Re: Cost Of Attendance proposal
Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 12:00 pm
ilovethecats wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:47 amThe 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!kcatz wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:16 pmMontanabob wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:01 pmSure, MSU would sell beer.RobertoGato wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:53 pmThe beer sales idea has some legs, I think.oedipuss wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:58 amA 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.
um would offer whiteclaw.
Apparently you didn't look around the tailgates very closely last fall.
What is Whiteclaw? It sounds like a new version of Zima.NorthernPlains wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:29 pmilovethecats wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:47 amThe 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!kcatz wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:16 pmMontanabob wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:01 pmSure, MSU would sell beer.RobertoGato wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:53 pmThe beer sales idea has some legs, I think.oedipuss wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:58 amA 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.
um would offer whiteclaw.
Apparently you didn't look around the tailgates very closely last fall.
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.
It's the new white girl drunk drink.... it's all the rage.catsrback76 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 10:24 pmWhat is Whiteclaw? It sounds like a new version of Zima.NorthernPlains wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:29 pmilovethecats wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:47 amThe 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!kcatz wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:16 pmMontanabob wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:01 pmSure, MSU would sell beer.RobertoGato wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:53 pmThe beer sales idea has some legs, I think.oedipuss wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:58 amA 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.
um would offer whiteclaw.
Apparently you didn't look around the tailgates very closely last fall.
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.
Title IX.utucats wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:43 amBack 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 programsutucats wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:43 amBack 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.
You hate Title IX? Seriously?bobcat99 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:36 amTitle IX.utucats wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:43 amBack 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.
Most sports just drain money btw. Typically only football and men's basketball make any money across the nation.
I hate title IX.
Decent idea, poor execution, especially as of late.Cataholic wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:54 pmYou hate Title IX? Seriously?bobcat99 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:36 amTitle IX.utucats wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:43 amBack 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.
Most sports just drain money btw. Typically only football and men's basketball make any money across the nation.
I hate title IX.
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?bobcat99 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:19 pmDecent idea, poor execution, especially as of late.Cataholic wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:54 pmYou hate Title IX? Seriously?bobcat99 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:36 amTitle IX.utucats wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:43 amBack 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.
Most sports just drain money btw. Typically only football and men's basketball make any money across the nation.
I hate title IX.
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.
Does title IX mean for every male scholarship there must be a female scholarship?bobcat99 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:36 amTitle IX.utucats wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:43 amBack 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.
Most sports just drain money btw. Typically only football and men's basketball make any money across the nation.
I hate title IX.
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.wapiti wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:48 amDoes title IX mean for every male scholarship there must be a female scholarship?bobcat99 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:36 amTitle IX.utucats wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:43 amBack 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.
Most sports just drain money btw. Typically only football and men's basketball make any money across the nation.
I hate title IX.
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
Exactly. Which is why UM has more scholarships devoted to women's sports than MSU does.LTown Cat wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:12 amIt'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.wapiti wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:48 amDoes title IX mean for every male scholarship there must be a female scholarship?bobcat99 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:36 amTitle IX.utucats wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:43 amBack 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.
Most sports just drain money btw. Typically only football and men's basketball make any money across the nation.
I hate title IX.
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
Sure sure. Maybe in a few hundred years the men will be so feminine that it’ll be a wash.77matcat wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:32 amI’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.77matcat wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:32 amI’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???