Welcome Guest! Create an Account login email: password: remember me: BASKETBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting FOOTBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting MESSAGE BOARD Message Home - Ohio Basketball - Ohio Basketball Recruiting - The O Zone - Ohio Football - Ohio Football Recruiting - Ohio Volleyball - Ohio Baseball - Ohio Olympic Sports... - General OU Discussion... - Website Feedback... - Posting Policy Edit My Profile Private Messages Logout CHAT LINKS site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp Message Board BobcatAttack.com Message Board Ohio Football Topic:  RE: OT: The Future of the College Football Playoff Topic:  RE: OT: The Future of the College Football Playoff Author Message Campus Flow General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Alexandria, VA Post Count: 4,952 Status: Offline     RE: OT: The Future of the College Football Playoff    Posted: 12/6/2023 8:56:23 AM  The way it reads to me is almost everyone in D1 is stuck opting in because if you don't then you aren't going to be able to compete in any sport if you don't pay the 30,000. It will be a conference decision for the most part as to what sports receive the 30,000. FCS conferences have less sports and could elect to give it to 40 FB players but concentrate on basketball, hockey and baseball. If implemented its going to be the new scholarship. Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended 2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round 2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl 2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086 Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 3,294 Status: Offline     RE: OT: The Future of the College Football Playoff    Posted: 12/6/2023 9:06:15 AM  Campus Flow wrote: The way it reads to me is almost everyone in D1 is stuck opting in because if you don't then you aren't going to be able to compete in any sport if you don't pay the 30,000. It will be a conference decision for the most part as to what sports receive the 30,000. FCS conferences have less sports and could elect to give it to 40 FB players but concentrate on basketball, hockey and baseball. If implemented its going to be the new scholarship. If everybody opts in and continues to just try and keep up with the haves, that's insane. You can compete in whatever sports you want, you just won't compete against Ohio State. Who cares? Back to Top Campus Flow General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Alexandria, VA Post Count: 4,952 Status: Offline     RE: OT: The Future of the College Football Playoff    Posted: 12/6/2023 9:20:07 AM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: Campus Flow wrote: The way it reads to me is almost everyone in D1 is stuck opting in because if you don't then you aren't going to be able to compete in any sport if you don't pay the 30,000. It will be a conference decision for the most part as to what sports receive the 30,000. FCS conferences have less sports and could elect to give it to 40 FB players but concentrate on basketball, hockey and baseball. If implemented its going to be the new scholarship. If everybody opts in and continues to just try and keep up with the haves, that's insane. You can compete in whatever sports you want, you just won't compete against Ohio State. Who cares? Opt in allows the university to pay for the NIL through a trust fund. This is actually easier for 80% of D1 than to try to raise that kind of money privately. Without it a program is effectively low major in a sport. Think Akron men's soccer for example are they going to throw it under the bus by not opting in? Could Akron though say its time to drop football due to cost savings? Could the MAC opt-in but only offer 50 stipends and not 85 in football in-line with what FCS conferences are offering? You're focus is opting out and killing football but there may be opting-in and killing football too or a deemphasis of it. Last Edited: 12/6/2023 9:21:18 AM by Campus Flow Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended 2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round 2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl 2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086 Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 3,294 Status: Offline     RE: OT: The Future of the College Football Playoff    Posted: 12/6/2023 9:31:02 AM  Campus Flow wrote: Opt in allows the university to pay for the NIL through a trust fund. This is actually easier for 80% of D1 than to try to raise that kind of money privately. Without it a program is effectively low major in a sport. Think Akron men's soccer for example are they going to throw it under the bus by not opting in? Could Akron though say its time to drop football due to cost savings? Could the MAC opt-in but only offer 50 stipends and not 85 in football in-line with what FCS conferences are offering? You're focus is opting out and killing football but there may be opting-in and killing football too or a deemphasis of it. Opt-in means that Ohio University's athletic budget instantly increases at least 28%. What's the ROI on that increase? And yes, I think that anybody looking at the financial state of Akron University is going to scoff at increasing their athletics budget by 30% because their soccer team's been pretty good. Back to Top Campus Flow General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Alexandria, VA Post Count: 4,952 Status: Offline     RE: OT: The Future of the College Football Playoff    Posted: 12/6/2023 10:00:05 AM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: Campus Flow wrote: Opt in allows the university to pay for the NIL through a trust fund. This is actually easier for 80% of D1 than to try to raise that kind of money privately. Without it a program is effectively low major in a sport. Think Akron men's soccer for example are they going to throw it under the bus by not opting in? Could Akron though say its time to drop football due to cost savings? Could the MAC opt-in but only offer 50 stipends and not 85 in football in-line with what FCS conferences are offering? You're focus is opting out and killing football but there may be opting-in and killing football too or a deemphasis of