It takes more than just getting to college...
- Thread starter Twinsburg
- Start date
Sam Martini
New member
I think college coaches should be able to choose if they offer a one or multi year contract to a kid and then should just have to live with their decision.
But seriously, the colleges are griping about the stipend? I agree with the person quoted in this article. These coaches make a LOT of money and then have the guts to say they dont have the money for a $2,000 stipend? So the kids end up selling their custom made Nike shoes or a signed photo because they need the money. (Which is absolutely wrong, but it's what we are seeing.)
I was under the impression that the schools had a choice as to how much of a stipend they would offer their athletes.
But seriously, the colleges are griping about the stipend? I agree with the person quoted in this article. These coaches make a LOT of money and then have the guts to say they dont have the money for a $2,000 stipend? So the kids end up selling their custom made Nike shoes or a signed photo because they need the money. (Which is absolutely wrong, but it's what we are seeing.)
I was under the impression that the schools had a choice as to how much of a stipend they would offer their athletes.
Greyhound 83
New member
"unfortunately..." Spare us the bogus altruism, the mission of a college or university should be first and foremost an ACADEMIC mission. Yes, hard to believe living in the state where the "flagship university" President sure hopes "the coach doesn't fire" him. Yeah, not everyone in the US second mortgages their doublewide to get their cherished season tickets as they do here for OlieO State, they believe a university is more than a football or basketball team...Maybe (GASP!) students are supposed to expand their world, learn new things and just maybe contribute to society when they graduate. Why should athletes get a better situation then the rest of the student population? If you polled people in this state and asked the question "How does a high school student get a scholarship?" sadly, the majority answer would be "athletics" in some form or another. Memo to the ignorant people of Ohio: The vast majority of scholarships in the US are just that...FOR SCHOLARS. Guess what, these are renewable also. If Johnny or Jane, who are studying something valuable like Physics or Finance, gets below a 3.0 or don't take at least 12 hours each semester they lose their ACADEMIC scholarships and usually don't even have any recourse like the student athlete does.
So let me get this strait, buddy. You want some jock studying Sports Administration to get a better multi-year scholarship then an Electrical Engineering student? Next you will tell me that the majority of jocks don't study sports related fields...Take a look at this:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2008-11-18-majors-graphic_N.htm
Now go ahead and find Ohio State in the drop down menu under school (yeah, it is a stretch in their case, but it is listed). Hmm... Yes, all those future junior high football, basketball coaches and PE teachers will really keep China and India from eating our economic lunch in the next 20 years, won't they.
How about guaranteeing ACADEMIC scholarships for those students in difficult fields of study, where getting an outside job with the amount of study required is a hardship? Maybe they had a rough semester (ever study Differential Equations, Financial Modeling or Organic Chemistry, Sporto?) and could use a mulligan (to use terminology you might understand) while they get on track.
Donate to your favorite institution's ACADEMIC pursuits, the Jim Tressel's of the world already have enough $$$ and giving "student" athletes a better scholarship then other students is a recipe for further erosion of a school's PRIMARY mission which is ACADEMICS.
Greyhound 83
New member
Sorry "my little temper tantrum" is too close to the truth for your liking...I guess if Freshman Susie injures herself to the point of not being able to play ever again, the university should be on the hook for her 4-5 years of schooling, huh? New labs, professor salaries and need based student aid be D@*^%$!
CalmerThanYouAre
New member
Maybe a little off-topic, but not completely
So Greyhound, what's your take on the revenue-producing major D-I sports, whether it's college football (okay, especially college football) or for some schools college basketball and whatever else might produce money for the school. It's more of a theoretical question, but should those kids have their scholarships guaranteed and/or get an additional stipend, since they are helping fund the university?
So Greyhound, what's your take on the revenue-producing major D-I sports, whether it's college football (okay, especially college football) or for some schools college basketball and whatever else might produce money for the school. It's more of a theoretical question, but should those kids have their scholarships guaranteed and/or get an additional stipend, since they are helping fund the university?
CalmerThanYouAre
New member
I guess my general argument would be that universities long ago sold their souls economically to television networks and that the college football lobby absolutely matters. Little Susie who tears her ACL as a freshman at Ohio St (or Alabama or TCU or Oregon or Texas, etc). may not matter because women's basketball is not a high-revenue producer. However, college football matters, therefore an individual star (or backup defensive lineman who plays in the rotation) matters more than your theoretical organic chemist. Should it be that way? Of course not. Is it that way? Absolutely--and it's as much the universities' fault as it is anyone else.
I'd get into the arguments of how making the men's NCAA basketball tournament (and increasingly, albeit incrementally, the women's NCAA basketball tournament) helps increase the number of applications to that college, yielding a higher quality student on the average, but I don't want to get too bogged down in the details.
I agree academics should come first. Every school's mission statement says it does. The actions of the vast majority of those universities prove otherwise though.
Greyhound, you don't know me or anything about me so I'd suggest you pump the brakes a bit and stop tearing off on these insane tirades based on what you think I'm saying. I didn't give an opinion on the year to year scholarships (for what it's worth I think the year to year thing SHOULD be in place). I only said colleges are businesses first and people often times forget that.
