NCAA Allows Uo to $2,000 per year for Student Athletes.

[RailBaronYarr]

Story

My thoughts are well documented so I'll leave it at this: Slippery slope and how long until it's $4,000, $20,000, $50,000?

 

[olythegoalie31]

"Institutions will not be required to offer the benefit, but conferences are encouraged to consider common application within their membership."

Am I missing something here? What's the point of mandating it if they're not required or enforcing it? I know most of the BCS conferences will still do it probably, but this sounds more like the NCAA is just telling schools this is something they "should" do as opposed to something they "have" to do.

 

[howeda7]

Great they left it optional. I'm guessing Joel will 'feel it's not necessary.'

 

[Iceland12]

"Institutions will not be required to offer the benefit, but conferences are encouraged to consider common application within their membership."

Am I missing something here? What's the point of mandating it if they're not required or enforcing it? I know most of the BCS conferences will still do it probably, but this sounds more like the NCAA is just telling schools this is something they "should" do as opposed to something they "have" to do.

The rule is there to hammer the non-BCS schools. It's designed to make sure that all the top high school talent goes to the schools with the cash. By leaving it "optional" the Conferences with the big TV contracts can say that they aren't making the smaller schools come up with the money. It's their choice.

 

[Iceland12]

They also made some academic changes.

The board also decided to phase in the new Academic Progress Rate cutline over four years. In August, presidents approved increasing the cutline from the current 900 to 930. Schools that fail to meet the benchmark will be ineligible for postseason play.

On Thursday, the board approved a measure to use 900 as the cutline starting in 2012-13. The cutline will increase to 930 in the fourth year. It also adopted a measure to include the rule in bowl licensing agreements, meaning it would apply to the 120-member Football Bowl Subdivision -- the only sport the NCAA for which does not sanction a postseason tourney.

In addition, the board agreed to increase eligibility requirements for incoming freshmen and junior college transfers. Both groups needed a 2.0 GPA to be eligible. Now, high school grads will need to maintain a 2.3 GPA in the 16 core courses and take 10 of those core classes before their senior year. Junior college players will have to maintain a 2.5 GPA and the NCAA will limit the number of physical education credits that will count toward eligibility.

 

[AO54]

Story

My thoughts are well documented so I'll leave it at this: Slippery slope and how long until it's $4,000, $20,000, $50,000?

What's next? Paying players what they're worth and repealing Title IX? I'll occupy Coffman if they don't build another billion dollar boathouse!

 

[RodentRampage]

The one trick pony rides again.

 

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

I remember reading in a Shooter column that there were about 300 full scholarship equivalants at the U. If you get a 1/8 scholarship, then you would get $250 in cash during the year.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

What's next? Paying players what they're worth and repealing Title IX? I'll occupy Coffman if they don't build another billion dollar boathouse!

I guess I'll pose the question again... Is this really stemming from the student-athletes? Are we seeing a huge outcry from the NVCAA players that they are underpaid, that they aren't getting "their share" of the millions of dollars being given to the university that is willing to give them a free education? I truly see this as a play by the NCAA to allow the big schools to continue to attract talent, and not just in BBall/Football, but in other sports they want to continue pursuing. They play up the fact that it isn't mandated as a good thing, but reality is that only the big schools will be able to afford doing it. Even then, a conference may make it a policy (as a poster pointed out the NCAA encouraged) which would make some schools like Indiana, even MN who barely break even in a tougher position.

