What about EMU? Would they finally drop football to protect the swim team? If I am not mistaken they support the most non-revenue sports in the MAC.

(01-21-2014 12:59 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 12:40 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  This....

I'm not a fan of stipends but a 3% bump in budget will not make any FBS schools back out. You will see some non revenue sports get cut to cover those costs.

I doubt that any sports get cut, unless it's from a G5 university that is currently funding 25+ sports.

Temple is dropping sports to keep football more competitive. Not just sports but their very successful rowing team.

I think the athletes should have a choice between keeping things the way they are or the money that would go to paying tuition goes to them and they have to pay their own way through school. They could then decide if it is better to be debt free or take on the loans and keep the money.

(01-21-2014 10:31 AM)HuskieJWN Wrote:  First, I have always wondered about the tattoos, because as most people know those are expensive. Some of my friends have speculated that they are done in garages and other places and are significantly cheaper. I honestly have no clue, but I am curious.

There is always a black market for goods and services...even people working at a legit shop will have customers under the radar...

(01-21-2014 03:15 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  I think the athletes should have a choice between keeping things the way they are or the money that would go to paying tuition goes to them and they have to pay their own way through school. They could then decide if it is better to be debt free or take on the loans and keep the money.

That would probably never happen, but I like that idea. Let see how good they are with deciding what's important and what's not.

(01-21-2014 03:15 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  I think the athletes should have a choice between keeping things the way they are or the money that would go to paying tuition goes to them and they have to pay their own way through school. They could then decide if it is better to be debt free or take on the loans and keep the money.

As someone who did their undergrad in finance, works as a corporate tax consultant, and reads many personal finance materials, that would be a horrible idea.

Many of these kids from families without substantial incomes. Many of them also think the NFL is a high possibility when they first enter college. Put those two together and you have a recipe for disaster. There is a reason men who are 22-25 that made millions of dollars go broke immediately, imagine that money in a 18 year olds hands.

They aren't teaching personal finance well enough to NFL players, it's highly unlikely they can teach it to college players. That money should always go towards academic costs and anything left over they can spend at their own discretion.

I'd wager at least 70% of the students if given that choice to take out a loan and pocket that cash would do the wrong thing and end up in horrible financial situations without a suitable income to pay for it. Many of the athletes unfortunately never make the wages they should with their college degree because they only thought of football. (There are obvious exceptions of remarkable kids that take full of advantage of it).

Won't there be worker's comp. issues associated with paying a stipend. I thought that this was why some schools voted against it. If the player is on scholarship the participation in the sport has nothing to do with "working" for the university. Hence the term "Scholar Athlete". But, once the university pays a stipend you could argue that they are employees of the university athletic department therefor falling under worker's comp. for whatever state the school is located in. For sports like Football where we still don't know what the long term effects of the head trauma they are dealing with it could be a large cost down the road. What is the NFL at right now $750 million for 2,000 or so players. That ramps up significantly for 125 colleges with 85 scholarship athletes turning over completely every 5 years.

(01-21-2014 10:03 AM)Pulltown Falcon Wrote:  And why do they need the extra money anyway? From everything I read, they're too busy with having to spend all of their time either practicing, working out, reviewing film, or studying. So much so that they don't have any free time for a part-time job. So if they have no free time, they don't need to worry about not having any additional money.

http://www.news-leader.com/assets/pdf/DO174693522.PDF

You get 20 hours of team activities per week, that covers the practices and working out, reviewing film etc. studying was obviously outside of that. I was a student-athlete in college and carried a heavy caseload so I knew all too well about time crunches better than anybody. I also couldn't afford tattoos, bling, new Jordan's etc...and no way on earth could I afford a monthly cellphone bill. Many of these kids are far worse off financially then I was yet somehow most have most of that. I couldn't work a job even if I wanted to. Summer meant I busted my ass working and earned money that I survived off for spend money during the school year. The problem with this is many athletes are carrying a minimal course load of 12 credits so they're not bothered during the season and then try and earn some during the summer, but that's their choice.

(01-21-2014 10:59 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  HuskieJWN -
I've heard the same thing from UT student athletes when talking about money for dorms. If you live off campus, you get about $1k/month for living expenses. And off campus housing around UT can be anywhere from $250-700/month. So they can definitely end up pocketing some of that money. Plus they get the meal plans, so they don't have to worry about meals (they can go to dining halls, and they get Rocket Dollars, which sounds similar to Huskie bucks).

That's true, you could either get a dorm room and meal plan or get your own place off campus and get the going rate. If you're smart by getting a cheaper place or squeezing extra guys in to cover the rent you can make out on it and save some bucks on the side. Problem is these are kids we're talking about and not the best at budgeting money at that time and they fall behind on bills. The dorms was a much better plan, and no worries as far as making your monthly utility payments etc...

