Well, looks like I'll have Saturdays free...

[aborgman]

I just read tha the NCAA is going to let schools give players $2000 a year for "spending money".

I used to like college football too.

I did a little research on this and found out in 2009, Ohio State was giving their players a "food and housing" stipend of $1300 a month above paying for the academic aspect of the school. Seems to me that's plenty of rent and food for a month, now they are going to get another $2000 per year for, what, food and housing?

Going for the cheapest dorm room and meal plan at Ohio State will cost you about $9,000 per school year - which is about $1,000 per month.

 

[aborgman]

BTW, Kawai, you mention Ohio State as an example. What about the hundreds of other D1 schools, including the smaller ones? I'll give you a hint: by and large, they aren't giving a stipend.

Yes... and by and large they aren't making any money either.

People think football is a huge money machine - and it is, at about 30 schools.

The other 100 or so schools in the FBS LOSE money on football every year.

 

[aborgman]

It's time that the players who generate millions for the school get paid.

What about the 99% of college athletes that DON'T generate a penny for the school? Do they get paid also?

 

[aborgman]

Non-athletic scholarships; they don't have to do anything but go to school while they are there, just like everybody else.

This actually isn't true quite often. They certainly carry more stringent academic requirements, and many also carry study requirements as well as behavior components.

 

[aborgman]

Sure they're getting a free education, which is nothing to scoff at,

It's about $100,000 over 4 years where I went to school.

 

[aborgman]

So are the other scholarship students, and they are not working their butt off physically and using their superhuman talents to make the school tons and tons of more money.

You've never known any Research Assistants (or just general grad student researchers) have you?

 

[aborgman]

The cost of those items is peanuts compared to what they generate for the institution.

Ummm... you do realize that the great majority of universities LOSE money on their football program, right?

 

[aborgman]

The other scholarship student, they are working their butt off to use their education, but they are not working their butt off to make the school money as is the athlete.

Actually, depending on field - they quite likely are doing that.

I worked on numerous projects that were research done because large monetary grants were provided to the university by private industry.

Students doing research absolutely do bring money into the school.

Essentially you are giving two students the same thing, but are expecting much more in return from one of them.

No, athletic scholarships generally get way more than academic scholarships. Free tutors, training table to eat at, special academic centers, special housing, etc, etc.

There is MUCh more support and assistance provided for athletic scholarship holders than academic.

I say it's not far off from exploitation because what the athlete gets in not commensurate to what they are worth to the school. IMHO

Most athletes cost the school money, not make it.

 

[aborgman]

The institution benefits from their efforts in a way that is hugely disproportionate to their scholarship support.

Problem is that if we look at the average - it is hugely disproportionate... the issue is, it's disproportionate in the opposite direction.

 

[macaroni tony]

Most athletes cost the school money, not make it.

This seems to be the crux of all of your posts. So only the top-tier athletes make bucks for the school, and only the top-tier programs make bucks for the NCAA. Fair enough. Keep in mind that the new rules allow students to get $2000/yr for spending money. Given what the athletes (top tier programs, top tier athletes; the ones that would probably get the money) are worth to the school, and how much they put out for the school, I think that is at least a happy medium.

 

[macaroni tony]

A briefing of the new rule in place:

College coaches across the country will now have a new tool in their bag when recruiting student athletes. The Division I board of directors approved the option for conferences to allow $2,000 of spending money to athletes as a part of their scholarship. This is said to more accurately cover the cost of college. In the past, college scholarships only covered tuition, room and board, books and fees.

Participation in college sports is a job in itself. Even during the off-season, most teams have daily workout sessions in order to prepare for the next season. With the workload that most college courses bring in addition to athletics, the option for employment is impractical in many cases.

It's an option, that coaches will want to use on the scholarship athletes who are worth it to them.

While major universities may not have an issue granting the extra money, it could put the smaller schools in a recruiting bind. The perk of spending money will no doubt be a major factor when a recruit decides which college to attend.

This was always a factor; except that in the past, the money would have been under-the-table

 

[aborgman]

This seems to be the crux of all of your posts. So only the top-tier athletes make bucks for the school, and only the top-tier programs make bucks for the NCAA.

The NCAA IS the schools.

Top-tier teams make money for their university.

Most top-tier athletes LOSE money for their university, even in football and basketball.

Fair enough. Keep in mind that the new rules allow students to get $2000/yr for spending money. Given what the athletes (top tier programs, top tier athletes; the ones that would probably get the money) are worth to the school, and how much they put out for the school, I think that is at least a happy medium.

So the guy who puts in his 20 hours a week practicing for the school, and isn't allowed to have a job, but is on the track team - he ain't being exploited.... but the fourth string kicker, who spends his entire career on the bench and never plays a game, is...


Never mind the competitiveness issues - with only about 30/130 D1 teams turning a profit, only those 30 or so will be able to pay the stipend.... and you don't think that will have any effect on where players end up?

Paying, at the schools discretion, only to athletes they want ==
buying players by the few money making schools.

 

[sloasdaylight]

I agree with your listing of expenses. I disagree with this statement. The athletes subject themselves to these conditions in the hopes of playing professionally after school. They are not doing it for my entertainment. Of course, we can say that if there were no one to patronize it, there would be no sports, but the motivation for participation is not me or my benefit.

If they are good enough to play professionally after school, the salaries paid more than make up for any hardships during college.

No, a football player isn't saying "Hey, let me play football on saturdays so that chebass88 can have a great time!;" but that's pretty much why they're doing it. Without people watching, the number of athletes playing ball, and the controversy over it, would be much less.