Reality? I 100% believe that the students do not need paying simply because the sport they play is what is driving the revenue for their university. Look up the charter/missions for schools. I guarantee they'll all include something of the following: Research, discovery, teaching, learning, outreach, public service. All that money the U "makes off of" football and basketball players funnels right back in to the athletic department (and if the school is lucky the general fund) to fund all of those things. Allowing others the possibility to play and develop at THEIR sport even though it doesn't generate revenue, funding their scholarships, funding research, keeping tuition costs down for their fellow students (who by the way are and become the fans that help drive the revenue of THEIR program to begin with), etc etc. In return for playing a sport that drives revenue, they get a 100% free education, books, rooming, food, and tutors at a total value of $25,000+ per year (and MUCH more if you factor in they never have to pay a dime of interest over their careers). They get to play a sport they love, continue learning at it, free access to top-notch workout facilities, and a chance at a pro career (in addition to a career in the education of their choice).

I ask this: what is their alternative? Is what they get not sufficient? They have a few: attend a D2 or D3 school where they don't generate revenue and thus aren't "taken advantage of," and they can still be scouted for the NFL/NBA and get an education, maybe even for free (depending on the school/# schollys allowed). They could also just attend college like the rest of us schleps who get to pay that money each year for the right to learn, get a job paying $8/hour and work 40 hours/week ALL year and still come away with loans (a good amount). Or they could not go to school at all.. try to get in to a sport or career without an education. What is the best scenario here? Truth is that this $2,000 is a slope that will become a much bigger fund for the athletes that is entirely undeserved and does not fit the model of equity as I know schools preach. If the cost of attendance is truly higher than what the U or other schools state (as in the money any other student gets in loans/grants won't cover soap, toothpaste, real food, etc) then they need to up their announced cost of attendance. Like, for everyone so none of the other students get swindled and realize they can't afford anything more than a loaf of bread a week.

You know, that damn boathouse gets a lot of flak from people who love to only want 2 sports on campus, but here are some facts about it: "The Gopher boathouse cost is estimated to be $ 4.6 million with $1.5 million to be raised privately by intercollegiate athletics. The Gophers have a lead gift of $125,000 dedicated to the facility. The remaining money will include residual dollars in the amount of $2.35 million from central administration, which was originally earmarked for women’s athletics prior to the merger of the two departments in 2002. An additional $750,000 is also contributed from the University of Minnesota Recreational Sports."

Seems like it wasn't that much of a cost burden on the U. And you know what? I won't pay to go see a rowing meet, but I'm damn glad we have all these programs. If I have a daughter who wants to play softball, a son who wants to run cross country, etc I want to support them and know that there's always a level of competition and training higher that they can achieve to be at. The U funds all sorts of things like that academically (with taxpayer money, by the way) yet no one complains that we still have dance, theater, philosophy majors that don't generate anything in our economy the way sports, manufacturing, software, etc do. CAN EM IF THEY AREN'T MONEY MAKERS!!!! Jeez.

 

[popeyoung5]

Does this mean Bif on the tennis team with mega wealthy parents gets the $$$$$ as well? You should have to show need per the financial aid office.Just jam an icepick in my eye.

 

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

Does this mean Bif on the tennis team with mega wealthy parents gets the $$$$$ as well? You should have to show need per the financial aid office.Just jam an icepick in my eye.

Yes, Biff will get a proportionate amount based on the % of his scholarship.

 

[RodentRampage]

Why should we presume that this "Biff on the tennis team" has wealthy parents? A lot of people play tennis, we aren't talking about polo.

 

[stcgopher]

Hold on, before we get too deep into this, can someone please confirm that we indeed spent $5m on a fuc&ing boathouse.....

 

[AO54]

I guess I'll pose the question again... Is this really stemming from the student-athletes? Are we seeing a huge outcry from the NVCAA players that they are underpaid, that they aren't getting "their share" of the millions of dollars being given to the university that is willing to give them a free education? I truly see this as a play by the NCAA to allow the big schools to continue to attract talent, and not just in BBall/Football, but in other sports they want to continue pursuing. They play up the fact that it isn't mandated as a good thing, but reality is that only the big schools will be able to afford doing it. Even then, a conference may make it a policy (as a poster pointed out the NCAA encouraged) which would make some schools like Indiana, even MN who barely break even in a tougher position.

