(Link) Panel: some ACC ADs discuss fears over change

[upstater]

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/rs/video/13812714/

Duke, NC State and UNC's AD discuss the new changes on a panel.

They don't seem too happy.

One shocking thing to consider: if schools begin to pay a stipend, what happens to Pell Grants? Those grants are there to help poor kids pick up extra costs beyond tuition/room & board. It may be that the players lose their grants if the school pays them stipends.

This effectively means that not only will schools pay the stipend per student but they lose the pell grant (i.e. that gov't money actually is paid to the university).

 

[upstater]

Holy Cow! Cost of attendance based on need!! The reason they're doing this is to somehow make the case for gov't financial aid.

But it also means that you're going to have a different set of payments to players based on parent income.

AND, each school is going to be able to give a different amount of money.

Consider, on a FAFSA form, a parents' need up to the full costs is listed. However, since all books, dorms, food, tuition is already paid for, a student is going to show quite a bit of need to qualify for the stipend. Bonkers.

 

[noeynox]

I'm only thirty minutes in and it sounds like a brainstorming session more than anything. They don't know how cost of attendance would affect pell grants or if it even would.

 

[TRest]

It's good to know that AD's from the ACC have no idea what the future holds. I hope it ruins them all.

 

[Pudge]

It's good to know that AD's from the ACC have no idea what the future holds. I hope it ruins them all.

Of course. That is always my wish for these s.

 

[uchusky32]

Full steam ahead! Hey should someone look over the hill? No, full steam ahead!

 

[Dooley]

This is a conference that should be concerned about the proposed changes. Half of their members are smaller private schools. Everyone wants to make P5 money...that much is obvious. But not everyone can pay for the privilege of P5 expenses. A grandfathered member like Wake will have to come up with creative ways to make sure that they can continue to fund these costs for all of their student athletes. Without aid, it is going to be tough for them and probably a few other members.

 

[upstater]

This is a conference that should be concerned about the proposed changes. Half of their members are smaller private schools. Everyone wants to make P5 money...that much is obvious. But not everyone can pay for the privilege of P5 expenses. A grandfathered member like Wake will have to come up with creative ways to make sure that they can continue to fund these costs for all of their student athletes. Without aid, it is going to be tough for them and probably a few other members.

Their biggest concern is charging more tuition per student than the amount they spend per student. Their #1 clients (parents) are going t start to wonder if their money goes into other pockets for partying.

 

[ASweet3781]

It's good to know that AD's from the ACC have no idea what the future holds. I hope it ruins them all.

How can this be? Everyday on this board people (on both sides) tell me EXACTLY what is going to happen.

 

[billybud]

This is a conference that should be concerned about the proposed changes. Half of their members are smaller private schools. Everyone wants to make P5 money...that much is obvious. But not everyone can pay for the privilege of P5 expenses. A grandfathered member like Wake will have to come up with creative ways to make sure that they can continue to fund these costs for all of their student athletes. Without aid, it is going to be tough for them and probably a few other members.

Wake's President, Nathan Hatch, was elected Chair of the NCAA Div. I Board of Directors and is a major player in P5 politics....

""That's the kind of thing we're going to wrestle with," Hatch said. "I do think the big conferences have to be granted certain degrees of freedom; their issues are so much different than much smaller institutions that somehow if we're going to have the big tent, one division, we're going to have to take into account that they're very different. There's great unity on certain things like student-athlete welfare, academic standards, those sorts of things, and it's one of the reasons we want to stay together."

 

[SAMCRO]

Wake's President, Nathan Hatch, was elected Chair of the NCAA Div. I Board of Directors and is a major player in P5 politics....

""That's the kind of thing we're going to wrestle with," Hatch said. "I do think the big conferences have to be granted certain degrees of freedom; their issues are so much different than much smaller institutions that somehow if we're going to have the big tent, one division, we're going to have to take into account that they're very different. There's great unity on certain things like student-athlete welfare, academic standards, those sorts of things, and it's one of the reasons we want to stay together."

How exactly are the issues different at Wake than they are at UConn (or SDSU, UCF, BYU, etc...)? And not just "different", but "VERY DIFFERENT".
How is the unity around "student-athlete welfare, academic standards, those sort of things..." a bigger issue at a P5 school than any other school? I mean other than the UNC fake classes and LCC community college-like admission standards, how are they different?

Additionally, it is funny to hear the Prez of WF label other insitutions "smaller institutions"? Interesting shift in his phrasing in his quote. He leads with "big conferences" referring to P5 to be inclusive of a WF type school, then ends it with "smaller institutions" when referring to schools in G5. Please explain how WF is bigger institution than UConn (or SDSU, UCF, BYU, etc...).

And before an ACC or B1G troll asks "would you have a problem with this if UConn were in the P5" the answer is abso-f'ng-lutely YES. It's a load of crap. I had a problem with the BCS selection system when the BE had auto-bid (of course the two biggest benefactors of the BCS auto-bid were the ACC and BE, each of whom would not have gotten a team in at elast once or twice).

 

[FDNY99]

The ironic thing in all of this is that when the NCAA first brought this up to the Presidents to gauge interest Herbst voted yes...Presidents at Syracuse, BC, Wake, and Pitt if I remember right ALL voted NO. Again if I remember right her reasoning was this: anything that is able to lessen the burden on a student athlete so that they can concentrate on school is a good thing.
My theory is this...those schools are worried that they are just able to play in the game..yet the G-5 schools you mention can play with them with a severely reduced income stream. You give those G-5 schools the same income stream and all of the sudden they get blown out of the water.

 

[Adios]

The ACC has athletes who are students?

 

[billybud]

SAMCRO....

While I surely will not attempt to decipher President Hatch's proclamation for you...I do believe that they are just strung together nonsense words that are actually shorthand for the P5 wanting a smaller Bell Curve for college football.

It has been a convenient fiction that we have 121 programs that all vie for the same National Championship. The actual power ranking distribution of football teams falls upon a Bell Curve, with about half of the programs on the back side of the curve. The lower quartile would be 30 or so teams on the tail of the curve.

The MAC, as an example, plays the Big Ten, and act as schedule fodder for that conference in much the same way that a FCS school would for a more southerly school.

The B1G's better teams have about a 90% winning record against the MAC.......Ohio State is 22-0 against the MAC, Michigan is 21-1, Michigan State 28-3, Penn State 22-2, Wisconsin 29-1.

The P5 seem intent on moving the MAC (among other conferences) off of the Bell Curve. And my interpretation of Hatch's words are that they are just the hands of the magician providing misdirection....it is not really about academics, nor really athletes...it is about football.

 

[upstater]

SAMCRO....

While I surely will not attempt to decipher President Hatch's proclamation for you...I do believe that they are just strung together nonsense words that are actually shorthand for the P5 wanting a smaller Bell Curve for college football.

It has been a convenient fiction that we have 121 programs that all vie for the same National Championship. The actual power ranking distribution of football teams falls upon a Bell Curve, with about half of the programs on the back side of the curve. The lower quartile would be 30 or so teams on the tail of the curve.

The MAC, as an example, plays the Big Ten, and act as schedule fodder for that conference in much the same way that a FCS school would for a more southerly school.

The B1G's better teams have about a 90% winning record against the MAC..Ohio State is 22-0 against the MAC, Michigan is 21-1, Michigan State 28-3, Penn State 22-2, Wisconsin 29-1.

The P5 seem intent on moving the MAC (among other conferences) off of the Bell Curve. And my interpretation of Hatch's words are that they are just the hands of the magician providing misdirection....it is not really about academics, nor really athletes...it is about football.

The bottom half of the P5 are not as good as the top 3rd of the MWC and AAC. That's been proven.

 

[billybud]

Proven?

Individual upsets now and again and outlier G5 teams like Boise....

It would be easy to just stipulate that the top of a G5 conference equates to the bottom of a P5 conference (one man's ceiling is another man's floor, per Billy Joel)...but I don't know if even that is true.

I do not know who the top third of the AAC might be...

UCF...they had a good year last year..but:

UCF has won 20% of their total games against the ACC...BUT...They have never won a game against an ACC team with a .500 record.

UCF is 2-15 against the SEC and has never beaten a SEC team with a .500 record.

Or Cincinnati....who has won 20% of their games with the B1G, 27% against the ACC, 19% against the SEC

UConn has never won a game against an ACC team with a winning record.

 

[upstater]

Proven?

Individual upsets now and again and outlier G5 teams like Boise....

It would be easy to just stipulate that the top of a G5 conference equates to the bottom of a P5 conference (one man's ceiling is another man's floor, per Billy Joel)...but I don't know if even that is true.

I do not know who the top third of the AAC might be...

UCF...they had a good year last year..but:

UCF has won 20% of their total games against the ACC...BUT...They have never won a game against an ACC team with a .500 record.

UCF is 2-15 against the SEC and has never beaten a SEC team with a .500 record.

Or Cincinnati....who has won 20% of their games with the B1G, 27% against the ACC, 19% against the SEC

UConn has never won a game against an ACC team with a winning record.

I don't know what is so difficult to understand about what I wrote, but you managed to screw it up. Oklahoma is not a bottom half team. That's who Boise St. beat.

UConn's record against teams currently in the ACC is much better than what you say.

Get your facts straight. We are talking about the P5 here.

 

[upstater]

Since we're talking about the P5 as it's now constituted, the ACC how it's now constituted, any true measure of my statement that the top teams of the G5 (say SMU, Houston, UCF, Boise St, BYU, No Illinois) are like the bottom half (if not better) of the G5, I wanted to look at how UConn has done in its first 10 years 2003-2013) as part of the whole BCS structure (Uconn joined after just a year of having full D1 scholarships).

This is how UConn has done:

ACC: 19-22 (wins over Wake Forest, Duke, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, Virginia, Notre Dame, Maryland).
B1G: 6-6 (wins over Indiana and Rutgers)
B12: 4-8 (wins over Iowa St, West Virginia and Baylor)
SEC: 2-1 (wins over South Carolina and Vanderbilt)

31-37 = 46% winning pct.

This is in its first decade of D1 BCS.

And before you talk about how many of those wins were over the old BE (so were the losses) you should probably stop to think about the old BE's record in BCS games compared to the ACC, and also think about what happened when teams like BC, Va. Tech, Syracuse and Pitt joined the ACC. Their football records all improved from their BE days. BC hadn't finished in the top 2 ever in the BE until their final season when they managed to tie with 4 teams. Syracuse and Pitt were floundering in mediocrity or worse in the BE, and the ACC gave them no stiffer competition.

Then you look at the talent on UConn's team. 23 players in the NFL last year. On actual final rosters, not training camp.

 

[billybud]

23 ain't bad....Boise has 22

Utah has 30....

More NFL talent then Wake or WVU has produced.

 

[pj]

23 ain't bad....Boise has 22

Utah has 30....

More NFL talent then Wake or WVU has produced.

Alabama and FSU both have 50, so we're about halfway to being national championship caliber.

 

[billybud]

I'd suggest this option for UConn......advertise the success at putting kids in the league.

From FSU locker room facility...

https://twitter.com/CoachMRobinson/status/491620345997037568/photo/1

 

[upstater]

23 ain't bad....Boise has 22

Utah has 30....

More NFL talent then Wake or WVU has produced.

How many from Syracuse or Pitt? Or Louisville?

You have to get used to the fact (no matter that you might not like it) that there are 6 former BE teams in the ACC now, and UConn used to regularly play some of them.

 

[upstater]

I'd suggest this option for UConn.advertise the success at putting kids in the league.

From FSU locker room facility...

https://twitter.com/CoachMRobinson/status/491620345997037568/photo/1

You guys list players who haven't even made teams? In that case, UConn should add a few as well. Make that 25.

 

[billybud]

Every one of those guys was on a roster according to the web site and that site noted the team roster....same site gave UConn 23. I think it is accurate.

Heck...FSU just set the two year consecutive draft record with 18 in the 2013 and 2014 draft...I suspect that next year will make it a total pf at least 28 in three consecutive years.

It is difficult to keep up to the moment...Moses Mcray was waived today on a medical.

 

[upstater]

Every one of those guys was on a roster according to the web site and that site noted the team roster....same site gave UConn 23. I think it is accurate.

Heck...FSU just set the two year consecutive draft record with 18 in the 2013 and 2014 draft...I suspect that next year will make it a total pf at least 28 in three consecutive years.

It is difficult to keep up to the moment...Moses Mcray was waived today on a medical.

It's not accurate.

Stork was the first shirt there and he was just drafted in the 5th round. UConn has guys like Smallwood and Stephen drafted, and they are not part of the 23 from last year.