it. Opt-in means that Ohio University's athletic budget instantly increases at least 28%. What's the ROI on that increase? And yes, I think that anybody looking at the financial state of Akron University is going to scoff at increasing their athletics budget by 30% because their soccer team's been pretty good. What is the proposed rule half of your athletic participants receive the 30k if you opt-in? Akron by dropping FB would save itself 5 million plus reduce their participants by 1/3rd. Then if down to 200 participants of which 100 need to be funded that is only 3 million all of which can be directly funded by the university. Ohio with 350 participants to opt-in is looking at a minimum of 5.25 million a year added to the budget. It that budget is 29 million currently its an 18% increase. For the minimum standard. My guess is the MAC would try to get away with the minimum and make a decision sport by sport as to the minimums for each sport. Basketball could get a full 13 while football only 40 or 50. If all the conferences except the power ones go this direction there will be less transferring because of the limited 30k stipends available across D1. Membership in FBS could require opting in. The MAC could move down to FCS but if so there goes the playoff TV money. Title IX however will hamstring offering a complete amount of 30k stipends for football. The power conferences will I imagine try to fund everything to the maximum. Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended 2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round 2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl 2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086 Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 3,294 Status: Offline     RE: OT: The Future of the College Football Playoff    Posted: 12/6/2023 10:27:19 AM  Campus Flow wrote: Membership in FBS could require opting in. The MAC could move down to FCS but if so there goes the playoff TV money. Title IX however will hamstring offering a complete amount of 30k stipends for football. The power conferences will I imagine try to fund everything to the maximum. I don't think this is correct. This proposal creates a new subdivision. It's possible that the new subdivision is a 1:1 match where all current FBS schools fund, and others do not. But my strong sense is that this is the first domino to fall in the "P5" officially breaking off to form a top-tier. Back to Top GoCats105 General User Member Since: 1/31/2006 Location: Seattle, WA Post Count: 6,929 Status: Offline     RE: OT: The Future of the College Football Playoff    Posted: 12/6/2023 10:56:39 AM  There was a comment from national media types that this could potentially lead to some schools from the same conference opting in and some opting out. Now who do you think they're talking about? I don't see anyone in the MAC opting in. Where are the dollars coming from? My guess is they were talking the lower thirds of the major conferences: Vanderbilt, Cal, Illinois, South Carolina and probably newbies like Cincinnati and UCF. Cal is dead broke hence why they joined the ACC to grab whatever dollars they could instead of staying in the dead PAC 12 (2). I can almost guarantee yesterday's news fell on deaf ears in Berkeley. They aren't gonna pony up anymore money than they already are, especially with the crippling stadium debt they find themselves in. Back to Top Campus Flow General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Alexandria, VA Post Count: 4,952 Status: Offline     RE: OT: The Future of the College Football Playoff    Posted: 12/6/2023 12:32:24 PM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: Campus Flow wrote: Opt in allows the university to pay for the NIL through a trust fund. This is actually easier for 80% of D1 than to try to raise that kind of money privately. Without it a program is effectively low major in a sport. Think Akron men's soccer for example are they going to throw it under the bus by not opting in? Could Akron though say its time to drop football due to cost savings? Could the MAC opt-in but only offer 50 stipends and not 85 in football in-line with what FCS conferences are offering? You're focus is opting out and killing football but there may be opting-in and killing football too or a deemphasis of it. Opt-in means that Ohio University's athletic budget instantly increases at least 28%. What's the ROI on that increase? And yes, I think that anybody looking at the financial state of Akron University is going to scoff at increasing their athletics budget by 30% because their soccer team's been pretty good. The proposal is a new subdivision for those who support the minimum 30k stipend requirment. They still would be competing in the NCAA Tournament with everyone else but at a presumed competitive advantage. Akron plays in the Big East and its assumed the Big East will opt in because of basketball but the it applies to all sports. Thus Akron would have to opt in if it wanted the advantage of paying the 30k through a trust fund. Also Miami Hockey or Western Michigan Volleyball. The MAC would have to decide whether or not they want to opt in and numbers stipend per sport. Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended 2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round 2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl 2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086 Back to Top Campus Flow General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Alexandria, VA Post Count: 4,952 Status: Offline     RE: OT: The Future of the College Football Playoff    Posted: 12/6/2023 12:43:35 PM  GoCats105 wrote: There was a comment from national media types that this could potentially lead to some schools from the same conference opting in and some opting out. Now who do you think they're talking about? I don't see anyone in the MAC opting in. Where are the dollars coming from? My guess is they were talking the lower thirds of the major conferences: Vanderbilt, Cal, Illinois, South Carolina and probably newbies like Cincinnati and UCF. Cal is dead broke hence why they joined the ACC to grab whatever dollars they could instead of staying in the dead PAC 12 (2). I can almost guarantee yesterday's news fell on deaf ears in Berkeley. They aren't