-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
UM and Big Sky will not offer full-cost stipends
- Thread starter PlayerRep
- Start date
statler & waldorf
Well-known member
I'd have loved to have even SOME of my college time paid for, and I wouldn't have bitched about needing or wanting more. UM doesn't compete with the big boys for talent, and those we do get stay for their full eligibility. Staying in the FCS makes financial sense at this point, so why fall over each other to pay more. "When the milk is free, why buy the cow" wasn't coined by a coach.
Willie said:
Are you kidding me? So you have your school paid for, that's great. Between school and practice your prospects for employment are minimal. Where does the money for the rest of life's obligations come from? Cause your part-time job at Wal-Mart isn't going to cut it. Meanwhile, your school makes plenty of cash (I know this doesn't apply to all sports or all schools) from the product of your hard work, yet you don't see a dime??? Not saying the stipend system is the perfect answer, just that I've lived around enough college athletes to know their struggle.
I line up more with Statler and don't favor schools having to provide more money to athletes, but....
Athletes have to put in a bunch of work and time (way too much), but they get many benefits and no one is forcing them to be an athlete. Note that many athletes don't have scholarships or full scholarships, and they still play the game, put in the work, and make it work.
I don't really care what the rich schools pay to athletes, but I think the ncaa should regulate which conferences can pay and how much they can pay. The ncaa, which I despise, should regulate the payments via conference--just like they do with the number and dollar amount of scholarships. The ncaa should do what the conferences (not individual schools) want done. This would reduce the competitive imbalances that appear to be coming.
On the other hand, it isn't right that the schools can make money off of players images (and this is probably changing), and rich schools should figure out a way to spread some money to the players, in the form of additional benefits (health insurance, scholarships after injury, plenty of food, maybe some travel for families, etc.).
Schools should pay more for food. No athlete working out that much should not have enough money for food.
If the ncaa says schools can pay more in scholarships to athletes, or some athletes, or schools that can afford it can, then the impermissible benefits thing needs to be eliminated or change significantly. Why not open that up? It makes no sense that a school can make money off of a player's jersey, and the kid can't sell autographed jerseys, sell autographed posters, etc. What's the big deal. Let the kids make some money, and get free tatoos and drinks or even dinners. At this point, what is the rationale for prohibiting those things.
Some additional possibilities. Create funds at schools for donors to fund travel for families to games, or players to fly home for funerals and family issues. What's wrong with that? Rich schools can not provide more money for scholarships and other benefits, why can't donors or people fund stuff for athetes--if they want to?
Even jobs. What's wrong with paying over market for jobs?
Some (supposed) limits could be set, and might not be adhered to, but who cares. The ncaa and the schools have opened up the door on these things. Why shouldn't the door swing both ways?
I could go on, but should probably turn in soon.
Athletes have to put in a bunch of work and time (way too much), but they get many benefits and no one is forcing them to be an athlete. Note that many athletes don't have scholarships or full scholarships, and they still play the game, put in the work, and make it work.
I don't really care what the rich schools pay to athletes, but I think the ncaa should regulate which conferences can pay and how much they can pay. The ncaa, which I despise, should regulate the payments via conference--just like they do with the number and dollar amount of scholarships. The ncaa should do what the conferences (not individual schools) want done. This would reduce the competitive imbalances that appear to be coming.
On the other hand, it isn't right that the schools can make money off of players images (and this is probably changing), and rich schools should figure out a way to spread some money to the players, in the form of additional benefits (health insurance, scholarships after injury, plenty of food, maybe some travel for families, etc.).
Schools should pay more for food. No athlete working out that much should not have enough money for food.
If the ncaa says schools can pay more in scholarships to athletes, or some athletes, or schools that can afford it can, then the impermissible benefits thing needs to be eliminated or change significantly. Why not open that up? It makes no sense that a school can make money off of a player's jersey, and the kid can't sell autographed jerseys, sell autographed posters, etc. What's the big deal. Let the kids make some money, and get free tatoos and drinks or even dinners. At this point, what is the rationale for prohibiting those things.
Some additional possibilities. Create funds at schools for donors to fund travel for families to games, or players to fly home for funerals and family issues. What's wrong with that? Rich schools can not provide more money for scholarships and other benefits, why can't donors or people fund stuff for athetes--if they want to?
Even jobs. What's wrong with paying over market for jobs?
Some (supposed) limits could be set, and might not be adhered to, but who cares. The ncaa and the schools have opened up the door on these things. Why shouldn't the door swing both ways?
I could go on, but should probably turn in soon.
My daughter was an athlete (track) at a Div. III school. Thus, she received no athletic scholarships of any kind (although quite a bit of academic assistance, because she was a great student). We contributed what we could, as did her grandfather, but she had to work the entire time she was in school in order to have spending money -- she worked as a clerk in a store, as a file clerk in a doctor's office, for the university catering service. She did that, as an athlete while serving as the head honcho of freshman orientation for two years and as president of her sorority. She graduated with honors, and ended up going to grad school with FULL scholarship and a stipend on top of that.
Given all of the above, I really don't support Div. 1 athletes being paid to go to school -- making it work without every penny being paid is definitely possible if the individual is willing to figure out how to do it.
