Cost Of Attendance proposal

Discuss anything and everything relating to Bobcat Football here.

Moderators: kmax, SonomaCat, rtb

Post Reply
Cat Grad
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 6607
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:05 am

Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal

Post by Cat Grad » Thu Jan 30, 2020 12:00 pm

77matcat wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:33 am
Only thing better might be a drunk QB. 🤣😂

I’d throw a few dollars to support COA.
I enjoyed watching Kenny Stabler. He definitely qualified as a drunk qb.



NorthernPlains
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 7:50 am

Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal

Post by NorthernPlains » Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:29 pm

ilovethecats wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:47 am
kcatz wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:16 pm
Montanabob wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:01 pm
RobertoGato wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:53 pm
oedipuss wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:58 am
A few things:

1). The COA stipends have to be paid proportionate to total scholarships - you can't just hand out the same amount of money to all student-athletes. MSU offers around 220 Full Athletic scholarships for the NCAA varsity sports

2). In 2017, MSU paid 72% of the Full Cost of Attendance in its scholarship package (according to the formula for determining what is Full Cost). Meaning the total stipend it could pay at that time was about $4000 per scholarship - putting total stipend cost ~$900,000.

3). One of the reasons this next year is probably a great year to role this out is probably due to the lack of expenses for football travel in the athletic department. The football team doesn't leave the Northwest - the longest trip of the year is to Portland. That GREATLY reduces overall athletic expenditures and will provide a significant amount of revenue that could potentially play into the ever shifting balance sheet of a D-1 athletic dept.

4). You want to make this thing happen the least "painful" way possible? James Madison grossed $250,000 on beer sales just at football games last year (their first year of selling beer at games). Come up with a reasonable policy that brings beer sales to Bobcat stadium, Shroyer, and the Brick and you probably make a significant dent in FCOA.
The beer sales idea has some legs, I think.
Sure, MSU would sell beer.
um would offer whiteclaw.


Apparently you didn't look around the tailgates very closely last fall.
The beer topic is always a stupid one but you are exactly right on this. People can make fun of whatever they want, obviously. But you're kidding yourself or just not paying attention if you don't think about 90% of our fanbase was pounding the Claws all season long. Guys, girls, old people, young people, dumb people, smart people, and even strong people!

You're probably right but it is still a "Chick drink" that is why the original mention was tied to an intended insult to U of M.



User avatar
catsrback76
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7567
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:18 am
Location: 2300 meters up in Ethiopia!

Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal

Post by catsrback76 » Fri Jan 31, 2020 10:24 pm

NorthernPlains wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:29 pm
ilovethecats wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:47 am
kcatz wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:16 pm
Montanabob wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:01 pm
RobertoGato wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:53 pm
oedipuss wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:58 am
A few things:

1). The COA stipends have to be paid proportionate to total scholarships - you can't just hand out the same amount of money to all student-athletes. MSU offers around 220 Full Athletic scholarships for the NCAA varsity sports

2). In 2017, MSU paid 72% of the Full Cost of Attendance in its scholarship package (according to the formula for determining what is Full Cost). Meaning the total stipend it could pay at that time was about $4000 per scholarship - putting total stipend cost ~$900,000.

3). One of the reasons this next year is probably a great year to role this out is probably due to the lack of expenses for football travel in the athletic department. The football team doesn't leave the Northwest - the longest trip of the year is to Portland. That GREATLY reduces overall athletic expenditures and will provide a significant amount of revenue that could potentially play into the ever shifting balance sheet of a D-1 athletic dept.

4). You want to make this thing happen the least "painful" way possible? James Madison grossed $250,000 on beer sales just at football games last year (their first year of selling beer at games). Come up with a reasonable policy that brings beer sales to Bobcat stadium, Shroyer, and the Brick and you probably make a significant dent in FCOA.
The beer sales idea has some legs, I think.
Sure, MSU would sell beer.
um would offer whiteclaw.


Apparently you didn't look around the tailgates very closely last fall.
The beer topic is always a stupid one but you are exactly right on this. People can make fun of whatever they want, obviously. But you're kidding yourself or just not paying attention if you don't think about 90% of our fanbase was pounding the Claws all season long. Guys, girls, old people, young people, dumb people, smart people, and even strong people!

You're probably right but it is still a "Chick drink" that is why the original mention was tied to an intended insult to U of M.
What is Whiteclaw? It sounds like a new version of Zima.