gonna pony up anymore money than they already are, especially with the crippling stadium debt they find themselves in. The high resource schools with the big NIL collectives aren't affected too much. Its the programs in the middle the G5 or the basketball conferences which through use of the "Trust Fund" could as proposed use direct institutional support to pay for the players. Title IX makes it more fair since men's sports in general attract more sponsorships. A few MAC schools could weigh the cost benefits and consider going the non-FB route which could mean opting but with a lower burden at the D1 minimum and 14 sports. I don't see Ohio choosing that as they don't have a non-MAC sport in a power soccer or hockey conference to sacrifice for. Additionally the university has a large enough endowment and budget to opt-in. The institutional trust fund for an athletic program with Ohio's profile is actually an easier way to compete since the donor base isn't particularly strong. Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended 2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round 2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl 2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086 Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 3,294 Status: Offline     RE: OT: The Future of the College Football Playoff    Posted: 12/6/2023 4:55:24 PM  Campus Flow wrote: The proposal is a new subdivision for those who support the minimum 30k stipend requirment. They still would be competing in the NCAA Tournament with everyone else but at a presumed competitive advantage. Akron plays in the Big East and its assumed the Big East will opt in because of basketball but the it applies to all sports. Thus Akron would have to opt in if it wanted the advantage of paying the 30k through a trust fund. Also Miami Hockey or Western Michigan Volleyball. The MAC would have to decide whether or not they want to opt in and numbers stipend per sport. Again, I don't think Akron will necessarily opt-in because a non-revenue sport happens to be in a league where others will opt-in. Similarly Miami hockey. Baker said he expects ~100 schools to opt-in. OU's athletic budget ranks 116th in the country. Akron's is 112th. When you consider the percentage of that athletic budget that comes from student fees, it's very hard to imagine that schools are going to be effectively asking students to pay other students. Back to Top GoCats105 General User Member Since: 1/31/2006 Location: Seattle, WA Post Count: 6,929 Status: Offline     RE: OT: The Future of the College Football Playoff    Posted: 12/6/2023 5:07:28 PM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: Campus Flow wrote: The proposal is a new subdivision for those who support the minimum 30k stipend requirment. They still would be competing in the NCAA Tournament with everyone else but at a presumed competitive advantage. Akron plays in the Big East and its assumed the Big East will opt in because of basketball but the it applies to all sports. Thus Akron would have to opt in if it wanted the advantage of paying the 30k through a trust fund. Also Miami Hockey or Western Michigan Volleyball. The MAC would have to decide whether or not they want to opt in and numbers stipend per sport. Again, I don't think Akron will necessarily opt-in because a non-revenue sport happens to be in a league where others will opt-in. Similarly Miami hockey. Baker said he expects ~100 schools to opt-in. OU's athletic budget ranks 116th in the country. Akron's is 112th. When you consider the percentage of that athletic budget that comes from student fees, it's very hard to imagine that schools are going to be effectively asking students to pay other students. Yeah the parents paying those tuitions are not gonna be too keen on that. Back to Top Campus Flow General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Alexandria, VA Post Count: 4,952 Status: Offline     RE: OT: The Future of the College Football Playoff    Posted: 12/6/2023 5:14:04 PM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: Campus Flow wrote: The proposal is a new subdivision for those who support the minimum 30k stipend requirment. They still would be competing in the NCAA Tournament with everyone else but at a presumed competitive advantage. Akron plays in the Big East and its assumed the Big East will opt in because of basketball but the it applies to all sports. Thus Akron would have to opt in if it wanted the advantage of paying the 30k through a trust fund. Also Miami Hockey or Western Michigan Volleyball. The MAC would have to decide whether or not they want to opt in and numbers stipend per sport. Again, I don't think Akron will necessarily opt-in because a non-revenue sport happens to be in a league where others will opt-in. Similarly Miami hockey. Baker said he expects ~100 schools to opt-in. OU's athletic budget ranks 116th in the country. Akron's is 112th. When you consider the percentage of that athletic budget that comes from student fees, it's very hard to imagine that schools are going to be effectively asking students to pay other students. It does get dubious with student fees placed toward this but its set up for institutional funds to be applied which can be reserves and not tied to a student fee. In any sport which you don't pay the 30k it renders it effectively low major which could be viewed as a problem in the mid major tier of conferences. The real number in the end could be lower. COLA stipend could be counted as part of the 30k. That is 5,000 per student the MAC is already giving. Considering that only half need to be at 30k that number is equivalent to tacking on 20k in additional costs. Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended 2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round 2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl 2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086 Back to Top Showing Replies:   51 - 62  of 62 Posts Jump to Page:   < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               WHO'S ONLINE There are 280 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com 280 Guests 0 Registered Users There are no other users looking at this page.

Copyright ©2024 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties