Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

[joeboo22]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

Considering they were thinking about cutting football five years ago because they had no money for it, this is an interesting decision

http://www.minnpost.com/political-ag...otball-program

My guess, and I've been making this guess for 5 years now is that they are trying to sack their athletic programs budget with hockey expendetures in an effort to get football cut, which would allow for them to cut women's hockey (which bleeds money), which would allow for them to go Division I in all (other) sports.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

It's all clear as mud! How this affects the SL and MVFC is that there will be a bidding war for the cream of the crop athletes. I still am not panicking. The anti-trust angle is very interesting. We have not had the athletes with stature or well known enough that could be used in endorsements etc. so that might not be an issue except for athletes maybe like ZZ and Nate Wolters who never did any endorsements while still in enrolled at SDSU.

Interesting.

The best athletes at SDSU would get endorsement offers from Brookings businesses if it was allowed - not just those reaching Zenner/Wolters levels. Not talking million dollar deals or anything, but someone like Jordan Dykstra could have made some decent money (especially for a college student).

"Jordan, we'll give you $500 if we can put your picture and a quote in full page ads in the Brookings Register during basketball season." Doesn't seem that far-fetched to me.

[jacksfan29]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

My guess, and I've been making this guess for 5 years now is that they are trying to sack their athletic programs budget with hockey expendetures in an effort to get football cut, which would allow for them to cut women's hockey (which bleeds money), which would allow for them to go Division I in all (other) sports.

Not saying it isn't a possibility, but I just don't see it.

As for them paying FCOA for hockey, are they required to by their conference? Or is it simply them admitting that if they don't they are screwed and will need to drop down to D2 hockey? I don't know about UMD, but recruiting against UND and MN plus all the Canadian hockey teams has to be difficult if you aren't offering up anything.

[Nidaros]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

The best athletes at SDSU would get endorsement offers from Brookings businesses if it was allowed - not just those reaching Zenner/Wolters levels. Not talking million dollar deals or anything, but someone like Jordan Dykstra could have made some decent money (especially for a college student).

"Jordan, we'll give you $500 if we can put your picture and a quote in full page ads in the Brookings Register during basketball season." Doesn't seem that far-fetched to me.

Now it is legal, base on the US Court of Appeals decision.

[slosho]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

I hope we don't get rid of Valuable sports like this
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensa...ke-it-private/

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

Can't find out whether there were two COA threads, but will post this here. Had a great conversation with Justin Sell this past weekend in regards to the COA question. First, an overall impression: those who seem worried earlier that we were lagging on this issue, have nothing to be worried about. SDSU's athletic department has been examining this issue since it surfaced. Sell noted that we don't use news releases to run our decisions, and I was amazed at the depth at which the department has examined every possible aspect, and is moving rapidly on identifying funds and determining just where and when COA will come into play for each of the sports. We WILL be competitive as needed. Only three FCS schools have jumped out saying they are going to pay COA to EVERY athlete (NDSU, USD and Liberty), and while that may turn out to be true, I've heard some rumblings about a little more objective look at things than were projected right out of the chute.

Finally, on one other portion of the issue, it had always concerned me earlier that our COA was higher than NDSU and USD, because I hadn't thought it through...mainly worried about how we were going to raise the "extra" funds. It has since been pointed out to me, that we have no obligation to pay the full amount and that could also mean the same regards players on the same team. Which means we could match the other schools offer to recruits, and up the ante if we wanted to. As I said in earlier posts, I still hate the whole issue, but it is here to stay. And I am completely satisfied that SDSU has very competent hands around the issue.

P.S. Our current COA is a little over $6,000.

[slosho]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

P.S. Our current COA is a little over $6,000.

WOW that's a BIG #!

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

WOW that's a BIG #!

Which is why its so comical that some think COA isn't going to hurt us in recruiting.

If SDSU could find the extra money to provide full COA, the extra $1500-$2000 over an NDSU or USD offer would be HUGE when combined with our facilities. Signing 2-3 star recruits would become the norm. With full cost of attendance SDSU would be offering recruits more cash in pocket than most/all SEC/Big10/Big12 etc schools. http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec...nce-explained/

One important thing to remember for those who think it won't matter. Imagine NDSU offers a COA stipend of $4500. SDSU offers no stipend (the kid pays that $6000/year out of pocket). That means an actual price difference of over $10,000 per year between the offers. How does that not become a MAJOR factor in the decision making process for a football recruit?

[hareball]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

Which is why its so comical that some think COA isn't going to hurt us in recruiting.

If SDSU could find the extra money to provide full COA, the extra $1500-$2000 over an NDSU or USD offer would be HUGE when combined with our facilities. Signing 2-3 star recruits would become the norm. With full cost of attendance SDSU would be offering recruits more cash in pocket than most/all SEC/Big10/Big12 etc schools. http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec...nce-explained/

One important thing to remember for those who think it won't matter. Imagine NDSU offers a COA stipend of $4500. SDSU offers no stipend (the kid pays that $6000/year out of pocket). That means an actual price difference of over $10,000 per year between the offers. How does that not become a MAJOR factor in the decision making process for a football recruit?

I agree that FCOA will be a major factor, but I disagree with your numbers. In your example the price difference to attend SDSU instead of NDSU would be $6000. The $4500 received at NDSU would cover the presumed costs of $4500.

[OldHare]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

It can make a huge difference for the student athlete when considering USD, NDSU, and SDSU. At his point in time, they are the only FCS schools in the Midwest openly considering COA. Liberty is the other who has already stated that COA will be implemented. We are scratching our eyes out and our hair is on fire with USD and NDSU jumping on the COA early. Meanwhile, there is everyone else in FCS that is sitting on their hands evaluating the situation or believing there is no way they can afford the COA. It might be a bit early to think that all the blue chip players for the FCS will fit into Vermillion and Fargo next year. Is there information out there that says all the P5 schools and FBS schools are on board with plans?

[ringthebells]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

To me, this is one of those things you have to get in on right away. Kind of like jumping D-1 with NDSU when we did. Waiting will put you so far behind the 8 ball, it will be tough to make up the ground lost. I'm glad Sell is in charge. I fully believe he will have us where we need to be.

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

It can make a huge difference for the student athlete when considering USD, NDSU, and SDSU. At his point in time, they are the only FCS schools in the Midwest openly considering COA. Liberty is the other who has already stated that COA will be implemented. We are scratching our eyes out and our hair is on fire with USD and NDSU jumping on the COA early. Meanwhile, there is everyone else in FCS that is sitting on their hands evaluating the situation or believing there is no way they can afford the COA. It might be a bit early to think that all the blue chip players for the FCS will fit into Vermillion and Fargo next year. Is there information out there that says all the P5 schools and FBS schools are on board with plans?

This ^^.

[Justwin]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

I believe we will offer COA very soon but if you try and dig into this it is a more complex issue than some may think. We also must remember that most of our athletes would not receive the full $6000 as this would be full ride amount, the rest would be a percentage based on their scholarship. We are in the early stages of this new form of stipend and I expect there will be modifications along the way. One thing for sure I'm glad I don't have to try and figger this deal out but like most of us I have great faith in our powers at be to get t done..Go Jacks!

[goon]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

I trust the admin to figure the best option out. But part of me worries that with building projects and donations at an all time high I would assume they are trying to not spread the available money too thin. With frost needing money and other expenses, the Admin will have a lot of number crunching to do.

[Justwin]

Re: Cost Of Attendance: The Thread

This would be much easier IMO if there was a standard amount that all colleges could pay. I find it hard to believe there is much COA difference from Brookings to Fargo? Big Mac,gallon of gas,case of beer all about the same price.