12. Tennessee is at the top of the NCAA rankings at 4-5k stipend. I believe Louisville is in the top 5-10. There is no reason for us to be cheap. We are making a ton of money now with the Big 12 and IMG. No excuses.
I have not looked at the rankings AND I'm not making excuses. I'd also prefer that WVU be at the top of the list.
Have you researched how the dollar amount for the stipend is 'supposed' to be calculated by colleges? Again...it's not just who is willing to pay the most....
Cheap? Easy to say when you aren't the one dishing out 2 grand to every student athlete on campus. Isn't WVU still running a debt? Money isn't growing on trees around here, not to mention you still have the Raese trial and the contract of the football coach which may prove to be a noose around the neck of the athletic department if they have a bad season coming up.
WVU athletics AGAIN had a very profitable year.
You're reaching (back to paying Big East exit fees) if you're suggesting our school is losing money.
Here we go again lol. People not understanding the landscape of college athletics outside of West Virginia. 2 thousand per student athlete is much less than our peers. Louisville is paying 3-4k. Our former rival Virginia Tech is paying about 3k per student athlete. No wonder this states leadership struggles to keep up with the rest of the country in everything.
The problem is, you don't understand how cost of attendance is determined. A school cannot simply name any number they want. They calculate an amount based on federally mandated guidelines. Schools will try to get one thing or another included in the formula get their number higher, but there is a limit to how much wiggle room they have.
One of the reasons for this is that the COA is not just for ball players. This figure applies to the entire student body. Contrary to what you think, Texas, Ohio St, Alabama, etc. aren't just slapping a big number on there because they feel like it. Bottom line, West Virginia simply can't do what you want them to do. It's not because of anything wrong with West Virginia. It's because of the way the number is calculated.
Finally......someone who actually understands how this works. It's hilarious to watch people blow their top over something they don't understand.
Regardless of how itis calculated this is going to kill recruiting.
It is going to be a tougher sell but the first thing you have to remember it is called full cost of attendance. It is what the scholarship does not cover thus at the end of the year it should be a zero sum. Schools are paying different amounts because it is more expensive to live in other areas. Living expenses in Morgantown are either the 2nd or 3rd highest in the state - but still it considerably cheaper to live in WV than it is to live in most of the rest of the country.
Recruits will look only at the number of dollars; they don't give a shit about the cost of living. This will be a disaster for recruiting.
The coaches out recruiting ought to be able to convey that this is to cover specific expenses not covered by the scholarship and is not meant to be income. If recruits can't figure out that the stipend is a wash between schools maybe they aren't bright enough to be recruits.
LOL - Actually there are plenty of reasons and excuses for this, they're just ones you don't understand.
WVU has always been very committed to their athletic programs and the proof is in our on-field success and membership in a very competitive major athletic conference. WVU has always over-performed and I have no doubt it will continue to do so. I'm sure if the University is provided an opportunity to increase their stipend they will but until then they'll do what they've always done - do more with less better than any other program in the country.
Agreed but it's still scary to think how it may be used against us in recruiting. I've read that they're going to make changes and realize there were mistakes in the current system.
Full cost of attendance is the new red herring! The amount is determined by a universal formula dictated by the Feds/NCAA when applied honestly the result is that each student/athlete will have ZERO out-of-pocket expenses and ZERO profit at the end of the year. The results are the same for each institution: ZERO profit or loss.
Now will there be cheaters? Of course!
Will WVU be a cheater? Of course NOT!
So really, what else is new?
Now will there be cheaters? Of course!
Will WVU be a cheater? Of course NOT!
So really, what else is new?
Once the P5 schools leave the NCAA, this will be a distant memory. It would be hard to imagine a true "free agency" for recruits, but a team like Oregon will explode in recruiting with Nike money. They will simply give a 20K/year stipend and watch the recruits line up.
Come on Doom. You know better. A kid who sees he can get $2000 more from one school vs another is going to pick the school with the biggest payout all other factors equal. We aren't dealing with a bunch of 1400 plus SAT kids (in any sport). Over 5 years, that is $10,000 more and the schools that can pay the most will undoubtedly use that payout to their benefit.