Greyhound 83
New member
Yes, pretty theoretical if you look at the vast majority of universities:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/college-athletics-losing-money/
So the 14 that make money get to pay their players and the others...Well, I guess you are going to have Alabama play OSU over and over and over, since the $$$ will bring the kids in. Maybe the scarlet and gray crazies would like it, most of the rest of the country wouldn't as it confirms to them that these are football factories first and institutions of higher learning second. Gee was telling the truth when he "feared" for his job.
Hey MC, its almost 2012; if you pump your brakes on today's cars you CRASH, they all have ABS. Use constant pressure and hold. Unless, of course, your driving a '74 Buick. In that case, any criticism would seem to be a "tirade" too, since life would be pretty miserable.
Greyhound 83
New member
Even the "Worldwide Leader in Sports" recognizes there is a problem:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5490686
"As public universities throughout the country struggle with double-digit tuition increases, employee furloughs, teacher layoffs and enrollment caps, scrutiny of those institutional subsidies for athletics are increasing."
So again, why do we want to increase athletic scholarship benefits over ACADEMIC scholarship benefits? To lose more money???
It is not like the universities have not been spending more on athletes than on academic-only students already:
http://www.quickanded.com/2010/06/c...Feed:+TheQuickAndTheEd+(The+Quick+and+the+Ed)
Maybe if I bring the argument a little closer to home it will strike a chord:
http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2011/10/most_ohio_schools_depend_on_st.html
I guess students Jamir, Robert, Diane, Jennifer, Katie, Allen, LaTisha, Steve, Chad, April, Tommy, Ann, Melanie, Amanda and Corinne will have to pay for Susie's "full-ride" scholarship by paying more in athletic fees, which means their Mom and Dad will pay more or more than likely the taxpayer pays more in direct aid government aid to the university or when the non-athlete student defaults on their government backed student loans and Uncle Sam has to pick up the tab.
It's easy to give away other people's money...The evidence shows, however this idea of multi-year athletic scholarships comes out of EVERYONE'S wallet. Are we not in debt enough already????
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5490686
"As public universities throughout the country struggle with double-digit tuition increases, employee furloughs, teacher layoffs and enrollment caps, scrutiny of those institutional subsidies for athletics are increasing."
So again, why do we want to increase athletic scholarship benefits over ACADEMIC scholarship benefits? To lose more money???
It is not like the universities have not been spending more on athletes than on academic-only students already:
http://www.quickanded.com/2010/06/c...Feed:+TheQuickAndTheEd+(The+Quick+and+the+Ed)
Maybe if I bring the argument a little closer to home it will strike a chord:
http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2011/10/most_ohio_schools_depend_on_st.html
I guess students Jamir, Robert, Diane, Jennifer, Katie, Allen, LaTisha, Steve, Chad, April, Tommy, Ann, Melanie, Amanda and Corinne will have to pay for Susie's "full-ride" scholarship by paying more in athletic fees, which means their Mom and Dad will pay more or more than likely the taxpayer pays more in direct aid government aid to the university or when the non-athlete student defaults on their government backed student loans and Uncle Sam has to pick up the tab.
It's easy to give away other people's money...The evidence shows, however this idea of multi-year athletic scholarships comes out of EVERYONE'S wallet. Are we not in debt enough already????
Greyhound 83
New member
Sure sounds like someone thinks athletics comes first to me...
I think you're misreading it... there's two topics here and you're interweaving them...
1) Should scholarships be four year deals or one year deals? In this case people are going to agree/disagree... it doesn't make them Satan Incarnate to do so however, nor does it have much of a bearing on their opinion of point two which is...
2) Are athletics focused on too much by higher learning institutions? I think you and I would be much more in agreement on both points than you think but you don't even give anyone a chance (me at least) to tell you what I think. You make asanine assumptions and then go off on some tirade about big picture stuff when I haven't said anything about it.
1) Should scholarships be four year deals or one year deals? In this case people are going to agree/disagree... it doesn't make them Satan Incarnate to do so however, nor does it have much of a bearing on their opinion of point two which is...
2) Are athletics focused on too much by higher learning institutions? I think you and I would be much more in agreement on both points than you think but you don't even give anyone a chance (me at least) to tell you what I think. You make asanine assumptions and then go off on some tirade about big picture stuff when I haven't said anything about it.
eastisbest
Well-known member
I don't read anything in that post the way you do. That poster sees a hypocrisy in the university athletics system. That post is not supporting athletics over academics. I agree with McGal, I think you've inadvertently woven two separate thoughts together.
I think you and that poster probably are in agreement.
IMO, if the kid is putting in the time and effort and meeting academic requirements then these contracts should be four year commitments. Pulling a scholarship because a player was recruited by a previous coach or gets injured is lowdown. The student has responsibilities but game performance isn't a "job" they were hired to do.
I disagree with the "griping" sentence only because that poster has also mixed two different topics. It is not the coaches that are saying they don't have the money, it is the universities and yes the universities should gripe. They should also be capping what they are willing to spend for coaches but that's a different topic.
