It just ups there living allowance allocation to the actual cost of school. I am fine with that. They don't have time to work.
***OFFICIAL BIG 12 EXPANSION THREAD 2.0***
- Thread starter Boxerdaddy
- Start date
- Status
It just ups there living allowance allocation to the actual cost of school. I am fine with that. They don't have time to work.
We seem to be more profitable than many, but I haven't seen a list lately. Anyone have a current link?
.
No thanks to putting players on payroll. That would lead to words like:agents,union,collective bargaining and strike into college football as it is in pro sports.
USA Today | Sports | COLLEGE
Behind UConn and UNLV...only 2 non-Big5 conference schools...
Ahead of Mississippi, Missouri, Washington State...only 3 non-Big5 conference schools (private schools don't report their numbers).
By the way, those numbers aren't an apples to apples comparison since ISU receives basically no subsidy from the state, but schools like UNLV received $33 million and Rutgers received $28 million from their states.
I ran the numbers by total revenue if you take out state subsidies, and ISU is behind no minor conference teams listed by that sort and ahead of Maryland, Mississippi, Arizona State, Missouri, Colorado, Oregon State, Rutgers, Washington State, plus probably some other private schools who don't report if you take out state subsidies from all schools.
Last edited:
They already recieve living allowances the discussion is about raising them to the true cost. This talk of "paying players" is crap. The only discussion is about raising the living allowance by 2k or what Florida suggested giving 3600 more to cover the additional expense of family to travel to games.
Instead of an outright stipend for all players, i like the idea of having it be like a super-scholarship with a smaller number available for teams.
Say for football you could offer to pay 10 players a certain amount, and the rest just a normal scholarship. Players might move down a level to take the payday, and you could see increased parity as players opt for that.
Say for football you could offer to pay 10 players a certain amount, and the rest just a normal scholarship. Players might move down a level to take the payday, and you could see increased parity as players opt for that.
Out of that group, even though it's another team from Texas, University of Houston is the best choice. Very large city (and TV market), the school has made major improvements to its football program, thus has the best potential upside of any remaining school as a candidate for expansion. UCF (in Orlando, FL) would be second best. If BYU can be talked out of (IOW, money's too good to pass up) no play on Sundays, then they would be a prime target; everyone has their price, even me.
Last edited:
As Bowlsby suggested during B12 media days, Title IX will likley nix that idea or any other scenario that suggests unequal stipends for all athletes within a given athletic program.
You already have unequal scholarship allocations in non headcount sports, which includes football at the FCS level. This would just take that to the next level.
That being said, I think it would be a horrible idea and would cause a huge amount of lockerroom strife, as well as being unfair to the other players. An increased stipend for certain players in no different than just straight up paying them. Either they are student athletes who all deserve for their scholarship to include full cost of attendance and reflect the fact that they are unable to hold down other jobs due to their commitments to the AD, or they are employees that are getting paid. You can't have it both ways.
I don't think I agree; there is no reason for the Big 12 to add a program in the state of Texas outside of the Aggies wanting to come back (which won't happen).
I'm hoping some AAC programs start to show some dominance over the next 5 years or so, because that could mean Big 12 invites. If Cincinnati and UCF put up 10-win seasons and get some notoriety like Boise State and TCU did, they could be the ones.
Thank you for posting the link. It appears EIU is running a rather large deficit, as are 6 or 7 other teams in that Top 50 (notably: OSU, KU, WVU)? Even once you add in the top private schools in the top tier (USC, ND, Duke, Baylor, TCU, BYU, Stanford, Vandy, Northwestern) I think this all still shows we're in the top 64 teams any way you slice it, whether it be by revenue, attendance, strength, etc.
USA Today | Sports | COLLEGE
That has failure written all over it. Big schools will guarantee those types of endorsements to potential athletes.
- Status
