FCOA

[NewApp]

Big South schools vote to pay FCOA or Men's and Women's basketball.

http://www.citizen-times.com/story/spor ... /26361637/

I have a feeling the SBC will request all programs pay FCOA for football, basketball, and maybe baseball at the May meeting. I assume title IX comes into play, which will mean virtually every sport will be paying FCOA.

And all over the country, prospects who are looking at which school to choose but can't make up their minds will use the higher FCOA amount as the deal breaker and the schools will use that as a major tool.

[bigdaddyg]

Man this thing is going to get out of hand really fast especially if schools can dictate the per student/athlete stipend they can pay. I have been against this all along for that reason alone. Does anyone really think that the stud running back for Alabama will accept the same stipend as is paid to the backup punter? Never going to happen jack! I think the best way to go would be for each student to apply for the added aid. The stipend can be paid the same way as a grant- by need. Surely there are kids whose parents could pony up $3K a year if all of the other fees are paid. Lots of kids choose schools that are geographically close to their homes so that family can readily attend games and so that they can readily get home on breaks. So much of this FCOA deal is only relevant for a few exceptions- the kids who absolutely can't afford anything.

[NewApp]

Man this thing is going to get out of hand really fast especially if schools can dictate the per student/athlete stipend they can pay. I have been against this all along for that reason alone. Does anyone really think that the stud running back for Alabama will accept the same stipend as is paid to the backup punter? Never going to happen jack! I think the best way to go would be for each student to apply for the added aid. The stipend can be paid the same way as a grant- by need. Surely there are kids whose parents could pony up $3K a year if all of the other fees are paid. Lots of kids choose schools that are geographically close to their homes so that family can readily attend games and so that they can readily get home on breaks. So much of this FCOA deal is only relevant for a few exceptions- the kids who absolutely can't afford anything.

Post of the month.

[bigdaddyg]

Man this thing is going to get out of hand really fast especially if schools can dictate the per student/athlete stipend they can pay. I have been against this all along for that reason alone. Does anyone really think that the stud running back for Alabama will accept the same stipend as is paid to the backup punter? Never going to happen jack! I think the best way to go would be for each student to apply for the added aid. The stipend can be paid the same way as a grant- by need. Surely there are kids whose parents could pony up $3K a year if all of the other fees are paid. Lots of kids choose schools that are geographically close to their homes so that family can readily attend games and so that they can readily get home on breaks. So much of this FCOA deal is only relevant for a few exceptions- the kids who absolutely can't afford anything.

Post of the month.

Thanks?

[Yosef10]

Man this thing is going to get out of hand really fast especially if schools can dictate the per student/athlete stipend they can pay. I have been against this all along for that reason alone. Does anyone really think that the stud running back for Alabama will accept the same stipend as is paid to the backup punter? Never going to happen jack! I think the best way to go would be for each student to apply for the added aid. The stipend can be paid the same way as a grant- by need. Surely there are kids whose parents could pony up $3K a year if all of the other fees are paid. Lots of kids choose schools that are geographically close to their homes so that family can readily attend games and so that they can readily get home on breaks. So much of this FCOA deal is only relevant for a few exceptions- the kids who absolutely can't afford anything.

I think you're understating the kids who absolutely can't afford anything. Many of the kids playing collegiate football come from severely underprivileged backgrounds, and wouldn't be at the schools in be first place if it wasn't for athletics. I think you're also overstating the "kids whose parents can pony up $3k a year" that's not exactly pocket change for most people in America.

[bigdaddyg]

Man this thing is going to get out of hand really fast especially if schools can dictate the per student/athlete stipend they can pay. I have been against this all along for that reason alone. Does anyone really think that the stud running back for Alabama will accept the same stipend as is paid to the backup punter? Never going to happen jack! I think the best way to go would be for each student to apply for the added aid. The stipend can be paid the same way as a grant- by need. Surely there are kids whose parents could pony up $3K a year if all of the other fees are paid. Lots of kids choose schools that are geographically close to their homes so that family can readily attend games and so that they can readily get home on breaks. So much of this FCOA deal is only relevant for a few exceptions- the kids who absolutely can't afford anything.

I think you're understating the kids who absolutely can't afford anything. Many of the kids playing collegiate football come from severely underprivileged backgrounds, and wouldn't be at the schools in be first place if it wasn't for athletics. I think you're also overstating the "kids whose parents can pony up $3k a year" that's not exactly pocket change for most people in America.

I don't think I am understating anyone. I have no problem giving a stipend to kids in need. My suggestion is that all athletes apply for the aid. Those who qualify get. Those whose families can afford pizza, movie and gas money don't get. I readily agree that there are a percentage of student/athletes who come from impoverished families and if not for the athletic opportunity would undoubtably never attend college. I also agree that even $3K per year is tough for many families even though I have seen many "poor kids" over the years who somehow are able to afford $200 tennis shoes. My stance on that figure is that it is too much and to distribute if across the board is a bad idea that will not be controlled, especially at major universities. Even on a monthly basis that equates to $250 per. Most kids don't come home but a handful of times during a semester. I would figure that from July to December most football players rarely leave. That being said, $250 per month for a guy who has free room and board seems excessive. Again, pay FCOA on per need basis and the added cost is reasonable.

[NewApp]

Man this thing is going to get out of hand really fast especially if schools can dictate the per student/athlete stipend they can pay. I have been against this all along for that reason alone. Does anyone really think that the stud running back for Alabama will accept the same stipend as is paid to the backup punter? Never going to happen jack! I think the best way to go would be for each student to apply for the added aid. The stipend can be paid the same way as a grant- by need. Surely there are kids whose parents could pony up $3K a year if all of the other fees are paid. Lots of kids choose schools that are geographically close to their homes so that family can readily attend games and so that they can readily get home on breaks. So much of this FCOA deal is only relevant for a few exceptions- the kids who absolutely can't afford anything.

I think I've seen on here that scholarship athletes aren't eligible for Pell Grants (which I think are based on need). But aren't they eligible for student loans? Exiting school with $12 K in debt is not exorbitant compared to most graduates. Just my 2c worth.

I think you're understating the kids who absolutely can't afford anything. Many of the kids playing collegiate football come from severely underprivileged backgrounds, and wouldn't be at the schools in be first place if it wasn't for athletics. I think you're also overstating the "kids whose parents can pony up $3k a year" that's not exactly pocket change for most people in America.

I don't think I am understating anyone. I have no problem giving a stipend to kids in need. My suggestion is that all athletes apply for the aid. Those who qualify get. Those whose families can afford pizza, movie and gas money don't get. I readily agree that there are a percentage of student/athletes who come from impoverished families and if not for the athletic opportunity would undoubtably never attend college. I also agree that even $3K per year is tough for many families even though I have seen many "poor kids" over the years who somehow are able to afford $200 tennis shoes. My stance on that figure is that it is too much and to distribute if across the board is a bad idea that will not be controlled, especially at major universities. Even on a monthly basis that equates to $250 per. Most kids don't come home but a handful of times during a semester. I would figure that from July to December most football players rarely leave. That being said, $250 per month for a guy who has free room and board seems excessive. Again, pay FCOA on per need basis and the added cost is reasonable.