Sam Martini
New member
Unless I am reading the article incorrectly, which is a possibility, there are two things being mentioned IN THE ARTICLE. One is the one year vs. mutli year contract offerings and the other is the $2000 stipend. Those are the two issues that I was speaking about.
The NCAA was in favor of letting the universities give UP TO $2,000 in stipend money to each student athlete. (This has nothing to do with the contracts.) Student athletes would be given $2,000 dollars at the beginning of the year to do whatever they wish.
As far as college athletics go, that is their job. I can't imagine with the time requirements we are being told on recruiting visits for practices, study tables, classes, going over tapes and everything else that a student athlete would ever have time for a job. This is their compensation, and I wont even go into the amount of money some athletes bring in for their college. It is a small stipend to cover miscelaneous expenses. And from what we are seeing it is being used as a recruiting tool. (IE And dont forget your daughter will be getting the _____ stipend.) That is why I made the comment about the kids selling their shoes/memorabilia.
Now some of the colleges are complaining and the NCAA is rethinking.
And before I start getting hit by the normal "Yappi Lambasters" for this post, I am highly aware that the kids are getting a free education and that is worth a lot, especially when other kids are having to take out student loans.
I think this stipend idea is a long time coming and is a step in the right direction.
The NCAA was in favor of letting the universities give UP TO $2,000 in stipend money to each student athlete. (This has nothing to do with the contracts.) Student athletes would be given $2,000 dollars at the beginning of the year to do whatever they wish.
As far as college athletics go, that is their job. I can't imagine with the time requirements we are being told on recruiting visits for practices, study tables, classes, going over tapes and everything else that a student athlete would ever have time for a job. This is their compensation, and I wont even go into the amount of money some athletes bring in for their college. It is a small stipend to cover miscelaneous expenses. And from what we are seeing it is being used as a recruiting tool. (IE And dont forget your daughter will be getting the _____ stipend.) That is why I made the comment about the kids selling their shoes/memorabilia.
Now some of the colleges are complaining and the NCAA is rethinking.
And before I start getting hit by the normal "Yappi Lambasters" for this post, I am highly aware that the kids are getting a free education and that is worth a lot, especially when other kids are having to take out student loans.
I think this stipend idea is a long time coming and is a step in the right direction.
The stipend issue goes beyond basic finances too though. These kids aren't allowed to have jobs, but they make thousands of dollars for the school's athletic department. Giving a stipend would likely cut back on some of the rule-breaking garbage like selling memorabilia for tattoo's and such.
Greyhound 83
New member
Gee, MC I would have have thought you would resist the temptation to seek the refuge of the feeble minded. Resorting to name calling when you can't support your argument with relevant evidence or expert opinion is pretty lame. You complain about not having "a chance to tell what you think" but I am pretty sure I am not the one limiting your response to the three line average you have been posting.
East, please tell me you don't need to have someone (like MC was asking) say "I favor athletics over academics in our colleges and universities." You realize in our 21st Century world of PC that this is not going to happen. These days, you get "controlling the narrative." Notice Sam's latest post mentions nothing about ACADEMIC scholarships, He/She stays "on message" and is in favor of perks ($2,000 stipends/multi-year scholarship "contracts" for athletes) not offered to ACADEMIC scholarship holders. You need to be more perceptive to one-sided arguments.
As for the two topics being interweaved...As our country's past history illustrates, failure to "connect the dots" can have grave consequences. Though MC doesn't want to go "Big Picture," a failure to do so will just lead to more $$$ coming out of his pocket.
- Susie gets her 4 year full ride in Women's basketball, (which, as a contract, is binding on the school,even though Susie gets injured Freshman year) along with the 2,000 stipend, again guaranteed by East's contract.
- The university, of which THE VAST MAJORITY has been shown to be ALREADY LOSING MONEY ON ATHLETICS (to include, in 2009, MC's beloved "pay the players and MAYBE they won't break NCAA rules" OLieO State http://www.kolotv.com/sports/headlines/38786767.html), has to find the MORE revenue to fund this NEW ENTITLEMENT, even though athletic spending has grown more than ACADEMIC spending the past decade.
- The university, if public, has already taken cuts in government funding and with state and federal budgets awash in red ink (medicare/medicaid, Social Security payments, unfunded pension obligations) to the tune of trillions of dollars, more is not coming. Again, the athletic department is a net LOSER of funds, so where does the university turn to??? Ah, the four letter word: Fees.
So by failing to to look at the "big picture" and just giving athletes more benefits without looking at the law of unintended consequences, the net result will be Susie will get her Sports degree and find there is no job at her school back home for another PE teacher/coach since the school has hundreds of resumes with the same degree already on file. Not that there is a position anyway, since the school has lost tax revenues and is closing school buildings. Why? Seems all the students who were trying to get degrees that would boost the competitiveness of our industries couldn't afford the crushing tuition and the student loans w/interest to pay for it. They also couldn't get scholarship money because the college had to pay for their athletes "education" first or face lawsuits (it is "contract," remember). The older taxpayers, with industries and their related jobs drying up, have to pay more and more in taxes just to keep up basic services, while the majority of their children, non-athletes with little education, face dimming prospects of ever achieving a middle class standard of living.
