NCAA's Emmert in favor of "payout" to athletes

#27
#27
#1ArencibiaFan said:
What do you mean per month? Food money?
Click to expand...

I thought they was given a stiped each month and if they lived below what they was given they kept the money? since they shouldn't have very many expenses that should be most the money. even there off campus apartment should be covered.
 
#28
#28
About time is all I can say. It's not just to prevent taking money from occurring, although it is going to do just that in many cases. It's to give a basis for being tougher on those that abuse the issue. There will be much less tolerance and tougher penalties going forward if it happens - and that is a really good thing. The schools will have to tighten it up in the enforcement area or else there will be no mercy come judgment time.
 
#29
#29
Probably a good move. Its not meant to address major money transactions that have and will continue to take place with some players.
 
#30
#30
#1ArencibiaFan said:
They payment would have to come from the NCAA. Only 10-15 athletic departments make money. But I do like the idea.

Really, they should be cutting coaches pay and giving it to the athletes.
Click to expand...

This. Granted, not every coach is making millions.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#32
#32
Dbake005 said:
Free education, free food, free gear not enough?
Click to expand...

I keep hearing that, and I understand, and yeah, they can do Pell grants, I guess, but $2K a year, what's that, maybe $800/ semester with $400 for summer?

If it keeps some athletes --and some programs --from getting in trouble for selling their tickets, then I say sure.

And no, of course it wouldn't even register on the radar of the Cam Newton's of this world.
 
#34
#34
#1ArencibiaFan said:
Not every college athlete is on a full ride. And even with a full ride there are plenty of expenses.
Click to expand...

But a whole lot of them are.

And I know it's different at smaller schools, but a lot of them get whatever they want as far as gear and food goes.

I go back and forth on this.
 
#35
#35
Dbake005 said:
But a whole lot of them are.

And I know it's different at smaller schools, but a lot of them get whatever they want as far as gear and food goes.

I go back and forth on this.
Click to expand...

It's actually a small percentage that get whatever they want. There's also a whole lot that aren't on a full ride. And they only get food when the travel, not free meals during the week, at least they aren't supposed to.

Athletes don't have time to work extra jobs to make the little extra money for food, gas, movies, etc. They deserve a little stipend.
 
#36
#36
#1ArencibiaFan said:
It's actually a small percentage that get whatever they want. There's also a whole lot that aren't on a full ride. And they only get food when the travel, not free meals during the week, at least they aren't supposed to.

Athletes don't have time to work extra jobs to make the little extra money for food, gas, movies, etc. They deserve a little stipend.
Click to expand...

Almost all of them on any sort of scholarship get meal plan money, do they not? And some schools that meal plan is free buffet-style, while 'regular' students pay by the item.

I dunno the ins and outs, so I'm not bashing either side. :hi:
 
#37
#37
This is idiotic in every way, and could well lead to many programs dropping football entirely.

Let's start with some basic math. D-1A teams have 85 players on scholarship, plus 20 more walk-ons who are non-scholarship. Just providing those 85 scholarship players with this extra stipend would cost an additional $170,000. Of course, legally the schools can't provide this for one sport and not for another....and they sure as hell can't provide them for men and not for women...so you're looking at, bare minimum, an additional $500,000 being laid out every single year.

This could absolutely kill the smaller programs like the MAC and Sun Belt. Schools like Kent State and Akron either lose money or barely scrape by, and now adding all of this on might just be enough to make the administrators say that enough is enough.

Here, if you want to see what schools are making and spending, look it up here. It's from 2004-05, but the finances haven't truly changed that much at the smaller schools.
NCAA Financial Reports Database | IndyStar.com

Notice that when you punch in a larger school, the football profits (click "expense statement", then look at the bottom where it says "expense to revenue difference") are massive....and yet the athletic department revenues are not. That's a direct result of football and basketball offsetting the losses of all the other sports, so even Texas, Tennessee, Ohio State, and Auburn aren't really making much of anything.

So in order to pay for this additional paycheck (and that's what it is), either ticket prices will have to be raised, donors will be asked to cough up the difference, or student fees will have to be raised. That's all well and good at the larger schools, but the smaller ones...good luck with that. Look at Kent State and Eastern Michigan, who combined don't have $500,000 in football ticket sales for the entire year. Or look at West Virginia, posting a loss of over $2,000,000.
 
Last edited:
#39
#39
therealUT said:
Adios, Mid-Majors, it was nice knowing you...
Click to expand...


