I know when stipends first came up, BC voted against it on what they considered to be moral grounds.

the announcers on the basketball game stated that BC was not awarding stipends at BC, and since they had made that decision, they had become the only school in ACC history to go win less in both men's basketball and in football in the same academic year. Their lone football win this year breaks that streak. A 2 year football run of 1-15 isn't going to help their cause. The announcers implied that the decision was financial because BC has so many sports. I'd honestly believe the decision was more based on the fact that they felt it would be inappropriate to do so.

We are not far removed from BC winning their division twice in a row, but decisions like this have major impact, and usually immediate.

I would not think it would be a big decision for an 18 year old kid taking VT or Pitt over BC when VT and Pitt are offering Room, Board, Tuition and 3K expense money.

Players not only see this as a personal advantage, but they also perceive it as a lack of commitment on the school's part.

I mean gads you are looking at a 60 million dollar budget, and not sharing about 600K or less with the kids.

You might actually be competitive in the Mid-American on that decision, but being competitive in a P5 conference is another thing.

Now I do not know if they have started giving stipends or not sense then.

Should the ACC require stipends? I don't know. I don't even know if the schools stipend all athletics, or just specific sports. I don't even know our position at Tech on it. I know we give them. Do all the kids get them, just some sports?

I do know the ACC (like the B1G and Pac12) require a larger athletic commitment that the minimal required to be in the BCS sub division in that they require more sports and scholarships than the min. I do know that the B12 only requires the minimum, and have no clue as to what the SEC requires. So the conference would be well founded to tell the membership, give stipends or leave.

Let's look at another somewhat recent ACC decision, that being Duke Football. When Spurrier left, they decided to down grade football and scaled back to 54 scholarships. That resulted in the horrible mess they had in the 1990's. Then around 2000, the NCAA changed the BCS rules, and required a minimum of 78 averaged over 3-5 years. Even after having to ramp back up a decade and a half ago, they are still trying to climb back up the mountain side.

it is easier and quicker to go down hill than to climb back up