Too farfetched? Look around folks, it is already happening... Again, it is easy to give away what you think is other people's money. If you want to get the $$$ out of college athletics cut athletic department budgets, not raise them to fund another entitlement to satisfy a need based on the (false) presumption of "student" athletes not getting "their fair share" of the spoils. Athletics lose money and the real losers are the non-athlete students.
East, please tell me you don't need to have someone (like MC was asking) say "I favor athletics over academics in our colleges and universities." You realize in our 21st Century world of PC that this is not going to happen. These days, you get "controlling the narrative." Notice Sam's latest post mentions nothing about ACADEMIC scholarships, He/She stays "on message" and is in favor of perks ($2,000 stipends/multi-year scholarship "contracts" for athletes) not offered to ACADEMIC scholarship holders. You need to be more perceptive to one-sided arguments.
As for the two topics being interweaved...As our country's past history illustrates, failure to "connect the dots" can have grave consequences. Though MC doesn't want to go "Big Picture," a failure to do so will just lead to more $$$ coming out of his pocket.
- Susie gets her 4 year full ride in Women's basketball, (which, as a contract, is binding on the school,even though Susie gets injured Freshman year) along with the 2,000 stipend, again guaranteed by East's contract.
- The university, of which THE VAST MAJORITY has been shown to be ALREADY LOSING MONEY ON ATHLETICS (to include, in 2009, MC's beloved "pay the players and MAYBE they won't break NCAA rules" OLieO State http://www.kolotv.com/sports/headlines/38786767.html), has to find the MORE revenue to fund this NEW ENTITLEMENT, even though athletic spending has grown more than ACADEMIC spending the past decade.
- The university, if public, has already taken cuts in government funding and with state and federal budgets awash in red ink (medicare/medicaid, Social Security payments, unfunded pension obligations) to the tune of trillions of dollars, more is not coming. Again, the athletic department is a net LOSER of funds, so where does the university turn to??? Ah, the four letter word: Fees.
So by failing to to look at the "big picture" and just giving athletes more benefits without looking at the law of unintended consequences, the net result will be Susie will get her Sports degree and find there is no job at her school back home for another PE teacher/coach since the school has hundreds of resumes with the same degree already on file. Not that there is a position anyway, since the school has lost tax revenues and is closing school buildings. Why? Seems all the students who were trying to get degrees that would boost the competitiveness of our industries couldn't afford the crushing tuition and the student loans w/interest to pay for it. They also couldn't get scholarship money because the college had to pay for their athletes "education" first or face lawsuits (it is "contract," remember). The older taxpayers, with industries and their related jobs drying up, have to pay more and more in taxes just to keep up basic services, while the majority of their children, non-athletes with little education, face dimming prospects of ever achieving a middle class standard of living.
Too farfetched? Look around folks, it is already happening... Again, it is easy to give away what you think is other people's money. If you want to get the $$$ out of college athletics cut athletic department budgets, not raise them to fund another entitlement to satisfy a need based on the (false) presumption of "student" athletes not getting "their fair share" of the spoils. Athletics lose money and the real losers are the non-athlete students.
Last edited:
Greyhound 83
New member
"MCGal is 100% correct - LSU gets $18 million and ALA gets $22 millon for the Bowl game and that's just from the major TV network, that doesn't count Nike, Underarmor, etc. it's a business and the kids should be getting paid with more than just an free education the same one that most schools give to kids of the parents that work there."
So Twinsburg do you make all your life decisions based on anecdotal evidence? Again, don't let the facts ruin an emotional, "But it's only fair!!!" argument:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/college-athletics-losing-money/
The vast majority of students are not sons or daughters of university employees, btw.
Again, I posted that even OlieO State lost money in 2009. If you don't like the $4.1 Million they paid to Urban Meyer than vote with your wallet and don't by any of the gazillion pieces of OSU-emblemed items for sale in every store. Less money in their coffers means less money to spend on coaches, administrators and the others who reap the benefits that you are angry about. Then again, would you like people to criticize your salary?
So Twinsburg do you make all your life decisions based on anecdotal evidence? Again, don't let the facts ruin an emotional, "But it's only fair!!!" argument:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/college-athletics-losing-money/
The vast majority of students are not sons or daughters of university employees, btw.
Again, I posted that even OlieO State lost money in 2009. If you don't like the $4.1 Million they paid to Urban Meyer than vote with your wallet and don't by any of the gazillion pieces of OSU-emblemed items for sale in every store. Less money in their coffers means less money to spend on coaches, administrators and the others who reap the benefits that you are angry about. Then again, would you like people to criticize your salary?
eastisbest
Well-known member
Sounds like we're getting into argument theory, lol.
No I don't think I have a perception problem here. The thread isn't about academic rewards. No one is proposing athletes should get compensated for studying so I don't see why the general population would be brought into this conversation? His message is clear to me as is and like you, I still disagree with it. lol.
