SETIBuckeye wrote:

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.

Not my rule, but the rule never says same amount of Scholarships, it says scholarship Athletes...and it doesn't say everyone that participates has to have a full scholarship..  It states that they have to be comparable, but not equal.  So if you are going to give scholarship Athletes $5k, then you have to up the $'s for other Scholarship Athletes as well.

The football program may deploy for us, say 40 Tutors for players, and the Soccer Program may deploy 15... which is comparable, but not equal in numbers, but access is appropriate under law.

Increasing "stipend" by a few thousand per year and decreasing equivalent scholarships in non-revenue sports by 20% would probably not be too damaging to the non-revenue sports.  I suspect a more radical change would destroy the competitiveness of Division 1 in all sports.

Honestly there is nothing but bad answers for this stuff.  What would a thousand dollars really do?  It won't stop 18 year olds from taking things they aren't supposed to have.  Players who feel like they are being exploited will see their stipend as peanuts when coach makes 5 million dollars.  Current system already seems to address basic needs of college life (more than most college students have unless they are using daddy's credit card).  To me it just makes the situation seem more hypocritical.  I think a more radical change would break the system completely.

In other countries, world class athletes don't go to college for the purpose of training.  They go to college if they want to get an education.  If they want to be pro athlete they devote their lives to it, getting paid by club team or living off endorsements.  But here we have a nation of fans emotionally invested in college football and basketball.  Having college athletes forget about classes or paying them huge sum of money just doesn't fit.  It is just too far removed from the mission of the universities to be seriously considered.  But if you took our 83 players and put them in farm teams for Bengals and Browns, nobody would be be watching on TV.  Attendance would be like a MAC game maybe.  The revenue wouldn't be there to compete against the current college system.  The product is dependent on the talents of the athletes competing, but somehow it is a lot more than that.