(01-21-2014 04:52 PM)niuco90 Wrote:  Won't there be worker's comp. issues associated with paying a stipend. I thought that this was why some schools voted against it. If the player is on scholarship the participation in the sport has nothing to do with "working" for the university. Hence the term "Scholar Athlete". But, once the university pays a stipend you could argue that they are employees of the university athletic department therefor falling under worker's comp. for whatever state the school is located in. For sports like Football where we still don't know what the long term effects of the head trauma they are dealing with it could be a large cost down the road. What is the NFL at right now $750 million for 2,000 or so players. That ramps up significantly for 125 colleges with 85 scholarship athletes turning over completely every 5 years.

No. That's why they won't ever PAY them. They might get a stipend, but they will never be PAID.

(01-21-2014 04:52 PM)niuco90 Wrote:  Won't there be worker's comp. issues associated with paying a stipend. I thought that this was why some schools voted against it. If the player is on scholarship the participation in the sport has nothing to do with "working" for the university. Hence the term "Scholar Athlete". But, once the university pays a stipend you could argue that they are employees of the university athletic department therefor falling under worker's comp. for whatever state the school is located in. For sports like Football where we still don't know what the long term effects of the head trauma they are dealing with it could be a large cost down the road. What is the NFL at right now $750 million for 2,000 or so players. That ramps up significantly for 125 colleges with 85 scholarship athletes turning over completely every 5 years.

There would be no such issues. Schools regularly give stipends to people on scholarship. That does not make them employees.

But the kid on academic scholarship doesn't get hurt "on the job" requiring workers comp, unless they get hurt by a slide rule or paper cut. Student-athletes get hurt all the time and directly related to what are their duties to the school.

(01-21-2014 06:55 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  But the kid on academic scholarship doesn't get hurt "on the job" requiring workers comp, unless they get hurt by a slide rule or paper cut. Student-athletes get hurt all the time and directly related to what are their duties to the school.

Football scholarships are 1 year and so long as they are honored despite an injury there is not "getting cut while on the job"..

(01-21-2014 05:44 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 04:52 PM)niuco90 Wrote:  Won't there be worker's comp. issues associated with paying a stipend. I thought that this was why some schools voted against it. If the player is on scholarship the participation in the sport has nothing to do with "working" for the university. Hence the term "Scholar Athlete". But, once the university pays a stipend you could argue that they are employees of the university athletic department therefor falling under worker's comp. for whatever state the school is located in. For sports like Football where we still don't know what the long term effects of the head trauma they are dealing with it could be a large cost down the road. What is the NFL at right now $750 million for 2,000 or so players. That ramps up significantly for 125 colleges with 85 scholarship athletes turning over completely every 5 years.

No. That's why they won't ever PAY them. They might get a stipend, but they will never be PAID.

Not trying to pick nits, but what is the difference? Athletes will get money in exchange for their participation in sports. You can call it whatever you want, but I think the attorneys will be lining up to see how much money they can make on this if it ever comes about.

(01-22-2014 12:47 PM)niuco90 Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 05:44 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 04:52 PM)niuco90 Wrote:  Won't there be worker's comp. issues associated with paying a stipend. I thought that this was why some schools voted against it. If the player is on scholarship the participation in the sport has nothing to do with "working" for the university. Hence the term "Scholar Athlete". But, once the university pays a stipend you could argue that they are employees of the university athletic department therefor falling under worker's comp. for whatever state the school is located in. For sports like Football where we still don't know what the long term effects of the head trauma they are dealing with it could be a large cost down the road. What is the NFL at right now $750 million for 2,000 or so players. That ramps up significantly for 125 colleges with 85 scholarship athletes turning over completely every 5 years.

No. That's why they won't ever PAY them. They might get a stipend, but they will never be PAID.

Not trying to pick nits, but what is the difference? Athletes will get money in exchange for their participation in sports. You can call it whatever you want, but I think the attorneys will be lining up to see how much money they can make on this if it ever comes about.

You would be right if there was not already a scholarship / stipend differentiation in the law which is used for other types of scholarships. Musicians on scholarships at some schools also get a stipend, this does *not* make them employees of the school. If the scholarships are of a one year nature they can also be yanked after the year.

(01-22-2014 12:47 PM)niuco90 Wrote:  Not trying to pick nits, but what is the difference?

As Bull In Exile notes, the difference is a long history of precedent that establishes that including a stipend with a scholarship does not make the scholarship an employment contract.

If there wasn't an established difference under legal precedent, then the P5 wouldn't be pushing this, because the main purpose of the NCAA has always been to generate exposure and income from the effort of "scholar-athletes" without being forced to treat them as employees.

I think the MAC will step up and be competitive with stipends if they ever happen. Ironically, we are becoming more competitive with the Pig5 with them getting first choice already on many players. Don't see how stipends would change the recruiting landscape that much. I think the gap is narrowing between the NIU's and Illinois' because they can only recruit so many players, and we have become more sophisticated at finding the remaining talent and nurturing it. If they were paying 50k per player, we still could pick from a wide array of solid athletes. Suck it Pig10.

GO HUSKIES!