NCAA approves up to $2000 payment of athlete living expenses

[Pilgrim]

Cougars | WSU A.D. Bill Moos says Pac-12 likely to approve $2,000 player payments | Seattle Times Newspaper


"The NCAA's Board of Directors passed five major reform initiatives last week in Indianapolis, including allowing schools to supply some athletes with up to $2,000 per year in living expenses."

A change that I heartily support!

[macaroni tony]

Hehehehe.....

[Pilgrim]

It's a conference by conference decision...but it's the first rational acknowledgement that athletes need more than room and board.

This seems like a great first step to me.

Nice opinion piece here:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/2...-athletes.html

"A typical athletic scholarship covers tuition, fees, room, board, books and supplies. Many argue that this is enough of a benefit for a scholarship athlete, especially at a place like the University of Miami, where tuition and fees are high."

"In truth it falls far short of either covering all expenses of attending colleges or truly rewarding athletes for the value they provide to their institutions. Not that the $2,000 will make up the difference, but it is a step in the right direction."

[seventhson]

I support the move.

[hover]

funny, i wanted to go to college to get educated, not pass a ball around and get patted on the ass with handouts. did it wrong, again.

Man, that dude is dumb as a skunk but look at that long throw! Let's give him a complete free ride!

[Pilgrim]

Sour grapes, anyone?

[i_got_a_mohawk]

I wouldn't say it as that, just further proof that education isn't the primary goal of universities these days . . .

[guy n. cognito]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

This seems like a great first step to me.

First step towards what? Honest pay-to-play, as opposed this under-the-table decision?

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by guy n. cognito

First step towards what? Honest pay-to-play, as opposed this under-the-table decision?

Honest admission that these athletes are employees, not just amateurs playing a sport.

[guy n. cognito]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Honest admission that these athletes are employees, not just amateurs playing a sport.

They aren't employees. They are students. Students already getting more handouts that any other student on campus.

It's amazing that sports fans have forgotten this little fact.

[fhm555]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

I wouldn't say it as that, just further proof that education isn't the primary goal of universities these days . . .

Actually, in spite of how this may look I'm sure the primary goal is still education.

Can you really blame colleges because they take advantage of the huge money influx created by the fandom associated with college football? And why should the players who are the reason for the fandom in the first place, not reap some of the benefits?

In America, we usually get want we want and apparently what a whole lot of us want is big time college football. Since we have the money to pay for it, big time college football is what we get.

I don't personally care about big time college football one way or the other, but in my part of the world that puts me in a statistically (very) small portion of the population.

Also, IME the image of the dumb jock is such a misleading stereotype. Most college athletes, or at least those who know they are not pro material, are going to take full advantage of the opportunity to get an education. I know a couple guys who went to school on full athletic rides and both are doing great in the field(s) they received an education in.

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by guy n. cognito

They aren't employees. They are students. Students already getting more handouts that any other student on campus.

It's amazing that sports fans have forgotten this little fact.

I haven't forgotten anything. I have student employees at the university where I work, and they do professional quality video recording and media production in addition to being full-time students. Students frequently work 20+ hours a week doing functions that would otherwise be carried out by professional staff or faculty. I see no meaningful difference between them and athletes who spend 20+ hours a week practicing and playing sports which provide publicity and entertainment for the institution. Sports today are the most popular entertainment that a college or university provides.

Students should be compensated for their work in proportion to the value they bring to the institution. I pay student operators between $10 and $13 an hour to record classes and provide faculty support, which is one of the highest pay rates on campus. But they are worth it because of the expectations we place on them and the value their work generates.

IMO there is no conflict between the three aspects of being students, athletes, and paid employees.

[hover]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Sour grapes, anyone?

HARDLY.

Give me a break. Try an industry with a severe imbalance in the dollar to brains ratio.

And we wonder why we fall farther and farther as a nation in duh smartz ladder. Looks where our priorities lie.

If we're not overpaying movie stars we're overpaying athletes or we're overpaying the pretty people who act out scripted reality for dumb bored housewives who outgrew the pretty people acting out scripted reality on MTV. I see the movie "Idiocracy" less as a comedy and more as a prophecy.


Big dollar colleges are not pinnacles of higher learning, they are ****ing puppy mills for pro sports.

[fhm555]

Originally Posted by hover

...Big dollar colleges are not pinnacles of higher learning, they are ****ing puppy mills for pro sports...

I'm not so sure about that.

As far as I know, the University of Alabama still graduates more doctors than any other school in the nation, and UA@ Birmingham is a world leader in AIDS and cancer research.

