PDA

View Full Version : ADs have 'widespread support' for stipends, multi-year scholarships



CDC84
09-29-2011, 07:37 AM
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2011-09-29/ads-have-widespread-support-for-stipends-multi-year-scholarships


A committee considering recommendations on significant reforms to the way NCAA Division I athletic scholarships are structured is poised to recommend a $2,000 stipend for “cost-of-attendance” and a move to offering multi-year scholarships.

Notre Dame athletics director Jack Swarbrick, who made a presentation to a group of fellow athletics directors this week, said there is “widespread support” for altering scholarships to include the cost-of-attendance stipends, according to USA Today.

The Division I board of directors will consider the proposals at a meeting Oct. 26-27 in Indianapolis, where the NCAA is based.


Increasing scholarships to cover cost of attendance would not be mandatory in Division I, but rather available to adoption by individual conferences.

“The philosophy that makes this make sense to us is that, really, because of the demands we place on student-athletes, their opportunity to generate any other revenue for themselves in a way that other students do is simply not there,” Swarbrick told USA Today. “And we ought to recognize that and make up for it.”

Athletic scholarships at member schools currently cover one year and are renewable on an annual basis. Moving to multi-year grants sounds good to some in theory, but the problem that develops is athletes still could be removed for disciplinary or academic reasons — or be “run off” by coaches who could insist to an athlete that he or she never will see the field of play.

Therunner
09-29-2011, 07:47 AM
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2011-09-29/ads-have-widespread-support-for-stipends-multi-year-scholarships

wow. Its about time; it was long overdue.

However, what "if" the WCC decided not to adopt such an option -- could you imagine the downfall in recruiting for all affiliates. Not to mention the competitive advantage other conferences would gain whom offered the stipend vs ones that chose not to exercise this clause?

former1dog
09-29-2011, 09:30 AM
On its face, this stipend idea would favor the BCS schools.

It might work out for Gonzaga in Men's Basketball, where an extra $30,000 might not be a big deal, but there are an awful lot of programs where an extra $2000 grand per athlete is going to be harmful to their budgets.

TexasZagFan
09-29-2011, 09:37 AM
On its face, this stipend idea would favor the BCS schools.

It might work out for Gonzaga in Men's Basketball, where an extra $30,000 might not be a big deal, but there are an awful lot of programs where an extra $2000 grand per athlete is going to be harmful to their budgets.

A portion of the big NCAA contracts should be devoted to spreading the wealth to the talent, i.e. the players. Division I sports ceased being "amateur" decades ago.

If I could be King for a Day, colleges would be required to set up their scholarship athletes in the same manner as ROTC cadets: $400-$500 a month stipends during the school year.

To show my age, the monthly stipend doubled before my freshman year at GU, from $50 to $100. :lmao:

75Zag
09-29-2011, 09:46 AM
I have a labor law question for you.

Could Kentucky Men's BB players go on strike if the NCAA adopts a $2000 per year stipend? That would represent a 90% cut on their average salary.

Go Bulldogs! Get Bigger!

Coug Tracks
09-29-2011, 09:47 AM
On its face, this stipend idea would favor the BCS schools.

It might work out for Gonzaga in Men's Basketball, where an extra $30,000 might not be a big deal, but there are an awful lot of programs where an extra $2000 grand per athlete is going to be harmful to their budgets.Athletes already receive a stipend (believe it is $980/month in-season). They are looking at allowing programs to increase the stipend athletes already receive.

MDABE80
09-29-2011, 09:59 AM
Kids get "walk around " money in addition to the tuition room and board? Or is that what the tuition room and board are valued at Trackster?

Bogozags
09-29-2011, 10:46 AM
A portion of the big NCAA contracts should be devoted to spreading the wealth to the talent, i.e. the players. Division I sports ceased being "amateur" decades ago.

If I could be King for a Day, colleges would be required to set up their scholarship athletes in the same manner as ROTC cadets: $400-$500 a month stipends during the school year.

