NCAA Weighing $2000 Payments for Athletes

[Iceland12]

Here's your power play.

Emmert said he expected all of the Bowl Championship Series conferences to adopt it -- at least those six that get automatic bids to BCS bowl games -- because they have the revenue stream to afford it.

"Will schools underneath that?" he asked. "I don't know. So you don't want to put a conference or a school in a position with a mandatory expense, and the only way to pay for it is to cut scholarships."


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

Boise State disagrees:

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

Kustra also warned that the proposal will give some schools a competitive advantage over others.

"You just heard president Emmert say that some conferences will, some conferences won't. Well gee, I wonder who will, and I wonder who won't," he said to laughter. "I think I know the answer to that. The haves will, and the have-nots will try -- I'll try -- but many will not be able to. And so what you're doing, then, is fueling a little bit more of this BCS/anti-BCS debate." Bosie State belongs to the Mountain West Conference, which does not receive an automatic bid to a BCS bowl game.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

The NCAA and BCS schools are definitely trying to set themselves up to become even more ahead of the pack than smaller conferences. The whole "not FORCING" an institution or conference to adopt the policy just means that entire conferences with the revenue to afford it (tv contracts) will be able to and others won't. As some people have postured: is this something the ATHLETES want or is this something the big conference/institutions want to help give themselves more separation from the smaller schools?

I will again state that I'm vehemently opposed to the additional funds. Slippery slope towards allowing more money, be it from the school or outside sources. Kustra is also spot on with his statements. People complaining about the state of student athletes, claiming they're living below the poverty line, etc need to seriously ask where those students would be if NOT participating in a D-1 sport. For whatever reason - the free education/room/board/supplies/tutors, the opportunity to continue playing the sport they love, the opportunity to advance to a higher level of sport and make big $ thanks to the training, development, and coaching they received, or some combination of the 3 - these students CHOSE to take the scholarship because it was better than their alternative.

If we are supposed to feel bad for athletes that don't have time to get a job (which they do) to cover additional living expenses (in addition to video games, social activities, and other discretionary spending), why aren't people crying out for the same for the rest of the student body. They have to get jobs to pay for their tuition/housing (good luck covering it all with an $8/hour job) AND pay interest on the loans AND still live below that poverty line.

Get real.

 

[MNSpaniel]

Cry me a rainbow

Oh my gosh ... don't these guys realize what they are getting. They are getting a minimum of $100,000 in education at most institutions and much more if they are scholarship at a private college. My son and daughter will each be in debt $50,000 and more when they graduate college. So as they are trying to pay that off on a teacher's salary tell them that the college athlete wasn't receiving anything for their athletic contribution.

 

[GopherInPittsburgh]

The NCAA and BCS schools are definitely trying to set themselves up to become even more ahead of the pack than smaller conferences. The whole "not FORCING" an institution or conference to adopt the policy just means that entire conferences with the revenue to afford it (tv contracts) will be able to and others won't. As some people have postured: is this something the ATHLETES want or is this something the big conference/institutions want to help give themselves more separation from the smaller schools?

I will again state that I'm vehemently opposed to the additional funds. Slippery slope towards allowing more money, be it from the school or outside sources. Kustra is also spot on with his statements. People complaining about the state of student athletes, claiming they're living below the poverty line, etc need to seriously ask where those students would be if NOT participating in a D-1 sport. For whatever reason - the free education/room/board/supplies/tutors, the opportunity to continue playing the sport they love, the opportunity to advance to a higher level of sport and make big $ thanks to the training, development, and coaching they received, or some combination of the 3 - these students CHOSE to take the scholarship because it was better than their alternative.

If we are supposed to feel bad for athletes that don't have time to get a job (which they do) to cover additional living expenses (in addition to video games, social activities, and other discretionary spending), why aren't people crying out for the same for the rest of the student body. They have to get jobs to pay for their tuition/housing (good luck covering it all with an $8/hour job) AND pay interest on the loans AND still live below that poverty line.



Get real.

this

 

[WAGopher]

Rail Baron is correct that it's not the athletes that are pushing for this, but rather the schools and conferences that can afford it. The advantage to these schools is being able to use the extra money to attract the good athletes that may be thinking of signing with a non BCS school. If this passes, I foresee a number of lawsuits.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

Rail Baron is correct that it's not the athletes that are pushing for this, but rather the schools and conferences that can afford it. The advantage to these schools is being able to use the extra money to attract the good athletes that may be thinking of signing with a non BCS school. If this passes, I foresee a number of lawsuits.

It's sad to me that an anti-trust lawsuit would have to be the reason it would be blocked or stopped rather than just common sense and reason.

Especially since if pushed hard enough, the BCS schools could just say tits to the NCAA and form their own association whereby everyone included can do it, meaning there is no antitrust anymore. Wonder if there are any legal ramifications to that?