So you mean Ohio State, Alabama and Miami are going to have an advantage in recruiting over Ball State? Big change there. I would doubt the Big Ten would force Indiana to pay the extra $2000 if it didn't want to. Does the Big Ten force each school to fund a certain number of scholarships?

Reality? I 100% believe that the students do not need paying simply because the sport they play is what is driving the revenue for their university. Look up the charter/missions for schools. I guarantee they'll all include something of the following: Research, discovery, teaching, learning, outreach, public service. All that money the U "makes off of" football and basketball players funnels right back in to the athletic department (and if the school is lucky the general fund) to fund all of those things. Allowing others the possibility to play and develop at THEIR sport even though it doesn't generate revenue, funding their scholarships, funding research, keeping tuition costs down for their fellow students (who by the way are and become the fans that help drive the revenue of THEIR program to begin with), etc etc. In return for playing a sport that drives revenue, they get a 100% free education, books, rooming, food, and tutors at a total value of $25,000+ per year (and MUCH more if you factor in they never have to pay a dime of interest over their careers). They get to play a sport they love, continue learning at it, free access to top-notch workout facilities, and a chance at a pro career (in addition to a career in the education of their choice).

So it's a forced charity, and the charity happens to be for mostly rich suburban kids who play softball and cross country, and the administrators and coaches who run those sports.

I ask this: what is their alternative? Is what they get not sufficient? They have a few: attend a D2 or D3 school where they don't generate revenue and thus aren't "taken advantage of," and they can still be scouted for the NFL/NBA and get an education, maybe even for free (depending on the school/# schollys allowed). They could also just attend college like the rest of us schleps who get to pay that money each year for the right to learn, get a job paying $8/hour and work 40 hours/week ALL year and still come away with loans (a good amount). Or they could not go to school at all.. try to get in to a sport or career without an education. What is the best scenario here? Truth is that this $2,000 is a slope that will become a much bigger fund for the athletes that is entirely undeserved and does not fit the model of equity as I know schools preach. If the cost of attendance is truly higher than what the U or other schools state (as in the money any other student gets in loans/grants won't cover soap, toothpaste, real food, etc) then they need to up their announced cost of attendance. Like, for everyone so none of the other students get swindled and realize they can't afford anything more than a loaf of bread a week.

There is no other college sports system that could pay them what they are worth. The BCS can't break away from the NCAA and start disregarding title IX.

You know, that damn boathouse gets a lot of flak from people who love to only want 2 sports on campus, but here are some facts about it: "The Gopher boathouse cost is estimated to be $ 4.6 million with $1.5 million to be raised privately by intercollegiate athletics. The Gophers have a lead gift of $125,000 dedicated to the facility. The remaining money will include residual dollars in the amount of $2.35 million from central administration, which was originally earmarked for women’s athletics prior to the merger of the two departments in 2002. An additional $750,000 is also contributed from the University of Minnesota Recreational Sports."

The boathouse is simply a symbol as to the hole that the $25 Million in profit that the U annually generates from football, basketball and hockey gets thrown into.

Seems like it wasn't that much of a cost burden on the U. And you know what? I won't pay to go see a rowing meet, but I'm damn glad we have all these programs. If I have a daughter who wants to play softball, a son who wants to run cross country, etc I want to support them and know that there's always a level of competition and training higher that they can achieve to be at. The U funds all sorts of things like that academically (with taxpayer money, by the way) yet no one complains that we still have dance, theater, philosophy majors that don't generate anything in our economy the way sports, manufacturing, software, etc do. CAN EM IF THEY AREN'T MONEY MAKERS!!!! Jeez.

So your daughter would quit softball if she didn't receive a subsidy paid for by the football program? How in the world did she play softball before attending college? How does any club sport compete nationally without scholarships?

 

[RodentRampage]

What makes you think that softball is elite sport played only by wealthy suburbanites? Is a softball glove really that expensive? This is getting too easy.