An activity taking a large amount of "work" does not make it the "job." These STUDENT (happy Grey?
) athletes take on the contract knowing full well the hours required and knowing full well that there is no compensation.Fair enough that some want to change that relationship but they seem to want to do it as if money grows on trees or that it will be diverted from athletic staff salaries. Those salaries are some of the most competitive in the university system. They are not subject to university charter or union. They are free market.
What these "stipend" supporters are advocating in reality is the destruction of inter-collegiate athletics because there simply is not the money to provide for all university athletes. That or they are proposing that "revenue" sports athletes be treated as a higher being that a non-revenue athletes.
I have news for those people, football players do not put in more time than swimmers and there is in our culture a socialist aspect to education that would have to be overcome in order to compensate revenue athletes.
We know math and science teachers and professors are rarer than humanities but they knowing the value of education is in all disciplines, do not weigh their own compensation as supply-demand would dictate.
Does OP think those in the university system would be anymore accepting that a student playing football would get compensated more than a swimmer?
Sam Martini
New member
First off, I am a teacher and my degrees are in education. Judging how I feel about the improtance of academia vs. athletics based on a Yappi post is ludicrous.
From what I understand (and again I may be wrong) all athletes are offered the stipend, from football to golf. If you earned a scholarship, you are entitled to the stipend. Also, I was under the impression that the stipend was an option for the colleges. The NCAA was allowing the colleges to offer up to a 2,000 stipend starting in 2012/2013 per student athlete. That's why I mentioned that it was being used as a recruiting tool.
I dont know how you can say that these coaches are making "competitive" salaries and the colleges cant afford to pay $2,000 stipends per student athlete a year. Who cares whether it is competitive with what other coaches are making? Bottom line is, it's a lot of money . . . which is fine, but dont say there isnt enough money to pay the players.
And just a quick note about the comment made about Chris Weber. This is exactly what I'm talking about with players seeing how much money is being made off them in college and then (wrongly) justifying why they sell their memorabilia. Then we wonder why they get so greedy when they go to the pros. HOWEVER, in regards to the burger comment, no student athlete should be lacking in the food category. These colleges provide sufficient weekly/monthly allowances for the student athletes. Most have swipe cards and at some colleges the swipe cards (which are loaded weekly, monthly or by semesters - use it or lose it) can be used at many local restaurants on campus.
From what I understand (and again I may be wrong) all athletes are offered the stipend, from football to golf. If you earned a scholarship, you are entitled to the stipend. Also, I was under the impression that the stipend was an option for the colleges. The NCAA was allowing the colleges to offer up to a 2,000 stipend starting in 2012/2013 per student athlete. That's why I mentioned that it was being used as a recruiting tool.
I dont know how you can say that these coaches are making "competitive" salaries and the colleges cant afford to pay $2,000 stipends per student athlete a year. Who cares whether it is competitive with what other coaches are making? Bottom line is, it's a lot of money . . . which is fine, but dont say there isnt enough money to pay the players.
And just a quick note about the comment made about Chris Weber. This is exactly what I'm talking about with players seeing how much money is being made off them in college and then (wrongly) justifying why they sell their memorabilia. Then we wonder why they get so greedy when they go to the pros. HOWEVER, in regards to the burger comment, no student athlete should be lacking in the food category. These colleges provide sufficient weekly/monthly allowances for the student athletes. Most have swipe cards and at some colleges the swipe cards (which are loaded weekly, monthly or by semesters - use it or lose it) can be used at many local restaurants on campus.
just a fan
Success is Tradition!
First, it seems that you have a rather myopic view of what student-athletes study as well as their future contributions to society.
You're also overlooking the many kids who, because of an athletic scholarship, are able to attend college and become productive, contributing members of society...kids who otherwise would face an uphill battle of escaping poverty. Are they more deserving than a non-athlete living in poverty? No. But, likewise, a kid attending an elite private high school is no more deserving of an opportunity to attend college than a kid from an impoverished inner-city school.
Second, you're fricken nuts if you think that the finacial challenges that higher education institutions face, the drying up of industrial jobs, and dim prospects of today's young people achieving a middle class standard of living are due to athletic scholarships and stipends.
Greyhound 83
New member
No denying that in the past student athletes got degrees that helped to better themselves and society; Gerald Ford played O-line at Michigan. But to say I am "overlooking kids" when the evidence shows the vast majority are not getting anything more than an "eligibility" degree http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2008-11-18-majors-graphic_N.htm is a faulty argument. Maybe the NCAA should institute mandatory distribution requirements for student athletes to make them more competitive, especially for Grad school. Follow that up with the NCAA, not the schools themselves, paying for the grad school or other post degree training using windfalls from the Men's Basketball tournament and the CWS. Having a bill to pay may force the NCAA to own their football post season by ending bowl cronyism; the windfall from that would net BILLIONS. As it stands now, my scenario is not as "nuts" as it is alleged. The days of "baseline" budgeting at the state level, with annual 10% increases, are gone. States can't print money and their unfunded pension and salary obligations are not going away. Illinois can't even pay its bills on time. It is a zero sum game, if you are going to fund a NEW ENTITLEMENT the money has to come from somewhere. Endowments? The way these grow is by investment and the returns on it; take a look at the last four years, endowments have been reduced, on average, by 25%, making the private schools especially cash strapped. Tuition and fees is the only way to pay for this. If you don't think having to pay for this will not hurt the educational opportunities of the general student you are clearly shortsighted; the effects of the misallocation of resources "to feel better" are all around us, it is time to stop borrowing our way into oblivion with giveaways.
