Couple of thoughts:

One, anyone who think anyone playing football is getting anything free; doesn't know what they are talking about.

Needy players gets a lot more than people think with Pell grants and travel funds if needed.

Comparing academic and athletic ships is apples and oranges. No one is paying to see your top scholars. However, it is a difficult sell, to enhance athletic ships when academic ships are decreasing at many institutions.

I would think it is very difficult to be against stipends when HC's now routinely have million plus salaries.

If one group of schools is allowed to provide more than another, the competitive balance is further eroded.

(01-22-2014 08:33 PM)Grandgreen Wrote:  Couple of thoughts:

One, anyone who think anyone playing football is getting anything free; doesn't know what they are talking about.

Needy players gets a lot more than people think with Pell grants and travel funds if needed.

Comparing academic and athletic ships is apples and oranges. No one is paying to see your top scholars. However, it is a difficult sell, to enhance athletic ships when academic ships are decreasing at many institutions.

I would think it is very difficult to be against stipends when HC's now routinely have million plus salaries.

If one group of schools is allowed to provide more than another, the competitive balance is further eroded.

Coaching is a job, playing is not. It's that simple. Players need to be satisfied with what they have, which is quite a lot as it is. Getting a free advanced education is an amazing opportunity, and being able to play the sport you love is icing on the cake. Players need to learn to be grateful for what they have because millions of other college students would kill for the opportunity that is given to these players.

(01-22-2014 08:33 PM)Grandgreen Wrote:  One, anyone who think anyone playing football is getting anything free; doesn't know what they are talking about.

Free? No, they definitely work for it. But receiving a college education is a big deal, especially in this day and age. Many college graduates begin their careers with 6 digits worth of student loans hanging over them; scholarship athletes have none.

(01-22-2014 08:33 PM)Grandgreen Wrote:  I would think it is very difficult to be against stipends when HC's now routinely have million plus salaries.

There's a slippery slope with that line of thought. If you are suggesting that college athletes should be compensated commensurate with what coaches make, then who's to say star college athletes at big name schools shouldn't make $1 million a year?

(01-22-2014 08:33 PM)Grandgreen Wrote:  If one group of schools is allowed to provide more than another, the competitive balance is further eroded.

Of course that's true. But if you're going to argue for paying players based on coaches' salaries, as you just did, then logically schools that pay their head coach $5 million a year should be compensating their players far better than schools that pay their head coach $500k.

(01-19-2014 04:19 PM)Surbadger Wrote:   I want to know if your school is officially for or against srudent-athlete stipends. Also, I want to know what your take on the subject is.

I know Marshall is against stipends for players, but the way I undertand , C-USA as a whole is for them.

I would imagine everyone in our conference is against since none of our schools could afford it.

I'm against it--largely for practicality reasons. There simply isn't a way to make it work.

-This would cost a ton of money in a time where 3/4 of all D1 programs are losing money as it is. And God knows the lower divisions can't do it.

-People try to dismiss the value of the full scholarships that athletes are receiving. It is the players' fault they don't "value" a free education for which others are paying tens of thousands of dollars.

If the players are concerned about not having spending money while in school, my idea would be to allow them to take a certain amount of money from their scholarship each semester and use that for current expenses instead. So, maybe they could take out 1,000 from their scholarship each semester that they would be billed for and have to pay later (kind of like student loans) with interest and use that for food, gas, etc.

(01-24-2014 11:28 AM)eaglenjxn Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 04:19 PM)Surbadger Wrote:   I want to know if your school is officially for or against srudent-athlete stipends. Also, I want to know what your take on the subject is.

I know Marshall is against stipends for players, but the way I undertand , C-USA as a whole is for them.

I would imagine everyone in our conference is against since none of our schools could afford it.

I'm against it--largely for practicality reasons. There simply isn't a way to make it work.

-This would cost a ton of money in a time where 3/4 of all D1 programs are losing money as it is. And God knows the lower divisions can't do it.

-People try to dismiss the value of the full scholarships that athletes are receiving. It is the players' fault they don't "value" a free education for which others are paying tens of thousands of dollars.

If the players are concerned about not having spending money while in school, my idea would be to allow them to take a certain amount of money from their scholarship each semester and use that for current expenses instead. So, maybe they could take out 1,000 from their scholarship each semester that they would be billed for and have to pay later (kind of like student loans) with interest and use that for food, gas, etc.

adamantly against it with no guarantee of usage, but that is actually a solid starting point for negotiation if it has to go down that path....little faith in the rule makers to acknowledge that or anything else that makes sense other than "cents"

regardless, it's going to be too easy to fatten the golden calves....

The NCAA should give the option to give players stipends. Any school interested in providing a stipend to the NCAA may do so. The NCAA can create a new Division "4" just for these schools.

The NCAA then should turn around and mandate that any school giving stipends will only be allowed a smaller number of scholarships. Example: Ohio State wants to pay its football team. Normally, they would have 85 scholarships for players. However, if they are in Division 4, they can only have 72 total scholarships to give.

Make sure every Division 4 scholarship athlete in every sport gets about $1,500 per semester (spread the cash over 3 payments per semester so kids don't complain about running out of money)

Once the NCAA does this, they can then come down HARD on any school in Division 4 that breaks the rules.

(01-23-2014 10:08 AM)Lee Moses Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 08:33 PM)Grandgreen Wrote:  One, anyone who think anyone playing football is getting anything free; doesn't know what they are talking about.

Free? No, they definitely work for it. But receiving a college education is a big deal, especially in this day and age. Many college graduates begin their careers with 6 digits worth of student loans hanging over them; scholarship athletes have none.

(01-22-2014 08:33 PM)Grandgreen Wrote:  I would think it is very difficult to be against stipends when HC's now routinely have million plus salaries.

There's a slippery slope with that line of thought. If you are suggesting that college athletes should be compensated commensurate with what coaches make, then who's to say star college athletes at big name schools shouldn't make $1 million a year?

(01-22-2014 08:33 PM)Grandgreen Wrote:  If one group of schools is allowed to provide more than another, the competitive balance is further eroded.

Of course that's true. But if you're going to argue for paying players based on coaches' salaries, as you just did, then logically schools that pay their head coach $5 million a year should be compensating their players far better than schools that pay their head coach $500k.

Kind of loose interpretation. My point is that it is very difficult to make the argument that Universities can't afford stipends with the continued escalation of coaches salaries. Likewise, it is harder to defend non-profit status when schools continue to funnel money into their athletic departments in the current collegian arms race.