|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on May 27, 2014 8:57:38 GMT -8
SDSU will have to adopt the stipend. It will become an absolute in order to compete. However, the stipend for student players is not the major financial issue, although it is very significant. In the proposed changes the Power 5 are looking to remove restrictions on number of staff/coaches. Coaches salaries are VERY, VERY expensive and are major budget breakers. One coach's salary could equal the entire student stipend. The arms race just heated up to supernova. Go Aztecs! I am sure the P5 will eventually vote themselves back up to 105 football scholarships as well If that happens it will be the end of football on the Mesa at the Division I Level. An extra 1,300 scholarships for the P5 conferences would fill 85 scholarships for 15 teams. We wouldn't even get anymore 3* recruits. |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on May 27, 2014 8:59:27 GMT -8
SDSU will have to adopt the stipend. It will become an absolute in order to compete. However, the stipend for student players is not the major financial issue, although it is very significant. In the proposed changes the Power 5 are looking to remove restrictions on number of staff/coaches. Coaches salaries are VERY, VERY expensive and are major budget breakers. One coach's salary could equal the entire student stipend. The arms race just heated up to supernova. Go Aztecs! This would be a huge blow and another disadvantage but it wouldn't be the end of Division I football on the Mesa. We already pay our coaches far less and still manage to compete. |
|
|
|
Post by standiego on May 27, 2014 9:11:36 GMT -8
Would guess the P5 wait for the vote then put things in motion for the 2015 season . Believe each conference can decide their own limits on scholarships but will let it play out for the 2015-16 season at the current level . Instead of raising the amount of scholarships they could allow a no sit rule for players coming from another conference or at the very least from a Non P5 . They are going to do whatever helps their bottom line. The no sit transfer helps them more then adding 20 scholarships .
|
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on May 27, 2014 9:14:58 GMT -8
Two things. 1. Schools should provide long term medical care for sports related injuries, that's kind of a "duh." But I also think a school should be required to honor a scholarship until a player graduates (undergrad) if a player gets a career ending injury, just not count it against the team as a scholarship player. Addressing those two things would likely knock down the perceived urgency of stipends and unionization. 2. I'm assuming some or all of the new costs will be passed along to us, the ticket buyers & fans. I'm ok with that, personally. But that's what all pro sports do and why a bleacher ticket at Wrigley was $7 in 1994 but $45 in 2014. re: I'm assuming some or all of the new costs will be passed along to us, the ticket buyers & fans. The additional costs will either come as an increase in fees or tuition at the universities or as additional funding from the State which would be tax dollars. The prices of tickets are set by what the community is willing to pay, and for a place like San Diego ... they are actually as high as they can get (for now). If more fans attended games (increase in volume over price) that would help. If more fans donated more money to the Aztec Club ... that too could hold the ticket prices at their present level, increasing the available funds for scholarships / stipends without impacting the tuition / fees for all other college students. For some schools, like Michigan or Alabama, their HC could just take a $1 million pay cut to fund the increase, or the college president could do the same. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2014 10:08:17 GMT -8
I am sure the P5 will eventually vote themselves back up to 105 football scholarships as well If that happens it will be the end of football on the Mesa at the Division I Level. An extra 1,300 scholarships for the P5 conferences would fill 85 scholarships for 15 teams. We wouldn't even get anymore 3* recruits. More than anything else the P5 could do, bumping their scholarship limit up to 105 would inevitably result in the creation of a new tier of NCAA football for us so-called mid majors. Many fans will be fine with SDSU playing at that level with the vast majority of our opponents being of the quality of New Mexico and UNLV but most won't, including me. If that was to happen, I envision attendance of 12K at games in cavernous Qualcomm Stadium. It would be unbearably depressing. Thankfully at least right now, that is not something that's being considered. |
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on May 27, 2014 13:26:09 GMT -8
The "liberalized transfer rules" that the Pac-12 presidents are pushing is going to benenfit the hell out of SDSU to the point that it we will be able to field a damn competitive team regardless of how many players the Power 5 can place on scholarship. With the very real threat of unions the year of sitting out is going the way of the dodo and schools in destination locations like ours are going to be the primary beneficiary. This should scare the hell out of the Wyomings, K-States, Iowas, etc and excite the hell out of any school that can offer immediate playing time and nice weather.