I failed to point out earlier that this argument has become pretty much moot as the piece Twinsburg posted at the beginning reported that 125 schools objected to the $2,000 stipend and Emmert backed down. The same piece also stated that 75 schools are already trying to override the multi-year scholarship edict. I expect more will join when they look at their balance sheets and look at the (Gasp! I'm even mentioning the word) "fairness" to the non-student athlete. Sorry, other educators are not in agreement with you Sam; they have to weigh the real world costs vs. the benefit they would receive. Yes, those money grubbing college and university bosses only care about $$$ and student athletes are pawns. Too bad that perception fails when you consider that coaches, not universities have challenged Title IX. Women's sports don't consistently make money except at UConn and U Tennessee and with their tournament (which only shows a small profit). If it was strictly a business, women's teams would barely limp along. Again, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it and whole lot more than you didn't...
I failed to point out earlier that this argument has become pretty much moot as the piece Twinsburg posted at the beginning reported that 125 schools objected to the $2,000 stipend and Emmert backed down. The same piece also stated that 75 schools are already trying to override the multi-year scholarship edict. I expect more will join when they look at their balance sheets and look at the (Gasp! I'm even mentioning the word) "fairness" to the non-student athlete. Sorry, other educators are not in agreement with you Sam; they have to weigh the real world costs vs. the benefit they would receive. Yes, those money grubbing college and university bosses only care about $$$ and student athletes are pawns. Too bad that perception fails when you consider that coaches, not universities have challenged Title IX. Women's sports don't consistently make money except at UConn and U Tennessee and with their tournament (which only shows a small profit). If it was strictly a business, women's teams would barely limp along. Again, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it and whole lot more than you didn't...
just a fan
Success is Tradition!
Where do you get that "the vast majority" get "eligibility" degrees from that article?
Early in the article, it says "Graduation rates have improved as the rules have phased in over the past few years. Whether that has been due to students taking easier majors has not been studied." The article also states that they were unable to determine whether athletes' majors are disproportionate to the majors of the overall student population.
The USA Today study (loosely used term) was limited to 142 schools that either had a D1 football team or no football team but a top D1 basketball team. Well, that's a really biased sample. Regardless, they weren't able to determine anything other than athletes' tend to show up in clusters of majors. But then, they said, "A cluster isn't necessarily bad." In other words, they found nothing.
Why should there be mandatory distribution requirements? Do colleges have requirements for non-athletes that are any different than the requirements for athletes? Athlete or not, a degree in criminal justice isn't going to make a kid competitive (financially)...so, should we just do away with all majors that fail to allow a kid to do well financially....is that what you're suggesting?
Regardless, I see no reason for the NCAA (rather than colleges) to pay for graduate school for athletes. Admission to graduate school is a competitive process, and the students that have the best portfolio get the scholarships and assistantships. Their athletic status isn't relevant.
LOL, I've been a state or county employee for nearly 25 years....I've never seen anything close to a 10% annual increase. I don't know anyone in the public sector who's obtained increases like that. Regardless, it's not the athletes' fault that universities mismanage their funds. There are very few employees of a college that generate more revenue for the school than their athletes/teams do. If they can't come up with $2000 for their athletes who generate a massive amount of revenue for their schools, then maybe they should pay their staff less, demand more of their faculty (i.e. teach four classes rather than two each semester), attach professors' salary to the revenue that they generate for the university, quit building expensive facilities and use the space they already have, etc.
As I said before, colleges are not fiscally challenged because of their scholarship athletes, the middle class is not shrinking because of scholarship athletes, and endowments aren't down 25% because of scholarship athletes. It's ridiculous to blame all of societies' financial problems on scholarship athletes!
Greyhound 83
New member
The moniker sure fits, being just a fan accurately describes the limits of your ability to grasp an issue beyond your small anecdotal frame of reference.
Do you know anything about statistical sampling? Sorry, you can't find out the majors of 100% of student athletes and most (DIII) are not even getting scholarship money. Again, the money is key; the whole argument centers on the errant perception of all the D1 schools rolling around in $$$ and the downtrodden "student-athlete" being denied the extra money/multi-year scholarship they "need" to balance playing sports with serious studies. The survey USA Today presented is made up of those supposed "Fat Cat" schools whom are perceived as having the wherewithal to pay these NEW ENTITLEMENTS. If the taxpayer is going to have to pay at least a share of this, an examination of what the "student athletes" who would benefit from these payments are studying is warranted. I can cherry pick the article too; the opening paragraph states "When the NCAA adopted new rules in 2003 intended to improve graduation rates of athletes, critics countered that under pressure to keep athletes progressing toward a degree, schools might cut academic corners to help the athletes stay eligible to play." Again, why should a student-athlete get increased benefits over non-student athletes when there isn't even an outcry by the student-athletes that they are getting shortchanged academically? The current outcry is about $$$, not the amount of practice time cutting into study time. Think about it.