Several problems. First, you fly off the handle, but where's a link to these numbers? I've seen all kinds of wrong numbers out there. Theoretical studies, estimates, etc. You talk about a "list" and don't post it. Weak. Straight from the horse's mouth, our cost of attendance number is actually around $2,700, which is more than defending national champion Ohio State, all-time winningest program Michigan and top 10 Mighigan State from the surrounding region. That's about the median nationally if I remember correctly.
http://www.pennlive.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/03/penn_state_cost_of_attendance_recruiting.html
See the second video here and they start talking about it specifically just around the 9:30 minute mark:
http://wvmetronews.com/2015/04/14/shane-lyons-optimistic-new-ads-can-relaunch-the-backyard-brawl/
Are there going to be kids who pick schools just on the cost of attendance number? I'm sure. Recruits pick schools on coin flips, uniforms, because their mom said so, having their infant children pick a hat, etc. It's the coaches' and administators jobs to educate recruits on the subject and let them know that the costs of living and going to school vary by institution and location and all that money isn't going into their pocket unless they're well off enough to the point where their family is covering all those costs anyway, which probably means they or their parents have enough smarts to know that and base their decision off of the important, big picture factors. If that's all that's important to them? Red flags raised.
My advice? Sack up.
It won't work out that way. The key here is that it's a cost of attending stipend. If School A pays more COA, that's because it costs more to attend. The money will be eaten up by costs.
Some have said that recruits will just look at the number, and not take that into consideration. They will. Word will get out pretty fast that the extra money paid by School A gets eaten up by costs, so they really aren't getting any more money.
It's no different than with any other internal problem with a program. Word gets out to the recruits, and you start to seem them back away from said school.
All this does make me wonder a little about how some athletes have been absorbing the additional COA. This should have been a huge advantage to schools with a low COA (like WVU). How have some of these kids come up with the extra money to attend school in expensive settings? When I went to school I always worked, these kids have no time for that, not even in the off-season. Who has been paying the COA for poor recruits?
It also depends on what items schools currently include in their scholarship costs - i.e., some include the cost of a laptop / tablet, while others do not. If it's not included in scholarship, then it would show up in the stipend money.
Getting 18 year olds to look at this objectively will certainly be a challenge, at least for a few years until the "word of mouth" cycle runs a few times.
It still won't be that big of a challenge. If School A pays $4,000, and School B pays $2,000, that's not enough to override all the other factors.
If School A pays $4,000, but runs the wishbone, they aren't likely to attract 5-star Quarterback.
If School B only pays $2,000, but just won the Rose Bowl and needs a linebacker, 5-star Linebacker isn't giving up guaranteed playing time, in front of a national audience, for an extra $2,000.
While the OP was being a bit ridiculous his overall point is valid.
Despite what you wrote..... ...kids will use the money as a deciding factor when everything else is 'seemingly' equal.
Any reasonable (no ref to the person I quoted) person will admit this is yet another recruiting disadvantage for WVU. It just is.....
------------
I was expecting a flat rate among all Power 5 schools. ....disappointing.
Typical WV and WVU fan mindset. Never thinking and seeing the big picture. It's pretty common sense to most people who can see the future implications of such a thing. The Mickey Furfari mindset shared by many keeps the program from reaching its potential.
so here's a link to one of the better articles that actually explains it in plain english. it's all formula driven based on the actual scholarship value (which differs from school to school) and the TOTAL cost as calculated by each shools admiissions. Scholarship athletes get the difference between total cost & scholarship cost. WVU's stipend is actually more the Notre Dame, granted by only a few $$'s. So we are not being cheap, we are following the rules.
http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/full-cost-of-attendance-explained/
http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/full-cost-of-attendance-explained/
Actually, you're a typical small-minded individual who lets his opinion get in the way of facts and procedure.
But keep running around without reading or truly understanding the process. You make a good fool.
It's worse than you think.
In 1950 college athletes, including at WVU, got $100 a month as a stipend (for laundry, etc.).
In today's dollars, that would be $900 a month.
So $300 a month has one-third the buying power of the 1950 $100 a month stipend.
In 1950 college athletes, including at WVU, got $100 a month as a stipend (for laundry, etc.).
In today's dollars, that would be $900 a month.
So $300 a month has one-third the buying power of the 1950 $100 a month stipend.