Im guessing this leads to:

1) revenue sharing. The schools will have to turn the money over to tNCAA, who will then distribute the money back to the schools.

Top Tier schools will pay more than 2000 per athlete while schools like Kent St, and Central MI will pay less. The NCAA will keep $1 per athlete to pay for admin fees.

2) Schools cutting more mens sports, so they can cut womens sports, so they can save money.

d) the ruination of college athletics.


My kid is on the Novice Rowing team at UT. Even though she doesnt necessarily need it, she will have to get the same money as yer starting Quarterback.

Good luck with that. I enjoyed college sports while they lasted. Will have to go back to watching HS sports until this all trickles down to them as well.
 
#40
#40
GatorBill said:
Im guessing this leads to:

1) revenue sharing. The schools will have to turn the money over to tNCAA, who will then distribute the money back to the schools.

Top Tier schools will pay more than 2000 per athlete while schools like Kent St, and Central MI will pay less. The NCAA will keep $1 per athlete to pay for admin fees.

2) Schools cutting more mens sports, so they can cut womens sports, so they can save money.

d) the ruination of college athletics.


My kid is on the Novice Rowing team at UT. Even though she doesnt necessarily need it, she will have to get the same money as yer starting Quarterback.

Good luck with that. I enjoyed college sports while they lasted. Will have to go back to watching HS sports until this all trickles down to them as well.
Click to expand...

You bring up something interesting with rowing/crew. As a sport that's fairly low-cost to maintain, it's ideal for maintaining a Title IX numbers balance. Since the Tower Amendment is not actually part of the law itself, schools are always looking for ways to balance without running the risk of the lawsuits that were filed primarily from 1998-2004 over cutting of mens' sports. There's no better way to do that than by adding female numbers to a theoretically limitless sport like rowing/crew.

But at the end of the day, given the choice of keeping the existing structure with an extra $2K per athlete or of cutting football entirely and thus being able to cut 85 womens' scholarships as well, what's a small school going to do?
 
#42
#42
If the ncaa goons are now willing to part with 2000 dollars per athlete, then you know they're really raking in multi-millions from the labor of said athletes.
 
#44
#44
GatorBill said:
Im guessing this leads to:

1) revenue sharing. The schools will have to turn the money over to tNCAA, who will then distribute the money back to the schools.

Top Tier schools will pay more than 2000 per athlete while schools like Kent St, and Central MI will pay less. The NCAA will keep $1 per athlete to pay for admin fees.

2) Schools cutting more mens sports, so they can cut womens sports, so they can save money.

d) the ruination of college athletics.


My kid is on the Novice Rowing team at UT. Even though she doesnt necessarily need it, she will have to get the same money as yer starting Quarterback.

Good luck with that. I enjoyed college sports while they lasted. Will have to go back to watching HS sports until this all trickles down to them as well.
Click to expand...

Or it could come from the NCAA and their billion dollar TV deals.

I do agree that if it is on the school to pay the kids the 2K, mid-majors are done.
 
#46
#46
volinbham said:
What's Title IX have to say about the matter - must a school pay all athletes the same?
Click to expand...

Title IX will absolutely have something to say about it. Im not exactly a big fan of everything that Title IX has done. I do appreciate that my kid has a sport to play in college, and that has been an incredible experience so far, but if it were not there it would not make her less of a person. So, either way she would be ok.

But it demands equality is certain ways, and this is certainly one that would be fought for. (not by me or my kid, her academics and my crappy job have assured she can afford college)

But they will have to pay every student equal.

#1ArencibiaFan said:
Or it could come from the NCAA and their billion dollar TV deals.

I do agree that if it is on the school to pay the kids the 2K, mid-majors are done.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this seems like a reasonable way to get it done. In the article it talked about just being the BCS Conferences paying, to keep the costs down for the schools that cannot afford it. I dont see this working. It will give a recruiting advantage to schools that are not in BCS leagues.

Two sports give a pretty good example.
1) Basketball - What happens to the Gonzagas of the world. They can bring in the studs because they are able to compete fairly to get them, and compete fairly WITH them. But when the kid has a choice between Gonzaga with just a scholly, and Washington with an added 2000bucks, there are a lot of kids that will take Washington. Seems unfair.

2) Smaller sports like Rowing. Once again, the BCS schools like UT, Mich St, can offer that $2k to a kid that Penn or Cornell cannot. This will turn some of these smaller sports upside down. Not cool, in my opinion. (our coaches might disagree!)

Just a couple thoughts, I could be way off base.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top