As a government worker you should know all about unfunded mandates. If the NCAA wants its member schools to do something, it should provide the means to do it. I guess I am led to believe that instead of the NCAA paying for grad school if a student athlete is accepted, you would rather have them keep paying large salaries in their bloated bureaucracy with their revenues, correct?
As for universities mismanaging funds from the perspective of a state or county employee, maybe the pot is calling the kettle black:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...courage-school-retire-rehire-deals-772772.htm
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...ion-system-1183006.html?viewAsSinglePage=true
Again, your assumption that "There are very few employees of a college that generate more revenue for the school than their athletes/teams do." has been proven wrong in previous posts. Fair to say research funding brought in by professors, institutional research centers and medical centers far outstrips the thousands of dollars the UConn women's basketball team makes. Again, only FOURTEEN D1 Schools made money on athletics in the 2009 survey. There is no $$$ pay for this NEW ENTITLEMENT without raising fees or taxes or cutting non-athletic spending.
You may also want to broaden your perspective regarding government spending:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio..._XPdPEG8atzm1PiyHXOf14K?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=
I guess you guys failed to program your out year budgets as well as the guys in NY, whose annual spending went up 13%! Fact is cuts are coming or taxes are going way up...Is it time for another NEW ENTITLEMENT?!? Maybe the state should pay for the increased money they send to universities to cover this by cutting state employee positions, huh Just a Fan?
Do you know anything about statistical sampling? Sorry, you can't find out the majors of 100% of student athletes and most (DIII) are not even getting scholarship money. Again, the money is key; the whole argument centers on the errant perception of all the D1 schools rolling around in $$$ and the downtrodden "student-athlete" being denied the extra money/multi-year scholarship they "need" to balance playing sports with serious studies. The survey USA Today presented is made up of those supposed "Fat Cat" schools whom are perceived as having the wherewithal to pay these NEW ENTITLEMENTS. If the taxpayer is going to have to pay at least a share of this, an examination of what the "student athletes" who would benefit from these payments are studying is warranted. I can cherry pick the article too; the opening paragraph states "When the NCAA adopted new rules in 2003 intended to improve graduation rates of athletes, critics countered that under pressure to keep athletes progressing toward a degree, schools might cut academic corners to help the athletes stay eligible to play." Again, why should a student-athlete get increased benefits over non-student athletes when there isn't even an outcry by the student-athletes that they are getting shortchanged academically? The current outcry is about $$$, not the amount of practice time cutting into study time. Think about it.
As a government worker you should know all about unfunded mandates. If the NCAA wants its member schools to do something, it should provide the means to do it. I guess I am led to believe that instead of the NCAA paying for grad school if a student athlete is accepted, you would rather have them keep paying large salaries in their bloated bureaucracy with their revenues, correct?
As for universities mismanaging funds from the perspective of a state or county employee, maybe the pot is calling the kettle black:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...courage-school-retire-rehire-deals-772772.htm
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...ion-system-1183006.html?viewAsSinglePage=true
Again, your assumption that "There are very few employees of a college that generate more revenue for the school than their athletes/teams do." has been proven wrong in previous posts. Fair to say research funding brought in by professors, institutional research centers and medical centers far outstrips the thousands of dollars the UConn women's basketball team makes. Again, only FOURTEEN D1 Schools made money on athletics in the 2009 survey. There is no $$$ pay for this NEW ENTITLEMENT without raising fees or taxes or cutting non-athletic spending.
You may also want to broaden your perspective regarding government spending:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio..._XPdPEG8atzm1PiyHXOf14K?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=
I guess you guys failed to program your out year budgets as well as the guys in NY, whose annual spending went up 13%! Fact is cuts are coming or taxes are going way up...Is it time for another NEW ENTITLEMENT?!? Maybe the state should pay for the increased money they send to universities to cover this by cutting state employee positions, huh Just a Fan?
Greyhound, step back from the political nonsense that you're so wrapped up in for a second and answer this.... let's say you're a highly recruited basketball talent and have a scholarship offer from X State University. You accept the scholarship and do so knowing the primary benefit is that your educational costs are covered for the next four to five years. It's an outstanding fortunate break for you as you are an inner-city kid who has worked his tail off to get to the point of being able to acquire that scholarship. If not for the opportunity, you wouldn't have been able to get any post-secondary education as your family could never afford it. Now, you start up at school and are immediately more than full-time busy with conditioning/practices and classes/homework. That being said, you do need some spending money (albeit not a lot as you don't have a lot of time to spend it). Your friends in your dorm all have work study jobs or off-campus jobs whereby they get that little bit of extra money to have while at school. You of course don't have much time for such a job but even if you did, you aren't allowed BY RULE to take those jobs or at least can't without major red tape/processing/etc. So while your friends can afford a pizza on an occasional weekend night or a six pack of drinks for a weekend party. Meanwhile, the school is making money (how much is clearly a matter for debate, but it's more than $0, that's for sure).