As I've said before, signing with a BCS team quickly loses its luster once you've moved into Harsh Winter, USA and get buried on the depth chart. Lots of players wait their turns and start as upperclassman but similar to basketball there are a ton of guys that will move at the drop of a hat. This would be a game changer for SDSU.
|
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on May 27, 2014 13:30:17 GMT -8
The "liberalized transfer rules" that the Pac-12 presidents are pushing is going to benenfit the hell out of SDSU to the point that it we will be able to field a damn competitive team regardless of how many players the Power 5 can place on scholarship. With the very real threat of unions the year of sitting out is going the way of the dodo and schools in destination locations like ours are going to be the primary beneficiary. This should scare the hell out of the Wyomings, K-States, Iowas, etc and excite the hell out of any school that can offer immediate playing time and nice weather. As I've said before, signing with a BCS team quickly loses its luster once you've moved into Harsh Winter, USA and get buried on the depth chart. Lots of players wait their turns and start as upperclassman but similar to basketball there are a ton of guys that will move at the drop of a hat. This would be a game changer for SDSU. I don't disagree with the upside ... but I think the P5 would pair that liberalized transfer rule with an increase in the number of scholarships from 85 to 95 or even 105. SDSU would probably have to increase our number of scholarships to take advantage of a liberalized transfer rule. EDIT: I am almost positive that transfers would expect a cost of attendance scholarship from SDSU to transfer here |
|
|
|
Post by standiego on May 27, 2014 13:53:53 GMT -8
Most of the P5 teams are going to get about 20 mil from the TV Deal( Iowa State , K State , ..... ) That should take care of paying for the stipends and most other costs . It is the schools not in the P5 and only get about 1-5 mil that are going to need to find ways of paying for those stipends or the other costs . The AAC has said all of their schools will follow the P5 . The P5 are also doing some of these changes to head off players forming unions. The MW is letting each school decide how to handle the stipend related issues,that could divide the MW . Will be interesting to watch the MW schools .
If the P5 goes to a no sit transfer rule , please explain how the Aztecs are the real winners . Do think the MW would do the same but have not seen them put it out there, also would the non P5 schools be under the old set of rules ? . The MW is a group of followers not leaders .
|
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on May 27, 2014 16:16:21 GMT -8
If the P5 goes to a no sit transfer rule , please explain how the Aztecs are the real winners. The main reason players transfer is over playing time…so the answer to your question is that while we obviously aren't a blue blood like USC or Ohio State we play at a high enough level that when a player has great success on the field here they are pretty satisfied as its been proven time and time again that you can get to the NFL from SDSU. For those players that have proven themselves do you think they are likely to gamble what is pretty much a guaranteed starting position at SDSU for the chance to battle with other highly rated recruits at a blue blood school above us and risk finishing their career as a backup?...again, the main reason players transfer is playing time. Lets use SC as an example, 99% of their recruits are going to have better credentials than any player they’d get from us and at a place like that 5 star players often get recruited over so there are no absolutely no guarantees there. Obviously some would jump ship but I think we’d have a great retention rate with the majority of our impact players. I think we are at a high enough level that if a player jumps they are going to go to a blue blood from here as there are plenty of schools above us currently that I just can’t see as high enough above us to justify a transfer to like Oregon State, ASU, Colorado, etc. I just can’t see someone saying “I’m kicking ass at SDSU but I really want to be playing at Oregon State!” Think of it this way, in the last 10 years has SDSU seen any players leave the program to go to a "better" school ? Once people are here they typically don't leave unless they flunk out or are bad apples. Kevin Craft went juco first and his dad just got fired so I'm not sure I'd count that one. Again, I think our retention level would be really high. We have always been a popular destination for both football and basketball transfers and I