Given all of the above, I really don't support Div. 1 athletes being paid to go to school -- making it work without every penny being paid is definitely possible if the individual is willing to figure out how to do it.
statler & waldorf
Well-known member
Just a word of caution here, Spanky. If' 68 we're, for some unforseen reason, to stop suddenly, you COULD break your nose. Happened to a co-worker of mine. FYI. Other than that, you're probably right.Spanky said:
statler & waldorf said:
It's funny how someone is always looking to crap on another's success brought on by hard work...
Congrats 68. My daughter is also able to attend school based on her scholastic scholarships and grants. You should be proud.
IdaGriz01
Well-known member
I agree in principle that one can still work his/her way through college -- and see my earlier post about "back in the day." And congratulations to those who do, and to the parents that raised them.'68griz said:Thanks, all. We ARE proud, as she's a responsible, contributing young woman. And, my point remains, athletes can be highly successful without the school paying their way.cclarkblues said:[Crap removedSpanky said:]
It's funny how someone is always looking to crap on another's success brought on by hard work...
Congrats 68. My daughter is also able to attend school based on her scholastic scholarships and grants. You should be proud.
However, there is one caveat. (This is really stupid BTW ... but it's the NCAA, after all.) I have read that some (perhaps many) big-times program actually discourage athletes in the "prestige" sports from getting outside jobs. They are so afraid the NCAA will declare it an "improper benefit," they don't want to take any chances. So unless you have ironclad proof that they might have hired any random student, and not specifically an athlete, they don't want the kids to touch it.
statler & waldorf
Well-known member
Liked your selfie, BB. Explains a lot. Cclark, the operant words are the last three: YOU'RE....PROBABLY....RIGHT. I was agreeing with Spanky that '68 seems to have raised his daughter right, and I agreed with his assessment of student aid. The first two sentences were meant as humor, which you did not catch. This medium does have its drawbacks. With the number of posts you have to read as a Mod, this is bound to happen. Next time you post a reply to another, read and re-read the original post, so you get it right next time.
From another poster, another topic: "I had to read that a few times before I got it....."
Sage advice, for both of us.
From another poster, another topic: "I had to read that a few times before I got it....."
Sage advice, for both of us.
Men's basketball may be the sport that we should look at offering stipends. It would allow us to test the water and remain competitive in the recruiting arena. We are FBS in men's basketball and there could be an immediate impact with the major conferences offering stipends. As for FCS Football, I don't think there will be a need in the near future.
Spanky said:
Spanky: I think you are correct in thinking that stipends for Men's basketball will probably be necessary for UM and the BSC to even hope to remain competetive in NCAA Division 1 basketball. Without being able to offer stipends, recruits will obviously be more attracted to schools and conferences that do. But don't forget Title IX. Women's players will have to get stipends if you are offering them to men.
From postings, I think the majority of people are against stipends. But the reality is they are going to be offered by the major conferences, that door is opened, and eventually this issue will affect UM and the BSC. In thinking about the stipend issue, I have a few questions:
--If UM and the Big Sky do not offer stipends, will an athlete in the BSC file suit in the footsteps of Ed O'bannon?
--If a female athlete from UM or the BSC, seeing that women athletes from other schools are receiving stipends, file suit claiming a Title IX violation?
--Without stipends, will UM ever see another Will Cherry, Kareem Jamar, Michael Onguine? Will Weber ever see another Damian Liliard?
--Travis DeCuire is obviously recruiting high caliber and heavily recruited players. Will he get frustrated if he starts losing the recruiting wars because of the stipend issue and decide to move on earlier that expected? (Of course, if he cannot get good enough athletes, he may never achieve the record necessary to move on).
--Will UM and the BSC band together with conferences and school with a similar stand on stipends and form another NCAA basketball Division like 1-AA or FCS football?
--NDSU is considering adding stipends. If they do, do we just concede the FCS Championship to them for the forseeable future?
--If all BSC schools agree to not offer stipends, then it is discovered that one member school is offering money under the table, what happens?
With all these incentives being talked about. Just how much money does an individual on a full, 1/2 or partial scholarship have to pay out of their pocket for their education? Now I am sure it would depend on their major, but is there an average?
I was not a college boy, my education came thru the US Military.
I was not a college boy, my education came thru the US Military.
For us that are not brilliant or exceptional athletes we are just plain screwed!
However if you can jump high, run fast and are very good in sports you can ride your college education all the way to Alaska...If you are a 4 point student with a ton of smarts you also can ride your college education around the world...
In the end we have elected to pay these young kids to attend college. The amount varies with skill etc.
That is the simple side of this "Offer Full - Cost Stipen" debate. HOW MUCH?
However if you can jump high, run fast and are very good in sports you can ride your college education all the way to Alaska...If you are a 4 point student with a ton of smarts you also can ride your college education around the world...
In the end we have elected to pay these young kids to attend college. The amount varies with skill etc.
That is the simple side of this "Offer Full - Cost Stipen" debate. HOW MUCH?
GeauxSioux
Well-known member
UND to pay some student athletes cost of attendance and some living expenses
Get ready. It's coming.
Get ready. It's coming.