Now, while sitting there broke as can be, you have other offers of gifts or money for items given that are completely outside of the rules and you know you shouldn't do, but you're sitting in an extremely stressful situation (balancing your sport's commitments, classes, etc) and broke.
1) Can you blame these kids for at the very least strongly considering taking these slimeballs up on their offers for money?
2) Is it really fair to hamstring these kids that bring so much $$, notoriety, and PR/news coverage to these universities have to sit with absolutely no money or way of earning any? :shrug:
That is what most on here are discussing, not your tirade against all that is extra-curricular and/or the politics of state budgeting/educational funding.
Now, while sitting there broke as can be, you have other offers of gifts or money for items given that are completely outside of the rules and you know you shouldn't do, but you're sitting in an extremely stressful situation (balancing your sport's commitments, classes, etc) and broke.
1) Can you blame these kids for at the very least strongly considering taking these slimeballs up on their offers for money?
2) Is it really fair to hamstring these kids that bring so much $$, notoriety, and PR/news coverage to these universities have to sit with absolutely no money or way of earning any? :shrug:
That is what most on here are discussing, not your tirade against all that is extra-curricular and/or the politics of state budgeting/educational funding.
Greyhound 83
New member
If you spend more money than you take in every year and borrow the difference, while only making interest payments on your debt and not reducing the principal it is eventually called bankruptcy, not political nonsense...Google "Greece" if you need an example.
Definition of ANECDOTAL: based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers
Such a nice example with you X State hooper, but lets get to the facts:
1. In most cases I will not be in a dorm with friends who "all have work study jobs or off-campus jobs whereby they get that little bit of extra money to have while at school." First off, I will be in housing which is reserved for athletes and my dorm mates will mostly all be other jocks (there are isolated examples of integration, but they are few and far between) which is paid for as part of my scholarship (basketball is a full grant in aid sport at the D1 level). I will then look at my student handbook and see all my benefits:http://www.athletics.wsu.edu/arc/Handbook/11 SA Handbook PDF/11 Financial Aid.pdf
Yes, room, meal plan, tuition and books are payed for, along with per-diem for travel and a stipend if I move off campus to my paid for off-campus housing (which most sophomores on up do).
Now those non-student athletes who I don't live around? They are borrowing there way through college: http://www.cnbc.com/id/39911910/ Most middle class students don't receive federal or institutional work study jobs, they are reserved for the neediest students. Student employment? Well for every job opening at 55,000 student X state U there are about six applicants. My non-existent non-athlete friends also realize that to get a job after graduation means they need more than a degree. They need experience via non-paying internships, time consuming campus leadership positions to show managerial and organizational skills and yeah, maybe they need a break also from the dinning hall food (which THEY pay for) too; put it on the charge card and maybe they can pay it off...In 2037.
If a student athlete is "sitting there broke as can be" with all the benefits THEY ARE CURRENTLY PROVIDED and have to take illicit money, then they need ethics and financial management classes , not more money provided by fees paid by other students going into hock for the rest of their lives.
Definition of ANECDOTAL: based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers
Such a nice example with you X State hooper, but lets get to the facts:
1. In most cases I will not be in a dorm with friends who "all have work study jobs or off-campus jobs whereby they get that little bit of extra money to have while at school." First off, I will be in housing which is reserved for athletes and my dorm mates will mostly all be other jocks (there are isolated examples of integration, but they are few and far between) which is paid for as part of my scholarship (basketball is a full grant in aid sport at the D1 level). I will then look at my student handbook and see all my benefits:http://www.athletics.wsu.edu/arc/Handbook/11 SA Handbook PDF/11 Financial Aid.pdf
Yes, room, meal plan, tuition and books are payed for, along with per-diem for travel and a stipend if I move off campus to my paid for off-campus housing (which most sophomores on up do).
Now those non-student athletes who I don't live around? They are borrowing there way through college: http://www.cnbc.com/id/39911910/ Most middle class students don't receive federal or institutional work study jobs, they are reserved for the neediest students. Student employment? Well for every job opening at 55,000 student X state U there are about six applicants. My non-existent non-athlete friends also realize that to get a job after graduation means they need more than a degree. They need experience via non-paying internships, time consuming campus leadership positions to show managerial and organizational skills and yeah, maybe they need a break also from the dinning hall food (which THEY pay for) too; put it on the charge card and maybe they can pay it off...In 2037.
If a student athlete is "sitting there broke as can be" with all the benefits THEY ARE CURRENTLY PROVIDED and have to take illicit money, then they need ethics and financial management classes , not more money provided by fees paid by other students going into hock for the rest of their lives.
I figured you would both write endlessly AGAIN and not answer the question directly. Thanks for proving both points. A kid in college needs SOME extra spending money, regardless of what your high class condescending rear end thinks. I don't support them taking the illegal money, I'm just saying I understand in their situation why some would do it. The rules are the problem not the kids.