To show my age, the monthly stipend doubled before my freshman year at GU, from $50 to $100. :lmao:

Agree with your thoughts...I was also ROTC and received $100 spending...it didn't cover all my expenses for sure but it did help. I remember seeing members of the BBall team getting envelopes from "boosters" after each home game which was illegal but at least the players were able have some spending money.

Also agree with a previous post that it does favor BCS schools and will becoe a recruiting tool to be used against any school who does not offer the stipend. The playing field has not been level for decades but this could well further widen the gap.

Zagdawg
09-29-2011, 10:57 AM
So at a school like Gonzaga -- how much additional $$ would the school need to come up with?

$2000 X how many scholarship athletes?

Kiddwell
09-29-2011, 12:13 PM
“The philosophy that makes this make sense to us is that, really, because of the demands we place on student-athletes, their opportunity to generate any other revenue for themselves in a way that other students do is simply not there,” Swarbrick told USA Today. “And we ought to recognize that and make up for it.”
--------------
Kiddwell has some issues w/the above comment's logic. If a full-ride is worth, say, $40,000/year, then a student/athlete practices ball and plays games for $40,000. Meanwhile, the non-athlete is working in the cafeteria for $7.50/hour for, maybe, 20 hours a week. Seems to me the student/athlete has more than an adequate "opportunity to generate...revenue for [him/herself]" well beyond the revenue-generation of the typical Sid and Sally Student.

How fun would it be to pay for my education by practicing my favorite sport then playing my favorite sport in front of dazzled fans! Maybe at Madison Square Garden! And maybe on regional TV! And maybe on national TV! Then maybe at year's end get the further bonus of playing on national TV in a bowl game or the NCAA Tournament! And, maybe, I'll be featured in ESPN's Top Ten plays of the day! And maybe the guys at ESPN will interview me! Plus, I've no student loans to repay! (You get the picture.)

This fan realizes that students need spending money. My only question is whether it's valid to say student/athletes making $40,000 a year (i.e. full-ride scholarships) need another opportunity to "generate" more dollars than the average student--when by the definition of a full-ride scholarship those student/athletes are already way out ahead of Sid and Sally's revenues.

Just this fan's observation.

:]

maynard g krebs
09-29-2011, 01:30 PM
“The philosophy that makes this make sense to us is that, really, because of the demands we place on student-athletes, their opportunity to generate any other revenue for themselves in a way that other students do is simply not there,” Swarbrick told USA Today. “And we ought to recognize that and make up for it.”
--------------
Kiddwell has some issues w/the above comment's logic. If a full-ride is worth, say, $40,000/year, then a student/athlete practices ball and plays games for $40,000. Meanwhile, the non-athlete is working in the cafeteria for $7.50/hour for, maybe, 20 hours a week. Seems to me the student/athlete has more than an adequate "opportunity to generate...revenue for [him/herself]" well beyond the revenue-generation of the typical Sid and Sally Student.

How fun would it be to pay for my education by practicing my favorite sport then playing my favorite sport in front of dazzled fans! Maybe at Madison Square Garden! And maybe on regional TV! And maybe on national TV! Then maybe at year's end get the further bonus of playing on national TV in a bowl game or the NCAA Tournament! And, maybe, I'll be featured in ESPN's Top Ten plays of the day! And maybe the guys at ESPN will interview me! Plus, I've no student loans to repay! (You get the picture.)

This fan realizes that students need spending money. My only question is whether it's valid to say student/athletes making $40,000 a year (i.e. full-ride scholarships) need another opportunity to "generate" more dollars than the average student--when by the definition of a full-ride scholarship those student/athletes are already way out ahead of Sid and Sally's revenues.

Just this fan's observation.