User avatar
luckyirishguy25
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3695
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 7:59 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal

Post by luckyirishguy25 » Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:28 am

catsrback76 wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 10:24 pm
NorthernPlains wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:29 pm
ilovethecats wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:47 am
kcatz wrote:
Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:16 pm
Montanabob wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:01 pm
RobertoGato wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:53 pm
oedipuss wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:58 am
A few things:

1). The COA stipends have to be paid proportionate to total scholarships - you can't just hand out the same amount of money to all student-athletes. MSU offers around 220 Full Athletic scholarships for the NCAA varsity sports

2). In 2017, MSU paid 72% of the Full Cost of Attendance in its scholarship package (according to the formula for determining what is Full Cost). Meaning the total stipend it could pay at that time was about $4000 per scholarship - putting total stipend cost ~$900,000.

3). One of the reasons this next year is probably a great year to role this out is probably due to the lack of expenses for football travel in the athletic department. The football team doesn't leave the Northwest - the longest trip of the year is to Portland. That GREATLY reduces overall athletic expenditures and will provide a significant amount of revenue that could potentially play into the ever shifting balance sheet of a D-1 athletic dept.

4). You want to make this thing happen the least "painful" way possible? James Madison grossed $250,000 on beer sales just at football games last year (their first year of selling beer at games). Come up with a reasonable policy that brings beer sales to Bobcat stadium, Shroyer, and the Brick and you probably make a significant dent in FCOA.
The beer sales idea has some legs, I think.
Sure, MSU would sell beer.
um would offer whiteclaw.


Apparently you didn't look around the tailgates very closely last fall.
The beer topic is always a stupid one but you are exactly right on this. People can make fun of whatever they want, obviously. But you're kidding yourself or just not paying attention if you don't think about 90% of our fanbase was pounding the Claws all season long. Guys, girls, old people, young people, dumb people, smart people, and even strong people!

You're probably right but it is still a "Chick drink" that is why the original mention was tied to an intended insult to U of M.
What is Whiteclaw? It sounds like a new version of Zima.
It's the new white girl drunk drink.... it's all the rage.



User avatar
utucats
1st Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1937
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:58 pm

Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal

Post by utucats » Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:43 am

Back to the topic at hand....

Do we really have to offer COA for all student athletes? I read an article back when JMU announced they’d be offering for football that said they had already been offering for men’s and women’s b-ball. They were simply adding football and other programs to the list. Obviously they were able to exclude these programs for a few years.

Could we just offer it for football? No offense to the other student athletes but the football program is the crown jewel at MSU.


Image

bobcat99
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3821
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:11 am

Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal

Post by bobcat99 » Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:36 am

utucats wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:43 am
Back to the topic at hand....

Do we really have to offer COA for all student athletes? I read an article back when JMU announced they’d be offering for football that said they had already been offering for men’s and women’s b-ball. They were simply adding football and other programs to the list. Obviously they were able to exclude these programs for a few years.

Could we just offer it for football? No offense to the other student athletes but the football program is the crown jewel at MSU.
Title IX.

Most sports just drain money btw. Typically only football and men's basketball make any money across the nation.

I hate title IX.



Cat4LifeHouseDivided
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 566
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:30 pm

Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal

Post by Cat4LifeHouseDivided » Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:23 am

utucats wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:43 am
Back to the topic at hand....

Do we really have to offer COA for all student athletes? I read an article back when JMU announced they’d be offering for football that said they had already been offering for men’s and women’s b-ball. They were simply adding football and other programs to the list. Obviously they were able to exclude these programs for a few years.

Could we just offer it for football? No offense to the other student athletes but the football program is the crown jewel at MSU.
Has to be an equitable share. Probably excludes football in order to avoid offering to multiple womens programs



User avatar
catgrad05
1st Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1801
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:51 am
Location: North Central Montna

Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal

Post by catgrad05 » Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:31 am

Maybe I missed it somewhere but are there any Big Sky schools doing this yet?



coochorama42
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:12 pm

Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal

Post by coochorama42 » Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:22 am

If nothing else, this post highlights why Title IX still needs to exist. Amazing opportunity for these student-athletes if this becomes a reality and it certainly will not hurt recruiting!



Cataholic
Member # Retired
Posts: 2953
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:09 pm

Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal

Post by Cataholic » Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:54 pm

bobcat99 wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:36 am
utucats wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:43 am
Back to the topic at hand....

Do we really have to offer COA for all student athletes? I read an article back when JMU announced they’d be offering for football that said they had already been offering for men’s and women’s b-ball. They were simply adding football and other programs to the list. Obviously they were able to exclude these programs for a few years.

Could we just offer it for football? No offense to the other student athletes but the football program is the crown jewel at MSU.
Title IX.

Most sports just drain money btw. Typically only football and men's basketball make any money across the nation.

