I have not seen the below mentioned elsewhere on this Board. Therefore, if I missed it and it was posted by someone else, I apologize for the duplication here.
Since Furman needs to reduce expenses (which I believe without doubt is true) I wonder if they cut out the $2,000 "cost of attendance" stipend given annually to each (i.e. probably only those on a “full ride”) men and women’s’ BB player? These players receive a full ride plus $2,000 more for "incidental expenses" (defined as a “Cost of Attendance” supplement which is “legal” within the NCAA).
Because several other SOCON schools give their men’s BB players a full ride plus "cost of attendance", Furman pays this annual additional $2,000 to ensure men's BB remains competitive in the SOCON. (My perception is the only reason women's BB players also receive the annual $2,000 is because of title 9).
The “BB cost of attendance” payment likely started in the last year or two that Mike B. was AD. I say this because in either 2017 or 2018, when I asked him whether or not Furman was paying “Cost of attendance in any Furman sport”, he replied vaguely saying something to the effect that “additional assistance was being provided in some cases”. Since this question was asked of Mike in a crowd of about 20-25 people, I did not press further on this issue.
In the fall of 2019, when I asked the same question of JD, also in the presence of 20-25 other people he replied honestly by stating “cost of attendance” (i.e. $2,000) was being paid in both men and women’s BB.
After the meeting, I asked another Furman athletic staff member present the question “as a Furman grad/Furman football walk on that earned a full ride, I would have been ticked off to know that the men’s BB players were receiving $2,000 yearly more than me so how does Furman address this issue”? The response was “we try to keep it as quiet as we can for that reason”.
If other posters on this Board want to challenge the authenticity of the above, call the AD and ask him the same as I did. In addition, I am not betraying any “trust” in disclosing the above, because the meeting was open to all interested and any of the other 20-25 people present could have (and likely did) discuss Furman’s COA payments with others.
My position on “Cost of Attendance” is Furman should publicly acknowledge it is being paid, to whom (i.e. in what sports) and why this is necessary for Furman to do. (Note: If Furman has already done this, I failed to see/hear it and therefore, apologize for this comment).
As I said earlier in this post, if the above has already been posted, I apologize for the duplication