:]

There's a big difference between making 40k a year and getting an athletic scholarship. The difference is that you don't actually get the 40k when on scholarship- you get a product/service which sells for that price on the open market (except for the stipend, of course). Apples and oranges. When you're working in the school cafeteria you get an actual paycheck, which can be used for living expenses.

Your post would make sense if the athletes got a 40k salary and had a choice of whether to use the money to go to school or not. They don't. And they don't have the option of having a campus job. The issue is only whether the scholarship stipend is sufficient or not.

coolhandzag
09-29-2011, 03:02 PM
I really don't see what the problem is. Collegiate athletes have been receiving payments, dispensations, and benefits for some time.

If student-athletes are going to be considered more "athlete" then "student" by the governing jurisdiction maybe they should not even go to class, and just be a part time employee. Wait a minute, that happens a lot already too.

CDC84
09-29-2011, 03:51 PM
So long as guys like Swarbrick use buzzwords like "exploited," "stipend" and "revenue" in reference to student athletes, and so long as the discussion about additional financial assistance for student athletes (beyond an athletic scholarship) is used in reference to all student athletes as opposed to those who can prove genuine financial need, these debates will continue until hell freezes over.

Jedster
09-29-2011, 03:52 PM
I agree more with Kidwell's point in this discussion. The cost of attendance at GU for this school year is $41,420. This includes tuition, room and board, and additional expenses. My understanding is that an athlete has these expenses covered as part of the scholarship. Plus they get an extra $980/month in season as reported above?? I'm not sure either way of that, but if it's true, they get an additional $5880 (Oct-March) per school year. Granted I'm much older and more responsible, but that works out to about $500/month spread out over the year, or about $125/week for spending money. Not enough to get rich on, but certainly enough for pizza and "pops" as a college student, plus $$ to get home for the holidays.

I don't really see it as an apples and oranges comparison. The average student who attends college has to pay for a significant portion of their education, though some because of exemplary grades or some other talent can get a scholarship. The reality is they are paying something towards the cost of their education. Athletes, in return for their basketball services (or other sport)do not have to pay for their education. Either through work study or a job on their own, the other students need to work to help cover the cost of attendance to go to school.

I think the part that rankles me the most in these discussions is the cry that these kids don't get any compensation for their services. You have the opportunity for a free college education (at GU worth approximately $160,000) plus the additional earning power that a college degree confers for the rest of your life if you don't go pro in your sport. To me, that is a significant amount of compensation.

This issue always seems to come up either because others feel athletes are exploited, or as a reaction to the corruption and under the table funneling of money to athletes. Yes the NCAA makes boat loads of cash on football and basketball. The kids do get compensated, though some feel it's not enough.

As far as eradicating corruption and behind the scenes payments to athletes, if one thinks paying kids $2000 per year will eliminate or reduce that, then I think they are gravely mistaken. The real issue here is two fold: The desire of some athletes to live the lifestyle of a pro athlete and all the perks it entails, but more importantly, the desire of those with the money to be associated with these kids. $2000 per year would not have stopped any of the shenanigans in Miami. It is not about the money, it's about the lifestyle.

Coug Tracks
09-30-2011, 09:51 AM
The real issue here is two fold: The desire of some athletes to live the lifestyle of a pro athlete and all the perks it entails, but more importantly, the desire of those with the money to be associated with these kids. $2000 per year would not have stopped any of the shenanigans in Miami. It is not about the money, it's about the lifestyle.I think you are missing the point of the stipend. It is meant to provide the additional resources the “average student” would need as a full time college student beyond tuition and school related costs (books, etc.). Athletes are not allowed to have an outside job and most wouldn’t have time to work anyway. The stipend is not about providing a “pro athletes lifestyle” and $2000 or whatever a month isn't going to do that anyway.

The average student isn’t the talent for an organization that pulls in $770 Million/year in TV right just for the NCAA Tournament alone. In some cases it will be more than they need while in others still not enough. Either way it has nothing to do with having access to a "free" (it's not free but that's another thread) education.