I hate title IX.
You hate Title IX? Seriously?



bobcat99
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3821
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:11 am

Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal

Post by bobcat99 » Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:19 pm

Cataholic wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:54 pm
bobcat99 wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:36 am
utucats wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:43 am
Back to the topic at hand....

Do we really have to offer COA for all student athletes? I read an article back when JMU announced they’d be offering for football that said they had already been offering for men’s and women’s b-ball. They were simply adding football and other programs to the list. Obviously they were able to exclude these programs for a few years.

Could we just offer it for football? No offense to the other student athletes but the football program is the crown jewel at MSU.
Title IX.

Most sports just drain money btw. Typically only football and men's basketball make any money across the nation.

I hate title IX.
You hate Title IX? Seriously?
Decent idea, poor execution, especially as of late.

https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2016/04 ... nightmare/

But yes, I dislike how to have a wrestling team, we'd have to add another woman's sport. That's one example. It monetarily hurts most colleges. Example. Men have football, obviously there isn't the female equivalent. So they add golf. You think the golf program makes more money than the spend? Especially if anybody is on scholarship? Not a chance. So the whole program is losing money because of "equality". Not fiscal equality, but 1:1 sports equality. So now to have COA, we have to offer it to EVERY sport that has scholarship athletes, regardless of whether that sport actually makes money or not. So what this does, is it hinders the one sport that actually is profitable (exception being that men's basketball can be profitable, not sure if ours is). Then add in everything that article I posted talks about, and yeah, I'm not the biggest fan of Title IX. Probably not a popular opinion, but I'm okay with that.



BleedingBLue
Member # Retired
Posts: 2994
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:00 pm

Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal

Post by BleedingBLue » Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:33 pm

I agree with 99 on the point that although it is a great concept, it has been executed poorly. The tough part is that there are more men's sports that attract fans and make more money than there is women's sports. As far as I'm concerned a sport like wrestling shouldn't have to add an additional women's sport since there are more women competing in wrestling every year. But if the NCAA is going to treat it that way then it doesn't make sense to add wrestling and something like women's gymnastics to balance out.



User avatar
utucats
1st Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1937
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:58 pm

Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal

Post by utucats » Thu Feb 06, 2020 2:54 am

bobcat99 wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:19 pm
Cataholic wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:54 pm
bobcat99 wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:36 am
utucats wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:43 am
Back to the topic at hand....

Do we really have to offer COA for all student athletes? I read an article back when JMU announced they’d be offering for football that said they had already been offering for men’s and women’s b-ball. They were simply adding football and other programs to the list. Obviously they were able to exclude these programs for a few years.

Could we just offer it for football? No offense to the other student athletes but the football program is the crown jewel at MSU.
Title IX.

Most sports just drain money btw. Typically only football and men's basketball make any money across the nation.

I hate title IX.
You hate Title IX? Seriously?
Decent idea, poor execution, especially as of late.

https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2016/04 ... nightmare/

But yes, I dislike how to have a wrestling team, we'd have to add another woman's sport. That's one example. It monetarily hurts most colleges. Example. Men have football, obviously there isn't the female equivalent. So they add golf. You think the golf program makes more money than the spend? Especially if anybody is on scholarship? Not a chance. So the whole program is losing money because of "equality". Not fiscal equality, but 1:1 sports equality. So now to have COA, we have to offer it to EVERY sport that has scholarship athletes, regardless of whether that sport actually makes money or not. So what this does, is it hinders the one sport that actually is profitable (exception being that men's basketball can be profitable, not sure if ours is). Then add in everything that article I posted talks about, and yeah, I'm not the biggest fan of Title IX. Probably not a popular opinion, but I'm okay with that.
Agreed. It’s funny that in a capitalist system we have such strange ways of addressing equality issues. Wouldn’t it be great if we could be intelligent enough to make sure we offered opportunities for each gender while being adult enough to admit that one program is propping the whole system up?

Because we are talking college athletics I can live with a certain amount of padding for less marketable programs but I wish we lived in a society that could just admit the FACT that very few consumers are interested in women’s sports. I enjoy women’s college b-ball but not much else. There is a small market in a few unique circumstances but even the female consumer seems to prefer the male version when available. It’s almost like men were designed to be genetically superior at physical tasks, who could’ve guessed. Must be a sexist Creator.

If we invest in the football program we’d have a chance to make money on that investment. I doubt any other program can make such a claim. Doesn’t it benefit the entire athletic department if we get everything we can out of our only moneymaker?


