Stipends for College Athletes?

[crbrolltide]

There is a good non-member article on Florida.scout.com about a court case in Cali. and stipends not being allowed for college athletes. Sorry, I don't know how to post the link.

I think stipends are a good idea with the stipulations the article suggests. Mostly, athletes on full scholly and getting a stipend should be ineligible for Pell Grants, or, if on academic probation, your not eligible. Maybe that would give another incentive to keep grades up. What do ya'll think?

 

[TommyMac]

Won't work. Not all D1 programs even show a profit from their sports programs to begin with. On top of that, generally speaking, only basketball and football generate any profits. Add to that, the fact that EVERY athlete in EVERY sport will be demanding just as much as the star QB or point guard and you have a recipe for disaster. Middle tier programs would be out of business as far as athletics are concerned. Just imagine a school like Southern Miss trying to conform with a 30,000 seat stadium. It's a bad idea. It sounds noble, but it's not practical.

 

[scbamaman1]

Some schools pay them through boosters and ATM machines already.

 

[theBIGyowski]

Stipend

I haven't read the article...but I can speak from experience. I was the track manager at UA from 2000-2003 and was on a full scholarship during that time. I can tell you that athletes on scholarship DO get a stipend for living expenses. I want to say I was getting somewhere around $460 a month that usually just covered my housing. You also get a meal plan and your Dining Dollars (the University's debit system for buying food on campus) are paid for by the athletic department. Also...my books were taken care of as well. So...with pretty much everything paid for...and getting my living expenses stipend...I was just fine.

I don't see what the big fuss is over stipends. Student athletes can even work up to 20 hours a week under NCAA rules. It's just some folks that want to live the big life without having to work for it. They're getting a free education, are housed, and are fed...just because they play a sport. And yes, I can say that because I was one of them.

RTR!

 

[Ramah Jamah]

Agree. These guys have just about everything paid for not including the perks like early registration and tutors. No to the stipend

 

[Mamacalled]

From my understanding, the athletes already get Pell Grants. i believe my cousin did. That is also how Fred Weary explained being able to afford his Cadillac Escalade while at UT.

 

[bama_jam]

Middle teir should not be D1!

TommyMac,
I lerk here often but hardly ever post but this subject gets me riled up. I think you just stated the reason schools like Southern Miss should not be in D1. I agree with the stipend, it’s simple if you can’t afford it don’t pay it, some will and some will not. Programs that do not will find it tuff to compete and will (thank God) drop to a division they belong in.

 

[TommyMac]

TommyMac,
I lerk here often but hardly ever post but this subject gets me riled up. I think you just stated the reason schools like Southern Miss should not be in D1. I agree with the stipend, it’s simple if you can’t afford it don’t pay it, some will and some will not. Programs that do not will find it tuff to compete and will (thank God) drop to a division they belong in.

It's not as simple as that unfortunately. If some schools decide not to pay, the PC crowd will step in and howl like a gut-shot cougar and the next thing you know, a LOT of D1 that can't afford to pay it will have to eliminate their athletic programs. In no time, the haves of the CFB world would be unable to have an OOC schedule. The end result would probably be that D1A football would eventually be reduced to only a handful of the strongest programs and wouldn't number much more than the NFL, if any.

 

[theBIGyowski]

Terrible

TommyMac,
I lerk here often but hardly ever post but this subject gets me riled up. I think you just stated the reason schools like Southern Miss should not be in D1. I agree with the stipend, it’s simple if you can’t afford it don’t pay it, some will and some will not. Programs that do not will find it tuff to compete and will (thank God) drop to a division they belong in.

You are entitled to you own opinion...and I respect that...but you are totally wrong. TRUST ME...scholarship athletes DO NOT need anything more than what they already get!!! All they do is play a sport...which they love doing...and they get every neccessity of college life taken care of. There really isn't one good reason that can stand on its own as to why scholarship athletes should get paid. This ain't the pro's...if you're good enough to go pro and you need the money...then go pro. It's just stupid to try and justify paying scholarship athletes.

RTR!

 

[cbi1972]

While most students can go out and get a job for spending money, our athletes have a harder time doing that due to the amount of time that athletics demands. I'd rather them get stipends than have to try to figure out shady ways to get money.

 

[NYBamaFan]

While most students can go out and get a job for spending money, our athletes have a harder time doing that due to the amount of time that athletics demands. I'd rather them get stipends than have to try to figure out shady ways to get money.

Most students get jobs to cover the items already covered by the university. I tend to agree with theBIGyowski. I wouldn't mind seeing them get some money, but it is not really necessary, as no college student really needs pocket money.

The real issue is the equitable treatment of all athletes. If this is set up for any athlete, it will need to be paid to all athletes (someone would sue and win), and very few schools could afford that...