75Zag
09-30-2011, 10:10 AM
The NBA and NCAA need to abandon their evil (and perhaps unstated) pact that forces kids to attend college for a year (maybe two within the next few years) instead of moving directly from high school to the NBA. Right now kids who could be playing in the NBA and earning millions upon millions of dollars are forced to tread water for a year or two while attending a NCAA program they could care less about. Meanwhile the NCAA makes billions from those kids, while paying them essentially nothing. A college scholarship to a super premium one-and-done kid is worth ZERO regardless of the stated tuition at the college. And by the way, what is tuition at Kentucky?

If a kid is actually interested in an education, then the arguments about value of room and board and tuition may hold some water. But for kids to whom college is a PITA on their way to a "crib" in Brentwood and sleeping with one of Kim Kardashian's gal pals, who cares. Those kids should not be forced to labor for free for the enrichment of the NCAA.

Go Bulldogs! Get Bigger!

bullzag23
09-30-2011, 11:04 AM
The NBA and NCAA need to abandon their evil (and perhaps unstated) pact that forces kids to attend college for a year (maybe two within the next few years) instead of moving directly from high school to the NBA. Right now kids who could be playing in the NBA and earning millions upon millions of dollars are forced to tread water for a year or two while attending a NCAA program they could care less about. Meanwhile the NCAA makes billions from those kids, while paying them essentially nothing. A college scholarship to a super premium one-and-done kid is worth ZERO regardless of the stated tuition at the college. And by the way, what is tuition at Kentucky?

If a kid is actually interested in an education, then the arguments about value of room and board and tuition may hold some water. But for kids to whom college is a PITA on their way to a "crib" in Brentwood and sleeping with one of Kim Kardashian's gal pals, who cares. Those kids should not be forced to labor for free for the enrichment of the NCAA.

Go Bulldogs! Get Bigger!

This is a different argument but I agree with your sentiments here. Any other average student has the option to go into a professional career directly after high school, and in some cases even earlier, but generally once you turn 18 you have that option to pursue college or a career. In this case the kids--albeit a select few--are being forced into attending college for a year when they couldn't care less about the school they're attending or the 'free' education they're receiving.

For these kids college actually costs them quite a bit in terms of opportunity cost since they could potentially be making millions in the NBA. It's tough for me to feel bad for them since all of these players could also go to Europe for a year if they really wanted to make some money beforehand instead of wasting their-as well as a university's- time being a 'student' athlete for a year. If a kid chooses to play here in the NCAA he is voluntarily giving up money he could be making across the pond. No matter how ridiculous the 1 year NBA rule is it's not like the kids don't have other options.

CDC84
09-30-2011, 11:17 AM
Folks, there are currently over 4,700 kids playing D-1 men's college basketball on an athletic scholarship. Maybe 100 of them have any chance of playing in the NBA, and of those 100, only a handful have a chance of going one and done. And maybe only 200 of the 4,700 make an enormous difference - as an individual - on their team's ability to win or lose a basketball game.

There is too much mentioning of the NBA and "one and done" in these kinds of talks. The bottom line is that the average player playing college basketball right now is a variation on David Pendergraft. When talking about stipends and things like this, the talk needs to be centered on them as opposed to DeMarcus Cousins and Brandon Knight.

xjzico
09-30-2011, 12:52 PM
This stipend thing is bizarre. Athletes should be thankful their athletic department stamped college application goes to the top of the stack, and if you receive a scholarship thank your lucky stars. The people who should get help, are the athletes on partial scholarships in the non revenue sports, or walk-ons. But it doesn't feel like that is what this is about.

ZagNut08
09-30-2011, 05:32 PM
Fine, give them all 10k a year and let them figure out how to pay for their tuition room and board...because that is what most working college kids have to do. If they are good enough for the NBA then student loans won't meen a thing. If not, they got paid to play basketball instead of have a job, so they are no better or worse off than any other college kid.

They should be greatful for what they get.

