Big 10 discusses a living expenses stipend for varsity athletes

[max4buffs]

I gotta agree that this will not end well. The states will have the final word in this. State "public" Universities are funded by us, the taxpayers. I believe I read an article on here the other day about some county in Texas voting down a tax raise for education while voting for a tax increase for a new high school stadium. What do you think this proposal will lead to? The legislatures of the state determines funding for state universities, not just here, but in every state. Public "state" universities will be hung out to dry while private universities will run away, or those states where "football" comes first. I'm not sure if any of you watched the caucuses for Governor this last election cycle. Dan Maes was questioning why tax payers are funding 5 public universities within such a small vicinity of "Denver" and even went as far as mentioning eliminating a "few" state universities. In a tough economy, it is going to be impossible for any politician, repub or dem, to ask taxpayers to fund more for higher education, and thats where the money would have to come from, us the taxpayers. Whether or not you want to argue if it will come from a TV contract or not is mute. I guarantee you the state legislatures will count it in with the funds the schools are using regardless. I am not saying I am for or against this, I just know that this will not end well if it happens.

 

[GregInArlington]

I don't understand why this is something that an individual conference would be allowed to consider on its own...wouldn't something like this have to be decided on by the NCAA Division I Committee???

This is what I was thinking. This gives a monetary competitive advantage to students who choose Big 10 schools over the 1000 other NCAA institutions. This will not fly. However, I do think it is a good idea by the Big 10, this may help give student athletes a bigger piece of the pie that they earn. This is the direction college athletics are heading, someone has to start the process - props to the big 10 for at least brining it up.

 

[Buffnik]

I don't understand why this is something that an individual conference would be allowed to consider on its own...wouldn't something like this have to be decided on by the NCAA Division I Committee???

They couldn't. The Big 10 is opening the discussion and inviting other conferences to weigh in. Doing this as a conference would be considered major NCAA violations. The only way this can move forward as more than an idea is if the NCAA rules get changed under pressure from the Big 6 conferences or if the Big 6 leave the NCAA and form another association that allows it.

 

[Buffnik]

This has got legs.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/15079622/sec-commish-slive-open-to-talk-about-full-cost-scholarships

SEC commissioner Mike Slive told CBSSports.com Thursday afternoon that he "looks forward" to the discussion on whether or not to increase the value of athletic scholarships to cover "the full cost of attendance."

"I have long thought that we should revisit the limitations on the current scholarship model and perhaps expand it to cover the full cost of attendance," Slive said from his office in Birmingham. "I look forward to that discussion."

"I fully support studying the impact of increasing the grant in aid package for student-athletes," Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott told CBSSports.com's Dennis Dodd. "We have not had any discussion on earmarking funds for this purpose."

Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe said "This is a topic that BCS commissioners discussed at recent meetings and one that we agreed to review with our respective member institutions at spring conference meetings, which I intend to do at the upcoming annual Big 12 meetings."

Either the NCAA is going to change the rules to benefit the big dogs or the big dogs will move on. Mark it. This is just the beginning.

 

[Tractor]

This is interesting. I do NOT have a good feeling about this. I get that being a student athlete now-a-days is a full time year round job. I am even ok with the idea of allowing them a stipend. If this is implemented correctly, it could be successful. but there are many hurtles

I'm REALLY REALLY REALLY relunctant to have that be paid by the individual universities. It should come directly from the conferences. They know how many student atheletes are on scholarship for each school. This needs to be extremely transparent. Schools like Stanford, which don't discluse their expendatures would have the ability to give any additional amount without us really knowing.

I also wonder about the value of the stipend as somebody above mentioned. $500 / month will get you many a case of PBR in Stillwater, but you're gonna have a tough time buying new shoes in LA. How often will it have to be adjusted? How much advance warnings will universities have before a $25/student/month increase occurs?

Walk ons? PWOs? They getting the shaft? Band members? My GPA was easily .7 lower every fall than spring. We miss classes for tournaments/away games/bowl games (hopefully the ones around Jan 10th). Do we get a stipend now?

Can a player lose his stipend if he violates team rules? DUI = Suspended with pay? Without pay?

There's a LOT that needs to be hashed out before this can happen. I can see benefits to it, but at the moment, I'm VEEEEERRRRRYYY Leary of this idea.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Absolutely NO to band stipends...sorry.

 

[ScottyBuff]

So, basically a booster will now be encouraged to donate to the "AD Stipend Fund" so that his one-time "cash envelope" is now tax-deductible, but going to the same purpose in the end. brilliant!