Here's a link to an article disputing the claim that Title IX is an obstacle to paying players.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6735469

Myth 2: Title IX outlaws paying players.



Title IX does not require identical spending on men's and women's sports, but it is true that the letter of Title IX law requires that spending on women's sports closely track spending on men's. However, in practice this is simply does not happen. All 73 schools in BCS AQ conferences (including seven non-football schools) spend more on men's sports than on women's, and almost all of them provide disproportionate student aid to men over women. Title IX also considers coaching pay a form of athletic equity and yet all 73 major programs pay their men's teams' coaches more than their women's teams'. In practice, Title IX does not ensure that every dollar spent on men is matched by a dollar spent on women.


But if each new dollar of spending were required to go equally to men and women, the system would function like a payroll or sales tax. Pay a QB $50,000? Then pay $50,000 to women's programs, too. This would keep salaries down but not eliminate them, just as cigarette taxes don't eliminate cigarette sales. And it would be a boon to women's sports as well.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

So it's a forced charity, and the charity happens to be for mostly rich suburban kids who play softball and cross country, and the administrators and coaches who run those sports.

Who exactly is forcing them to apply to colleges to get a free education to play a sport they love? I'm sorry I'm also glad that you've blanketed every non-football and basketball program at all D-1 schools as being filled entirely with rich suburban kids. As if it would matter if they were rich or not. How many middle class-to-rich suburban kids are on our football team on scholarship?

There is no other college sports system that could pay them what they are worth. The BCS can't break away from the NCAA and start disregarding title IX.

So if there is no other sports system that could sustain that level of play to that number of fans to be able to pay them... explain to me how they are "worth" more than what they are getting? If it truly was a "fair market" that they deserve all this money as you say then there would be at LEAST another option, right?

The boathouse is simply a symbol as to the hole that the $25 Million in profit that the U annually generates from football, basketball and hockey gets thrown into.

Right, and I continue to fail to see a problem with it. Why don't we stop funding the university with state money entirely? That way students can pay the "value" of their education? And while we're at it we should stop funding scholarships for people in need (racial, financial), stop having ALL programs that don't benefit our economy, etc etc.

So your daughter would quit softball if she didn't receive a subsidy paid for by the football program? How in the world did she play softball before attending college? How does any club sport compete nationally without scholarships?

I never said she wouldn't. But I enjoy that people who play a sport can continue to play it and we have a system in this country that allows for many programs in all regions to have teams. You're exactly right - most teams at the high school or below level don't travel. The good ones that do compete nationally require money from the family to travel places. This makes it difficult for some families to take part in (though not impossible). The benefit of a D-1 university level sport is that this isn't asked of a student anymore. They aren't asked to pay for their uniforms, bats, balls, and travel costs which allows anyone to play, even some on scholarship. In your world they'd pay for school like everyone else (don't fund them with a scholarship since that money comes from football revenue!) AND their costs. I know this first hand as my wife was a softball player at UST. Why is it wrong to use revenue from the hard-working football players to pay for non-rev sports but it's totally ok to take money from the state's population to fund a university that their own kids may never go to??

 

[Sportsfan24]

“I guess I'll pose the question again... Is this really stemming from the student-athletes? Are we seeing a huge outcry from the NVCAA players that they are underpaid, that they aren't getting "their share" of the millions of dollars being given to the university that is willing to give them a free education? I truly see this as a play by the NCAA to allow the big schools to continue to attract talent, and not just in BBall/Football, but in other sports they want to continue pursuing. They play up the fact that it isn't mandated as a good thing, but reality is that only the big schools will be able to afford doing it. Even then, a conference may make it a policy (as a poster pointed out the NCAA encouraged) which would make some schools like Indiana, even MN who barely break even in a tougher position.”