Coug Tracks
09-30-2011, 05:35 PM
Fine, give them all 10k a year and let them figure out how to pay for their tuition room and board...because that is what most working college kids have to do. If they are good enough for the NBA then student loans won't meen a thing. If not, they got paid to play basketball instead of have a job, so they are no better or worse off than any other college kid.

They should be greatful for what they get.That's the American way! ;)

JPtheBeasta
09-30-2011, 05:40 PM
Just spitballing here, but what if we allowed athletes to barter their autographs for goods and services, such as tattoos?

Seriously, can student athletes take out financial aid (ie loans) like we fortunate ones who weren't subjected to the horrors of being a student athlete?

I wouldn't object to an athlete being able to cache in a small portion of a scholarship for spending money and paying off the remainder of the tuition later.

zaggradirishfan
10-05-2011, 07:20 AM
I believe those are worth up to $5k and is a grant so it does not need to be paid back. These are based on financial need I believe.

willandi
10-05-2011, 07:37 AM
The individual States need to protect themselves and make it a criminal offense to give, pay, slide etc. any financial help by a booster/coach etc. to a recruit/player. They also need to make it a criminal offense to accept such a payout. The reason being that, when forced to vacate a title, bowl appearance etc., there is a significant loss of money that has to be paid back.
That being said, I am not opposed to financial help for student athletes, but how can it possibly be done that doesn't create an unlevel playing field. A recruit having to chose between a full ride in the WCC that wouldn't have the payout and the PAC 12 that might, will chose the money, if they are from a poorer background. Who wouldn't?
The solution could be stricter enforcement by the teams, conferences and ultimately the NCAA, and the disbursement of any payments by the NCAA itself, to all QUALIFYING athletes. Grades must be current, classes attended and appearances upheld (no driving a new $50,000 car on $2000/yr).
Don't know if there is anything that will really work, it's not just the 13 schollies on the men's and women's B'Ball teams, it's soccer, golf, baseball etc. If it is one athlete, it has to be all, of both sexes. I don't know if any school has that much money.

Reborn
10-05-2011, 08:27 AM
In my opinion paying a student-athlete $2000 is like giving them peanuts. Most of these kids could be earning between 5-10 thousand dollars every summer if it were not for playing basketball. I played at GU in the late 60's and I worked during the summers and made almost $5,000 a summer. That was in the 60's. So I think theres very little difference between giving them $2,000 and giving them nothing. $2000 is just a little better than nothing.

Because of the nature of the game today, and especially at GU, the kids are most likely playing basketball all summer long, and most of them spend the majority of their summer at GU. They help out during basketball camps, and that alone is worth the $2000. And Im sure they all have programs that they are working on during the summer to improve their skills.

I do not believe that receiving $2000 will entice a basketball player to go to one university that gives the $$$$ over one that doesnt give it. A player would not choose to go to a pac 10 school over a WCC school for a mere $2000. The best players go to universities where they believe they will be in a winning program that makes it to the NCAA tournament consistently, are on television alot, and for some it must improve their chances of making it to the NBA.

Prestiage is important to athletes, and even more important to star athletes. Stars like presiage. And let's face it. Most great high school athletes will choose Duke, North Carolina, UCONN, Kentuchy, Kansas, UCLA, UW, Pitt, Florida ect ect ect, over teams with less prestiagous names. Its a fact that it's more difficult for universities with less prestiagous names to compete with the bigger and well known basketball schools. And honestly, I truly doubt that giving a kid $2000 will make any difference in choosing what school he will go to.

Gonzaga will always have a hard time getting the top 20 or 30 players in a class and most likely will never get a player in the top 10. And let's face it, we are doing well when we get a kid in the top 100. And that is the beauty and remarkable thing that makes schools like Gonzaga, Butler, ect so fantastic because these smaller schools are now beginning to compete with the elite basketball schools.