 

[cbi1972]

I wouldn't mind seeing them get some money, but it is not really necessary, as no college student really needs pocket money.

I disagree with you on this point.

Small children shouldn't "need" money either, then, but they frequently get an allowance.
Reasons include:
1) It helps them learn to manage money
2) It enables them to make mistakes at low cost
3) They have more appreciation for things when they have to pay for them

In the context of the student-athlete, financial desperation makes kids ripe for getting involved with gamblers, and taking their chances leaving school early for a professional career which may never happen.

 

[NYBamaFan]

I disagree with you on this point.

Small children shouldn't "need" money either, then, but they frequently get an allowance.
Reasons include:
1) It helps them learn to manage money
2) It enables them to make mistakes at low cost
3) They have more appreciation for things when they have to pay for them

In the context of the student-athlete, financial desperation makes kids ripe for getting involved with gamblers, and taking their chances leaving school early for a professional career which may never happen.

I understand your point, but still feel no sympathy. The average student faces much higher financial hurdles. Until the school is ready to pay everyone a stipend for "spending money", they should pay noone (IMO)...

 

[theBIGyowski]

Too "Ideal"

Here's the problem with everyone's "pro-stipend" argument...

You assume that all SCHOLARSHIP athletes are scraping for money and must resort to illegal or shady means to getting spending money. If you want to teach kids how to manage money...don't just give it to them. A lot of scholarship athletes take only 12 or so hours per semester. This leaves plenty of time for them to practice and get their studying done during the week. Compare that to an average student in college who takes 15-18 hours per semester and has to work 20-30 hours a week just to pay for their education. Who should we have sympathy for? The scholarship athlete who has EVERYTHING paid for...or the average student who has to spend all their time working for $6 an hour just to take care of what they need to live? Unless we start giving scholarship athletes a stipend of $500,000 a year...it won't keep them from going pro...so that is a terrible argument. I was on an athletic scholarship and I got $460 a month as a living expenses stipend...that taught me how to manage money...and it enabled me to make mistakes at low cost...so your argument there is gone. This is a dumb argument to begin with...all you have to do is do some research on what exactly scholarship athletes get.

RTR!

 

[scbamaman1]

The stipend brings another thought to mind. If stipends were legal would you give them to the people that play sports that do not pay for themselves such as women's basketball or track? If you gave them to the football team players and the men's basketball players and not the others I could see all kind of law suits. I think the football team and basketball team may deserve something extra, but with the Title 9 law it would not make it feasible.

 

[PDL]

The stipend brings another thought to mind. If stipends were legal would you give them to the people that play sports that do not pay for themselves such as women's basketball or track? If you gave them to the football team players and the men's basketball players and not the others I could see all kind of law suits. I think the football team and basketball team may deserve something extra, but with the Title 9 law it would not make it feasible.

I certainly believe that would happen. That's why there has to be the same amount of scholarships available for women that there are for men. Otherwise there would be a ton of men's sports at universities and very few women's sports. I think it's a good idea because women deserve a chance to earn a scholarship for their education as well. And for this reason I believe if they gave stipends to football players (which they won't) they would have to give them to everyone including women's sports.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

And...

how much do they get in the summer, when they're expected to be there. Think before you answer...

 

[scbamaman1]

I certainly believe that would happen. That's why there has to be the same amount of scholarships available for women that there are for men. Otherwise there would be a ton of men's sports at universities and very few women's sports. I think it's a good idea because women deserve a chance to earn a scholarship for their education as well. And for this reason I believe if they gave stipends to football players (which they won't) they would have to give them to everyone including women's sports.

You must have daughters that are getting a scholarship in one of the non-revenue sports.

 

[uafootball92]

TommyMac,
I lerk here often but hardly ever post but this subject gets me riled up. I think you just stated the reason schools like Southern Miss should not be in D1. I agree with the stipend, it’s simple if you can’t afford it don’t pay it, some will and some will not. Programs that do not will find it tuff to compete and will (thank God) drop to a division they belong in.

Some could make an argument that Bama was in that lower-tier level for the last few years before this year. Lower to mid-tier programs are what make college football and college sports great. It's the rise of the underdog that makes college sports worth watching. If you look to 20 years ago to today, most of the top teams then are not close to the top now. Look at navy. Navy and Army and Air Force would probably be considered lower-tier now. But, back in the 50s and 60s and such, they were some of the dominant teams in their time. If you knock teams down to 1-AA and Division 3, then they lose that shot at being a big dog one day. South Florida played well last year and finished good. They proved atleast this year that they can play with (some) the big dogs.

RTR

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Unless...

it's changed, they get nothing in the summer, other than what Pell Grants they can scrape together. But, they are required to be present for skels, conditioning, etc. The odd player who bucks the system and goes home risks his career. I'd add also that a very large percentage of our team comes from homes with incomes below the official poverty line.