They aren’t being given anything. They earn the scholarships byway of the millions of dollars they generate. Athletes in non revenue generating sports are the ones being “given” a free education. And for that they should thank the football and basketball players. Where is the stemming from? People within the ranks of those who are making a great living off the players know it’s the right thing to do.

“Reality? I 100% believe that the students do not need paying simply because the sport they play is what is driving the revenue for their university. Look up the charter/missions for schools. I guarantee they'll all include something of the following: Research, discovery, teaching, learning, outreach, public service. All that money the U "makes off of" football and basketball players funnels right back in to the athletic department (and if the school is lucky the general fund) to fund all of those things. Allowing others the possibility to play and develop at THEIR sport even though it doesn't generate revenue, funding their scholarships, funding research, keeping tuition costs down for their fellow students (who by the way are and become the fans that help drive the revenue of THEIR program to begin with), etc etc. In return for playing a sport that drives revenue, they get a 100% free education, books, rooming, food, and tutors at a total value of $25,000+ per year (and MUCH more if you factor in they never have to pay a dime of interest over their careers). They get to play a sport they love, continue learning at it, free access to top-notch workout facilities, and a chance at a pro career (in addition to a career in the education of their choice).”

I’m pretty sure the writers of those charters/mission statements didn’t foresee the present landscape in regard to revenues being generated by some of the student athletes.

“I ask this: what is their alternative? Is what they get not sufficient? They have a few: attend a D2 or D3 school where they don't generate revenue and thus aren't "taken advantage of," and they can still be scouted for the NFL/NBA and get an education, maybe even for free (depending on the school/# schollys allowed). They could also just attend college like the rest of us schleps who get to pay that money each year for the right to learn, get a job paying $8/hour and work 40 hours/week ALL year and still come away with loans (a good amount). Or they could not go to school at all.. try to get in to a sport or career without an education. What is the best scenario here? Truth is that this $2,000 is a slope that will become a much bigger fund for the athletes that is entirely undeserved and does not fit the model of equity as I know schools preach. If the cost of attendance is truly higher than what the U or other schools state (as in the money any other student gets in loans/grants won't cover soap, toothpaste, real food, etc) then they need to up their announced cost of attendance. Like, for everyone so none of the other students get swindled and realize they can't afford anything more than a loaf of bread a week.”

Or, you schleps as say could EARN a full ride scholarship (or at least what passes for a full ride)? Jealousy can be so ugly. The fact of the matter is football and basketball players are really only student athletes when it comes to their compensation, aside from that they are professional athletes.

“You know, that damn boathouse gets a lot of flak from people who love to only want 2 sports on campus, but here are some facts about it: "The Gopher boathouse cost is estimated to be $ 4.6 million with $1.5 million to be raised privately by intercollegiate athletics. The Gophers have a lead gift of $125,000 dedicated to the facility. The remaining money will include residual dollars in the amount of $2.35 million from central administration, which was originally earmarked for women’s athletics prior to the merger of the two departments in 2002. An additional $750,000 is also contributed from the University of Minnesota Recreational Sports."

I have no issue with the boat house; I believe it adds to the culture of higher education.

“Seems like it wasn't that much of a cost burden on the U. And you know what? I won't pay to go see a rowing meet, but I'm damn glad we have all these programs. If I have a daughter who wants to play softball, a son who wants to run cross country, etc I want to support them and know that there's always a level of competition and training higher that they can achieve to be at. The U funds all sorts of things like that academically (with taxpayer money, by the way) yet no one complains that we still have dance, theater, philosophy majors that don't generate anything in our economy the way sports, manufacturing, software, etc do. CAN EM IF THEY AREN'T MONEY MAKERS!!!! Jeez.”

Agreed, however I would add; just like we recognize the men who coach basketball and football have more value and therefore are compensated differently than other university employees, so should the students who play football and basketball. I’m referring to actual full ride scholarships (not paychecks) and the university picking up the bill instead of you and me (no pell grants for athletes playing revenue generating sports).