Gonzaga will continue to be able to recruit players that other schools can not because Gonzaga offers much more than most basketball programs. We are not in the top tier thats for sure, but we are in the second tier I bellive, and what is happening is that the second tier athletes today are good enough to compete with the top tier. There are more great players then ever before. I think the key is coaching, and thats where Mark Few and his staff definitely have an edge over most small universities. The small universities that have the most success are universities that have great coaches.

The issue of giving a stuedent-athlete a small stipend of 2000 bucks is not an issue of competition, imo. Its a simple matter to me. Its the RIGHT thing to do in this day and age. Its the moral thing to do. these athletes DO deserve a very tiny, small about of financial assistance.

Bogozags
10-05-2011, 09:58 AM
In my opinion paying a student-athlete $2000 is like giving them peanuts. Most of these kids could be earning between 5-10 thousand dollars every summer if it were not for playing basketball. I played at GU in the late 60's and I worked during the summers and made almost $5,000 a summer. WOW! That was a ton of money during that period. That equates to $9+ per hour. I remember minimum wage was $1.65 in the late 60's. People making $5.00 were middle class...$800.00 per month was good living to say the least. You must of had some kind of connection to be making that much money during the summer.That was in the 60's. So I think theres very little difference between giving them $2,000 and giving them nothing. $2000 is just a little better than nothing. All schools cannot afford to give $2000.00 per student on athletic scholarships. In most cases, most D1 schools do not offer full rides for baseball, soccer, tennis, golf, track & field/cross-country etc., because they cannot afford to do so. When coaching in the Sun Belt, only two schools gave out full rides for each player on the women's basketball team: Old Dominion and Western Kentucky. The remaining schools had to divide scholarships up among all players. I assume there are many schools out there today that do the same thing. One other point, there are only a small percentage of D1 schools that break even or make a buck or two in the Athletic Department, the balance lose money each year BUT they have to keep athletic programs to remain competitive for students.

I do not believe that receiving $2000 will entice a basketball player to go to one university that gives the $$$$ over one that doesnt give it. A player would not choose to go to a pac 10 school over a WCC school for a mere $2000. Outside of the Ivy League Conference, all D1 schools offer scholarships. Hypothetical situation: A very skilled basketball player from an inner city school is recruited by two local universities, one of which offers the stipend and the other that doesn't. The player comes from a Title One area and needs money as most in these neighborhoods do...which school do you think will get the player? The school offering the stipend! All things being equal, the money will be the difference! The best players go to universities where they believe they will be in a winning program that makes it to the NCAA tournament consistently, are on television alot, and for some it must improve their chances of making it to the NBA. I would be willing to make a large wager that most NBA prospects come for BCS schools. IMO - BCS schools would win even more recruiting battles with mid-majors for premier players, if monthly stipends were a consideration.

Prestiage is important to athletes, and even more important to star athletes. Stars like presiage. And let's face it. Most great high school athletes will choose Duke, North Carolina, UCONN, Kentuchy, Kansas, UCLA, UW, Pitt, Florida ect ect ect, over teams with less prestiagous names. Its a fact that it's more difficult for universities with less prestiagous names to compete with the bigger and well known basketball schools. And honestly, I truly doubt that giving a kid $2000 will make any difference in choosing what school he will go to. I disagree with you, because kids being recruited come from inner-city schools, where funds are really tight, will need those dollars in some cases to just help support their families. In the example I gave above, kids will pick schools that offer them stipends!

Gonzaga will always have a hard time getting the top 20 or 30 players in a class and most likely will never get a player in the top 10. And let's face it, we are doing well when we get a kid in the top 100. And that is the beauty and remarkable thing that makes schools like Gonzaga, Butler, ect so fantastic because these smaller schools are now beginning to compete with the elite basketball schools. GU is pretty well off regarding their Athletic Budget. We might well be able to afford giving $2000.00 to every student-athlete. We do not have football so it won't be "that expensive;" however, let’s say that USF or LMU do not have the ability to pay their student athletes all or any portion of the $2K. It will make it difficult for them to compete in recruiting with other schools within the WCC let alone for kids being recruited by USC/UCLA or CAL/Stanford or for that fact other mid-major schools offering the stipend!