Image

77matcat
Member # Retired
Posts: 2507
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:12 pm

Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal

Post by 77matcat » Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:32 am

I’m ok with title nine. Believe you need to wait a few hundred years for women to be able to develop before you judge how exciting they are compared men’s. For example, let compare gymnastics, do you think more folks watch men’s vs women’s.

How the heck can the frontier conference offer wrestling???



wapiti
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 421
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:04 am

Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal

Post by wapiti » Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:48 am

bobcat99 wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:36 am
utucats wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:43 am
Back to the topic at hand....

Do we really have to offer COA for all student athletes? I read an article back when JMU announced they’d be offering for football that said they had already been offering for men’s and women’s b-ball. They were simply adding football and other programs to the list. Obviously they were able to exclude these programs for a few years.

Could we just offer it for football? No offense to the other student athletes but the football program is the crown jewel at MSU.
Title IX.

Most sports just drain money btw. Typically only football and men's basketball make any money across the nation.

I hate title IX.
Does title IX mean for every male scholarship there must be a female scholarship?
So for COA, for every male receiving COA there must be a female receiving it.
So basketball would be balanced on its own.
Football may be able to balance between volleyball and womens T&F and women's CC



User avatar
LTown Cat
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 5178
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:26 pm
Location: Lewistown, MT

Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal

Post by LTown Cat » Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:12 am

wapiti wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:48 am
bobcat99 wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:36 am
utucats wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:43 am
Back to the topic at hand....

Do we really have to offer COA for all student athletes? I read an article back when JMU announced they’d be offering for football that said they had already been offering for men’s and women’s b-ball. They were simply adding football and other programs to the list. Obviously they were able to exclude these programs for a few years.

Could we just offer it for football? No offense to the other student athletes but the football program is the crown jewel at MSU.
Title IX.

Most sports just drain money btw. Typically only football and men's basketball make any money across the nation.

I hate title IX.
Does title IX mean for every male scholarship there must be a female scholarship?
So for COA, for every male receiving COA there must be a female receiving it.
So basketball would be balanced on its own.
Football may be able to balance between volleyball and womens T&F and women's CC
It's more complicated than that. The male:female ratio of the whole student body comes into play as well. Scholly's have to have the same m:f ratio as the student body I believe.



User avatar
wbtfg
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 10242
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 12:52 pm

Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal

Post by wbtfg » Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:46 am

LTown Cat wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:12 am
wapiti wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:48 am
bobcat99 wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:36 am
utucats wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:43 am
Back to the topic at hand....

Do we really have to offer COA for all student athletes? I read an article back when JMU announced they’d be offering for football that said they had already been offering for men’s and women’s b-ball. They were simply adding football and other programs to the list. Obviously they were able to exclude these programs for a few years.

Could we just offer it for football? No offense to the other student athletes but the football program is the crown jewel at MSU.
Title IX.

Most sports just drain money btw. Typically only football and men's basketball make any money across the nation.

I hate title IX.
Does title IX mean for every male scholarship there must be a female scholarship?
So for COA, for every male receiving COA there must be a female receiving it.
So basketball would be balanced on its own.
Football may be able to balance between volleyball and womens T&F and women's CC
It's more complicated than that. The male:female ratio of the whole student body comes into play as well. Scholly's have to have the same m:f ratio as the student body I believe.
Exactly. Which is why UM has more scholarships devoted to women's sports than MSU does.



User avatar
utucats
1st Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1937
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:58 pm

Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal

Post by utucats » Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:04 am

77matcat wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:32 am
I’m ok with title nine. Believe you need to wait a few hundred years for women to be able to develop before you judge how exciting they are compared men’s. For example, let compare gymnastics, do you think more folks watch men’s vs women’s.

How the heck can the frontier conference offer wrestling???
Sure sure. Maybe in a few hundred years the men will be so feminine that it’ll be a wash.


Image

77matcat
Member # Retired
Posts: 2507
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:12 pm

Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal

Post by 77matcat » Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:45 am

Did you find the old ladies doing the half time shoe unattractive???

It appears to me women are just getting more fit and agile. I would think that’s good from a number of different positions.

Take that however you’d like.



bobcat99
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3821
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:11 am

Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal

Post by bobcat99 » Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:53 am

77matcat wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:32 am
I’m ok with title nine. Believe you need to wait a few hundred years for women to be able to develop before you judge how exciting they are compared men’s. For example, let compare gymnastics, do you think more folks watch men’s vs women’s.

How the heck can the frontier conference offer wrestling???
There's nothing that indicates in a few hundred years that physical gap will be bridged.

And if the best argument you have for it is that we need to wait a few hundred years...



Post Reply