think this would increase dramatically if players didn’t have to sit out a year. Our trophy location is appealing to a lot of Power 5 players who are no longer enamored with the glamour and want to get on the field ASAP. Every football/basketball program located in a depressing city/town would be at risk of losing talent that is unhappy with playing time or their role on the team. Kids that want to tell their friends they are going to a Pac-12 or Big-12 program out of high school quickly lose their love for the power conferences once they look at the depth chart and settle into the crappy town they are going to call home for the next 5 years of their life. I think this ruling totally favors the Power 5 but we are one of the few outsiders that would benefit greatly. The MWC would be pillaged as teams like Wyoming have a hard enough time retaining talent even with the required year to sit out. IMO it all boils to location. If the school is in a terrible location the odds are that easing the transfer rules are going to hurt them. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 27, 2014 16:17:27 GMT -8
I just hope that we (the non-P5 schools) might be able to lessen the blow which is bound to come. The big boys carry a lot of weight in the NCAA, but they don't own it outright. We need to partner with P5 schools that are less well off than USC, Texas, Ohio State, and some others. Is Mississippi State so rich that they could pay for health insurance, stipends, and enhanced meals out of petty cash? How about Oregon State? My guess is that with the added expenses of the discussed benefits, a lot of P5 schools may not eagerly embrace having to find money for 20 additional scholarship athletes.
Our AD and those of other second tier schools need to get their heads together and fashion a strategy that will prevent the P5 conferences from cleaning out the entire store.
AzWm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2014 7:17:22 GMT -8
Since we all know where “amateurism” as it relates to college football is heading, the MWC should take an evolutionary leap; disband football, form a corporation in which all member schools have an equal equity stake as the basis of a for profit league. Each team would be free to generate operating capital through share sales, bonds, commercial sponsorships etc. There would be a salary cap. Salaries could be cash, scholarship or a combination. It would be free of the current s#!++y TV contract and able negotiate a new deal.
This approach would have the advantage of freeing the university from the onerous Title IX requirements of the additional 90 or so matching scholarships, which will become very expensive should further payments be required. It also gives the league the potential to compete for players with the SEC’s and P12’s of the world. We could attract the kids whose only interest is playing football and earning a little coin on their way to the NFL.
|
|
|
|
Post by Village Aztec on Jun 2, 2014 17:40:56 GMT -8
We built football from transfers from the Pac 10.
They could not transfer to another Pac school with out waiting 2 years.
So they went to Jr. Colleges.
We recruited 30 players a year because all our players were from Jr. Colleges.
We lost 1/2 our team every year. Don had to invent a simple way to call plays because he only had 20 days to build a team.
Why did we win? Because 1/2 our team was seniors.
Since you never could issue more then 30 scholarships we never could get to over 55 scholarships.
So the big boys had 120 scholarships. We had as many seniors playing as they did.
We did not have any one who could not play.
Our guys only had 2 years to make good.
All Jr. College players came to us because they knew they would have playing time!!!!!!!!!!!
We hired Jr. College coaches. They we young and not making much money any way.
We held training camps for JR. College coaches.
They came to learn under a genius.
They can't play 120 players.
Our guys were serious un like most freshmen.
There were many reasons why guys dropped out. When the scholarships dropped to 85 the big schools took away our Jr. Collage advantage.
They came to learn under a genius.
So if the big boys have more scholarships they will not go for the JR. College kids.
We go back to Jr. College recruiting. We don't recruit kids that can't play.
We go back to the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Jun 2, 2014 18:24:15 GMT -8
The P5 is looking at having transfers coming in, not have to sit a year ( not sure yet if they transfer within the conference if they will have to sit a year or ? ) Is SDSU under the NCAA rules where any transfer coming in has to sit a year (the way the current rules are ) ? That could hurt
|
|
