getbucked wrote: upping their stipends some due to the disparity between what they bring in $-wise, and what they get back!

The NCPA and Drexel University Department of Sport Management conducted a joint study.  One of their "findings" I thought pretty darn interesting!

"FBS schools could provide more equitable financial terms for their revenue-producing athletes without eliminating any non-revenue generating sports or reducing scholarships from athletes from non-revenue generating sports. The second attachment (2 tables with data) points to lavish spending in by FBS schools in non-revenue sports. We've compared non-revenue sports expenditures between FBS schools and Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) schools because all of their non-revenue sports compete against each other in Division I. We focused on this to find out what it costs to run a competitive Division I non-revenue generating team which is demonstrated by the FCS numbers. The FBS non-revenue team expenses show that these schools spend far more than what's necessary to field these teams. BCS schools spend an average of about $350,000 more on each non-revenue team when compared to FCS schools. FBS schools average 18 non-revenue generating teams per campus, which means they spend an average of about $6.3 million/year more than FCS schools on non-revenue generating sports. Schools often question where they would find the money to increase athletic scholarships. But to put this in perspective, if those excess expenditures were evenly divided among 85 scholarship football players and 13 scholarship basketball players, each player would receive about $64,000 without reducing any non-revenue generating players’ scholarships or their teams."


I'm not a big advocate of outright paying players.  They are not pros and get a GIA ship as their "compensation" and they all get the same amount - not based on production.  I do think their stipends could be upped a bit though as this study says that the vast majority are living well below the poverty level if GIA is their only source of $.  Since they aren't allowed to earne any outside it - for the 9 or so months of regular school - that seems a bit too low really.

Even $5000 of the "supposed" $64000 mentioned would seem much more reasonable.

But the BIG POINT is something I've always ranted about.  The non-revenue sports programs are VASTLY OVERSPENDING.  They bring in little $ yet spend like they are the teams bringing in millions. 

This study says that "on average" the non-revenue sports ( all except FB and men's BB ) spend $350,000 EACH more than the exact same programs - competing at the same level - spend at the FCS level.  So the 117 FBS schools spend a huge amount more per program than the 122 FCS schools do and they are in the same divisional strata!  That is very telling!

Some of the $350,000 is probably because the FCS leagues tend to be much closer together in geography so they can bus to more games and spend less on travel and Hotels and such.  But not $350,000 per team LESS.  And more non-revenue teams should be busing to games in the FBS leagues, IMO.  It goes to what I am always harping on is that the non-revenue sports should be cutting their budgets A LOT and not traveling and recruiting and paying coaches like they were generating huge bucks.

Even if you cut that "discrepency" in half ($175,000 more per team ONLY), it still would allow GIA players on the money-generating sports teams a heck of a lot better living conditions - without having to get $100 handshakes covertly from alums.  I would only give them the $5K directly.  But use the rest to add more than 85/13 ships and provide more "soft" benny's for them as well.  A lot MORE of the AD budget should be going to those two sports, and a lot less going to the "entitlement" sports that are funded tremendously lower at the same level by the FCS schools! 

Along with higher stipends, make all GIA's 5 years ( so they often extend beyond "eligibility only") to allow the SA's a great chance to graduate, for instance.  Don't count the 5th against the 85/13 limits either!  But again I want those limits RAISED!  Adding more GIAs for women's sports to balance is fine - just cut the non-GIA funding for those sports, as part of all non-revenue sports getting budgets slashed, a LOT tho!  It isn't the GIA $ that is overfunded!  It is the AD itself and all the "unwarranted/unnecessary perks" the entitlement sports are given - that their FCS brethren are not lavished with in comparison.

http://www.ncpanow.org/research?id=0024

There is a little thing called Title IX, and if you pay a Revenue Generating Sport Athlete $5,000 or $64,000, then you must pay a Non-Revenue Generating Sport Athlete the same...

I don't see any way to get this done under the current law...

Paying players will not work, can not work, and will never happen.

"No person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal aid."

Extra money, 5K or 64K would be a benefit, and you can't do for one that you wont do for all.  Just like training tables, or tutors, etc... if a Football Player gets access to a tutor, so does a female Soccer Player. 

oldnacl22 wrote: I don't get the point of well they can't earn anything outside. Their stipend is more than someone who works 40 hrs a week at just above min wage....i would gladly take that in college.

getbucked wrote: The study mentions only FB&BB, I would up the GIA stipend $ for all shipped SA's by $5K, not just the FB and BB players.

I don't think cutting the budgets ( not the GIAs ) of non-revenue sports, men's and women's, would violate T9. After all, the FCS schools are also under T9 and they get by with far smaller budgets so there is a precedent for being able to! If they put so much less $ into the exact same sports, how do they get away with it under T9?