IMO, the current BCS model will be ending soon. too much controversy and "not fair" rhetoric that has been threatening lawsuits for years.

The "BCS Commissioners" will simply go back to the old way of doing business: auto-bid to big time bowls with no access (and no cash flow) to the smaller conferences. The revenue gap will increase even further without the BCS distribution to the "non-AQ" conferences.

At least this will be threatened to those schools to gain support for them to approve the "living expense" proposal.

The Boise State's and CSU's of the world have far more to lose if they were cut off from getting BCS money and access, than they would if schools were allowed to pay stipends.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

How are schools like CSU and Boise going to be able to afford $1,000,000+ in stipends on an annual basis?

That's 5% of CSU's entire athletic department budget.

 

[sackman]

How are schools like CSU and Boise going to be able to afford $1,000,000+ in stipends on an annual basis?

That's 5% of CSU's entire athletic department budget.

It's not the schools that will be paying it. It's the conferences.

 

[SINKRATZ]

It's not the schools that will be paying it. It's the conferences.

From money that would otherwise be distributed to the schools, so same pot of money.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

It's not the schools that will be paying it. It's the conferences.

OK... So how is the MWC conference going to afford $10,000,000+ a year to pay these stipends?

The ONLY way any of this would work would be for the NCAA to split, with there becoming an "A" league - comprised of the largest financed athletic department (Texas, Michigan, most SEC schools, etc.) and then a "B" league comprised of everyone else.

 

[sackman]

OK... So how is the MWC conference going to afford $10,000,000+ a year to pay these stipends?

It's not. This is a move to separate the 4-5 superconferences from the rest of the NCAA. The Pac 12, Big 10, SEC, etc won't be in the NCAA anymore. It won't matter what the MWC does.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

It's not. This is a move to separate the 4-5 superconferences from the rest of the NCAA. The Pac 12, Big 10, SEC, etc won't be in the NCAA anymore. It won't matter what the MWC does.

I sincerely hope that doesn't happen. Part of what makes sports great is when the little guy (Boise State, Utah, TCU, etc.) are able to beat the giant. It doesn't happen every day, and it won't happen EVER if the big conference split from the smaller ones. Split apart and there would be significant losses in revenue, it would be very difficult to schedule (no more cupcakes) and the post season would be dramatically different. What about licensing? What about merchandise? Everything associated with the NCAA = gone? Bad idea, imo.

I also think this idea is very football centric - probably because that is where the majority of the money comes from. The NCAA isn't just about football. There are a lot more than 85 football players at most NCAA schools. The NCAA basketball tournament, for example, is not a product of any conference - and it generates revenue of $775 million per year.

 

[sackman]

I sincerely hope that doesn't happen. Part of what makes sports great is when the little guy (Boise State, Utah, TCU, etc.) are able to beat the giant. It doesn't happen every day, and it won't happen EVER if the big conference split from the smaller ones. Split apart and there would be significant losses in revenue, it would be very difficult to schedule (no more cupcakes) and the post season would be dramatically different. What about licensing? What about merchandise? Everything associated with the NCAA = gone? Bad idea, imo.

I also think this idea is very football centric - probably because that is where the majority of the money comes from. The NCAA isn't just about football. There are a lot more than 85 football players at most NCAA schools. The NCAA basketball tournament, for example, is not a product of any conference - and it generates revenue of $775 million per year.

I see the good and the bad in this. I freaking hate the NCAA, and would really like to have a more reasonable governing body. What the NCAA did to CU over the training table "incident" while they failed to do anything at all to OSU for the exact same thing, coupled with their dictatorial insistance that Jeremy Bloom not take endorsement deals for his Skiing were inexcusable, IMO. On the other hand, it's said that you're better off with the devil you know than the devil you don't. We know where we stand in the pecking order of college athletics now. Once the NCAA is gone (or rendered impotent) who knows where we will stack up? And I agree that this proposal is opening up a can of worms.

 

[ScottyBuff]

How are schools like CSU and Boise going to be able to afford $1,000,000+ in stipends on an annual basis?

That's 5% of CSU's entire athletic department budget.

If they can't afford it then they won't. Just like they can't afford to build a 100,000 seat stadium.

That is the Big Ten's (and now the SEC and Pac 12's) real drive here. If you have the money to help a student pay "living expenses" then great, if not then you are "tier 2" and the "tier 1" teams will get the pick of recruits once again.

Clearly the MWC, WAC, and most Conference USA teams won't be able to afford it. Can the Big East?