Unless things have changed in the last few years, the majority of patent holders at NASA are still Auburn University graduates. AU also has what many consider to be the best veterinary medicine school in the country. Competition is fierce for a spot in their vet and engineering schools and only the best of the best manage to get in.

I haven't heard what the UA football program will generate this year, but AU is projecting a gain of 62 million this year from their football program.

To say these two schools are NOT the epitome of big time college football would be the understatement of the century. I'm not a fan so I don't know the exact number, but between them they hold something like 20 national championship football titles and both also claim several Heisman Trophy winners.

In fairness they are from the conference which sends more players to the pros than any other, but to say they are nothing but pro sports puppy mills is an ill informed stereotype at the very least.

[hover]

Call me the next time grown men start tailgating and painting their bellys and faces and acting like retards for the next aids conference or engineering or veterinary rallies, and the resultant high-profile, high dollar television coverage of them.

I know I was blanket statement-ing, but I really think my point was obvious.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by fhm555

I'm not so sure about that.

As far as I know, the University of Alabama still graduates more doctors than any other school in the nation, and UA@ Birmingham is a world leader in AIDS and cancer research.

Unless things have changed in the last few years, the majority of patent holders at NASA are still Auburn University graduates. AU also has what many consider to be the best veterinary medicine school in the country. Competition is fierce for a spot in their vet and engineering schools and only the best of the best manage to get in.

How many of those doctors, vets, and scholars are former Division 1A football players?

I haven't heard what the UA football program will generate this year, but AU is projecting a gain of 62 million this year from their football program.

How much of that money goes into the general budget of the university, and how much gets rolled back into the athletic program? Should the football players draw salaries for this work? Should they unionize?

In fairness they are from the conference which sends more players to the pros than any other, but to say they are nothing but pro sports puppy mills is an ill informed stereotype at the very least.

A better-informed stereotype is that a Div-1A football university is two or more different worlds that don't interact much. This is a debate that goes on continuously: Does higher education really benefit from scholarship athletic programs, or would we be better off letting those programs function as mainstream businesses?

Disclaimer: I attended a Div-1A football university (Notre Dame).

[fhm555]

Originally Posted by fdeck

How many of those doctors, vets, and scholars are former Division 1A football players?

I only know two former football scholarship guys. One's a vet and the other is an engineer.

How much of that money goes into the general budget of the university, and how much gets rolled back into the athletic program? Should the football players draw salaries for this work? Should they unionize?

No idea on either money question, but I don't see anything wrong with players receiving a stipend for what they contribute to the university. I'm not sure about ND, but down here bragging rights will cause otherwise sane alumni to try all manner of under the table grease for players because rubbing it in on their cross state rivals is (apparently) worth risking jail over, so the big time aspect is totally fan driven and not some get rich plan cooked up by the school. Why in the world should the school NOT take advantage of that?

As for players drawing salaries or unionizing...chicken little much or is this a new personality trait you are trying on? It's such a huge leap from a little pocket money to a program manned by paid professionals it's laughable. Provided of course one has at least some minor trace of a sense of humor.

A better-informed stereotype is that a Div-1A football university is two or more different worlds that don't interact much. This is a debate that goes on continuously: Does higher education really benefit from scholarship athletic programs, or would we be better off letting those programs function as mainstream businesses?

As I've said time and again, I'm no fan so I can't begin to know what would be best for colleges who are involved in big time football, but I've seen the benefits of what big time college football can do. A prime example is my nephew. He will be attending UA next year on a full academic ride, paid for with money brought in by the football program. From what I understand, this program puts at least 75~100 students a year in UA on non athletic scholarships.


Disclaimer: I attended a Div-1A football university (Notre Dame).

...

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by fhm555

As for players drawing salaries or unionizing...chicken little much or is this a new personality trait you are trying on? It's such a huge leap from a little pocket money to a program manned by paid professionals it's laughable. Provided of course one has at least some minor trace of a sense of humor.

I do have a sense of humor, so I'll take your comment in good fun.

[fhm555]

So sorry...I fully intended to put a grinning little green head in there to indicate my (in retrospect, rather lame) attempt at humor.

Unfortunately there are no little heads with egg on their face...

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Cougars | WSU A.D. Bill Moos says Pac-12 likely to approve $2,000 player payments | Seattle Times Newspaper


"The NCAA's Board of Directors passed five major reform initiatives last week in Indianapolis, including allowing schools to supply some athletes with up to $2,000 per year in living expenses."

A change that I heartily support!

More fair for the players, but an inevitable lead in to a new (non-NCAA) super league for football.

Now that this goes through you can plan on a new league composed of the top 30-40 teams in the NCAA forming - and everyone else will become the equivalent of current D2/D3.