Most men's hoops teams budgets are considerably higher than women's.  Yet the women get 15 GIAs vs 13 for men - in the same sport!  And the HC salary is not the only big difference.  So are all of those schools breaking T9's rules of equal?  Seems dubious!

stoptothink wrote: The idea that college scholarship athletes are in poverty and have no spending money is hilarious. They (should) have more money in their pocket from their housing stipend alone then most of their classmates who work part-time do. Several schools even can provide transportation (scooters) and gas cards now.

oldnacl22 wrote: I don't get the point of well they can't earn anything outside. Their stipend is more than someone who works 40 hrs a week at just above min wage....i would gladly take that in college.

getbucked wrote: You may be right.  I probably lived far below "poverty level" during my college days.  Cheap appts or overcrowded sardine-sized dorms and I didn't spend every weekend partying. drinking, etc.  But I do think $5K would help lessen the need to try to sell your memorabilia or take payouts from alums for fake jobs etc.  For all the $ they generate, they should live better than the general student population, IMO.  Not a lot, but a bit!

stoptothink wrote: The idea that college scholarship athletes are in poverty and have no spending money is hilarious. They (should) have more money in their pocket from their housing stipend alone then most of their classmates who work part-time do. Several schools even can provide transportation (scooters) and gas cards now.

oldnacl22 wrote: I don't get the point of well they can't earn anything outside. Their stipend is more than someone who works 40 hrs a week at just above min wage....i would gladly take that in college.

getbucked wrote: 

It is perfectly reasonable to think that kids with some walking around money would be FAR LESS attracted to taking money they know is a violation than when they are broke. Rich kids do not have to cheat on money matters. I'm not saying it would 100% go away, but I do think it would be much less tempting and happen a lot less overall. Saying it wouldn't matter if they were millionaires - that is just head-in-the-sand ridiculous! $100 means nothing to a millionaire, to some kid who doesn't have $20 to go out, it is huge, use some common sense!

oldnacl22 wrote: 

They really need financial management help first before being given more money. 

stoptothink wrote: No. It isn't. Rich people "cheat on money matters" just as much if not more than people of little means. Whether or not they take something when it is against the rules of their NCAA agreement has everything to do with their values and nothing whatsoever to do with their financial situation. Many of the players recently caught for accepting benefits were far from poor.

Attempting to give them further benefits within the rules would open up so many other issues and do virtually nothing to stop the current problem.

getbucked wrote: 

It is perfectly reasonable to think that kids with some walking around money would be FAR LESS attracted to taking money they know is a violation than when they are broke. Rich kids do not have to cheat on money matters. I'm not saying it would 100% go away, but I do think it would be much less tempting and happen a lot less overall. Saying it wouldn't matter if they were millionaires - that is just head-in-the-sand ridiculous! $100 means nothing to a millionaire, to some kid who doesn't have $20 to go out, it is huge, use some common sense!

getbucked wrote: We'll have to disagree 100% on this.  IMO, there is no doubt that taking away one of the biggets incentives for cheating ( having little to no walking-around $ ) stops A LOT of it.  Rich guys on GIA do not "break NCAA rules on $" just as much as those with no outside $.  None of the tat gate guys grew up rich, tho that is just one example.  Thinking that it is only values "related" is not reality.

stoptothink wrote: No. It isn't. Rich people "cheat on money matters" just as much if not more than people of little means. Whether or not they take something when it is against the rules of their NCAA agreement has everything to do with their values and nothing whatsoever to do with their financial situation. Many of the players recently caught for accepting benefits were far from poor.

Attempting to give them further benefits within the rules would open up so many other issues and do virtually nothing to stop the current problem.

getbucked wrote: 

It is perfectly reasonable to think that kids with some walking around money would be FAR LESS attracted to taking money they know is a violation than when they are broke. Rich kids do not have to cheat on money matters. I'm not saying it would 100% go away, but I do think it would be much less tempting and happen a lot less overall. Saying it wouldn't matter if they were millionaires - that is just head-in-the-sand ridiculous! $100 means nothing to a millionaire, to some kid who doesn't have $20 to go out, it is huge, use some common sense!

SETIBuckeye wrote:

There is a little thing called Title IX, and if you pay a Revenue Generating Sport Athlete $5,000 or $64,000, then you must pay a Non-Revenue Generating Sport Athlete the same...

ArmchairQuarterBuck wrote:

SETIBuckeye wrote:

There is a little thing called Title IX, and if you pay a Revenue Generating Sport Athlete $5,000 or $64,000, then you must pay a Non-Revenue Generating Sport Athlete the same...

If what you say were true, all varsity athletes should be on scholarship like football and basketball players.  In reality most athletes in non-revenue sports are not on full scholarship.  Consider schools like Ohio State have a large women's rowing program to offset the large number of football players with regards to Title IX.  I think Ohio State has about 90 athletes in crew.  But football is allowed 85 full scholarships, while rowing is allowed only the equivalent of 20 full scholarships.  The school could then perhaps give full scholarships to some Olympic caliber rower and split some of the other equivalents into partial scholarships.  So clearly Title IX only gives women the opportunity to participate but not the guarantee of equal scholarships.  Of course even on the football team not everyone who suits up gets a scholarship.

stoptothink wrote: My heavens, you could not be more wrong. 

I can see the point in that them not being paid is not fair, considering the amount of income their work/performance provides. The idea that paying them a pittance on top of what they already receive is going to somehow stop them from accepting benefits is completely contradictory to human nature.

getbucked wrote: We'll have to disagree 100% on this.  IMO, there is no doubt that taking away one of the biggets incentives for cheating ( having little to no walking-around $ ) stops A LOT of it.  Rich guys on GIA do not "break NCAA rules on $" just as much as those with no outside $.  None of the tat gate guys grew up rich, tho that is just one example.  Thinking that it is only values "related" is not reality.