The issue of giving a stuedent-athlete a small stipend of 2000 bucks is not an issue of competition, imo. Its a simple matter to me. Its the RIGHT thing to do in this day and age. Its the moral thing to do. these athletes DO deserve a very tiny, small about of financial assistance. Please understand, I do not disagree with your premise of S/A having some pocket change but rather that taking this step would further widen the gap between BCS and Non BCS schools. We need to keep the playing field as level as possible and not lose more ground to the BCS.

Willandi makes a great point, "A recruit having to chose between a full ride in the WCC that wouldn't have the payout and the PAC 12 that might, will chose the money, if they are from a poorer background. Who wouldn't?"

Stipends will benefit the BCS schools more so that mid-majors! The reason there are BCS conferences is due to "money and exposure and more money!" They make so much more money that any non-BCS school, example: If BSU plays in a BCS bowl, regardless if they win or lose, they will get the same amount of money an Ohio State/LSU would get for participating; however, BSU must not only share the money within its conference BUT they also have to share with EACH and EVERY non-BCS football school the D1! I read recently don't remember where but last year each and every SEC school received upwards of $15M! I wonder how much money each WCC school earned last year.

It is about money and exposure! The BCS schools want to further separate themselves from Non-BCS schools so that they can make more money. BCS still needs non-BCS schools to play against because there are just not enough BCS Schools to fill out a complete schedule and still have winning records.

If it wasn't about money, then we would have a playoff for D1 football!!!

Coug Tracks
10-05-2011, 04:49 PM
Willandi makes a great point, "A recruit having to chose between a full ride in the WCC that wouldn't have the payout and the PAC 12 that might, will chose the money, if they are from a poorer background. Who wouldn't?"

Stipends will benefit the BCS schools more so that mid-majors! The reason there are BCS conferences is due to "money and exposure and more money!" They make so much more money that any non-BCS school, example: If BSU plays in a BCS bowl, regardless if they win or lose, they will get the same amount of money an Ohio State/LSU would get for participating; however, BSU must not only share the money within its conference BUT they also have to share with EACH and EVERY non-BCS football school the D1! I read recently don't remember where but last year each and every SEC school received upwards of $15M! I wonder how much money each WCC school earned last year.

It is about money and exposure! The BCS schools want to further separate themselves from Non-BCS schools so that they can make more money. BCS still needs non-BCS schools to play against because there are just not enough BCS Schools to fill out a complete schedule and still have winning records.

If it wasn't about money, then we would have a playoff for D1 football!!!Do Gonzaga athletes currenlty not receive a stipend?

Bogozags
10-05-2011, 06:51 PM
Do Gonzaga athletes currenlty not receive a stipend?

To the best of my knowledge, no NCAA D1 or D2 athletes get any "free money" from their university.

Coug Tracks
10-05-2011, 07:27 PM
To the best of my knowledge, no NCAA D1 or D2 athletes get any "free money" from their university.I can't find any official documentation through an Internet search but full-ride athletes do receive a stipend. The current stipend varies depending on whether an athlete lives on or off campus. I also believe in and out of season per month amounts differ.


I have no idea whether all D-1 programs give their their athletes a stipend but it would surprise me if that was not the case. The NCAA doesn't allow athletes to have a job (at least in season) probably because there were so many bogus jobs for athletes in the 60's and 70's. I would assume the current stipend has something to do with the rule not allowing athletes to have a job.

I remember the current stipend being $980/month.

rockzag
10-05-2011, 07:53 PM
Coug. there are no legal free cash stipends for ncaa athletes .

RenoZag
10-25-2011, 05:28 AM
NCAA president Mark Emmert backed a proposal to allow conferences to increase grants to student athletes by $2,000, "to more closely approach" the full cost of attending college, beyond the athletic scholarships athletes receive for tuition, fees, room, board and books.

Emmert told the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics on Monday that the proposal will be finalized this week and he'll ask the NCAA Division I Board of Directors to support it at their meeting Thursday. He noted that student athletes have limited opportunities to work outside the classroom and playing fields, and that the current model of athletic scholarship hasn't changed for 40 years.

STORY LINK (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7143961/ncaa-weighing-2000-payments-student-athletes)


One university president on a later panel said he opposed the proposal. Boise State president Robert Kustra urged supporters of the plan to look at the support that Division I student athletes receive, and compare it to "the rest of our students, who are making minimum wage, collecting tips, trying to find their way into their next semester at the university ... Go back and examine the life of a student athlete in intercollegiate sports in America today, and see how privileged they are to be where they are and the opportunities they have."

Angelo Roncalli
10-25-2011, 08:06 AM
STORY LINK (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7143961/ncaa-weighing-2000-payments-student-athletes)


I'd expect no less from the president of a glorified junior college in a right to work state.

RenoZag
10-25-2011, 10:06 AM
Easy on the "right to work " states, Pontiff. . .some of us have survived & thrived in such conditions. . .

RenoZag
10-25-2011, 07:49 PM
From the October Issue of "The Atlantic" comes 15,000 words. . .

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/

From the preface to the article:


A LITANY OF SCANDALS IN RECENT YEARS HAVE MADE THE CORRUPTION OF COLLEGE SPORTS CONSTANT FRONT-PAGE NEWS. WE PROFESS OUTRAGE EACH TIME WE LEARN THAT YET ANOTHER STUDENT-ATHLETE HAS BEEN TAKING MONEY UNDER THE TABLE. BUT THE REAL SCANDAL IS THE VERY STRUCTURE OF COLLEGE SPORTS, WHEREIN STUDENT-ATHLETES GENERATE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR UNIVERSITIES AND PRIVATE COMPANIES WHILE EARNING NOTHING FOR THEMSELVES. HERE, A LEADING CIVIL-RIGHTS HISTORIAN MAKES THE CASE FOR PAYING COLLEGE ATHLETES—AND REVEALS HOW A SPATE OF LAWSUITS WORKING THEIR WAY THROUGH THE COURTS COULD DESTROY THE NCAA.


For all the outrage, the real scandal is not that students are getting illegally paid or recruited, it’s that two of the noble principles on which the NCAA justifies its existence—“amateurism” and the “student-athlete”—are cynical hoaxes, legalistic confections propagated by the universities so they can exploit the skills and fame of young athletes. The tragedy at the heart of college sports is not that some college athletes are getting paid, but that more of them are not.



The NCAA today is in many ways a classic cartel. Efforts to reform it—most notably by the three Knight Commissions over the course of 20 years—have, while making changes around the edges, been largely fruitless. The time has come for a major overhaul. And whether the powers that be like it or not, big changes are coming. Threats loom on multiple fronts: in Congress, the courts, breakaway athletic conferences, student rebellion, and public disgust. Swaddled in gauzy clichés, the NCAA presides over a vast, teetering glory.

RenoZag
10-27-2011, 11:05 AM
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7156548/ncaa-panel-approves-major-scholarship-rules-changes

Re: Changes to Basketball Recruiting:


The board also adopted a new summer basketball recruiting model.

Under the new measure, coaches would get four evaluation days in April and 12 in July. Previously, April was a dead period and coaches had 20 evaluation days in July. Coaches also will be permitted more contact with their own players during the summer and will benefit by the elimination of a text messaging ban.

Jim Haney, executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches, said coaches support the changes.

"Oh yes, I think the feedback from our coaches has been very positive," he said. "I do see some challenges to evaluate in April, and it does reduce what can be done in July."