So practicing/playing on the football team and actually earning the money that would pay these full cost scholarships doesn't count?
Full cost scholarships are on the way
- Thread starter PJHawk
- Start date
So practicing/playing on the football team and actually earning the money that would pay these full cost scholarships doesn't count?
nationalchamps
Well-Known Member
Which is why you'll see clown fan in here soon complaining about it. Oh wait......
Agreed, wouldn't you have to do this for all student athletes? This just seems like an idea that is thrown out there with the knowledge it is never going to happen.
PJHawk
Well-Known Member
For the "Haves" of college athletics (Oregon's net profit last year was 41 million) there is more than enough money to do it and that's why it will happen. BTW 8 of the 22 self-sufficient programs referred to below are Big Ten schools:
The NCAA, in an annual report on Division I finances released Wednesday, noted that the median net surplus for the 22 self-sufficient programs was about $7.4 million,
I agree. How much more would it cost to do this for all sports? Also with BOR and States talking about athletics depts using their surplus for general funding I can see the athletics depts wanting to spend as much as their income as possible for the advancement of the universities athletics.
More than enough?????
22 teams total made money and you act like it's a slam dunk. You do realize that means well over half of BCS schools couldn't afford it right?
Iowa could swing it and only drop a few men's and women's programs.
ISU would have to drop almost all programs other than a handful.
UNI would be screwed.
Look I wouldn't have a problem if they wanted to start paying players but until the football/basketball programs break out away from the NCAA it just isn't going to happen.
The number of law suits that would come out not to mention all of the non revenue sports that would have to be dropped for 98% of schools to compete would be unreal.
It's great in theory but just isn't going to happen at least not in the current set up.
HawkeyeNTexas
Well-Known Member
Student first. Athlete second. I have a buddy who was in a couple classes with Vince Young when he as at UT. In both classes he saw Vince Young once all semester and that was the first day of class. A free ride doesn't mean you can skip class, regardless of how you perform on the football field.
PJHawk
Well-Known Member
Of course I realize most schools cannot afford this and that is the main reason why Jim Delaney is going to make this happen. In spite of the economic facts that most schools will be left behind the Big Ten can afford to do it and the NCAA is laying the groundwork right now that will give conferences that opt for full-cost scholarships (such as the Big Ten) the go ahead to do so.
NCAA: Full-Cost, Multiyear Athletic Scholarships Possible
By Bryan Toporek on August 10, 2011
What's most interesting, in terms of proposals that could affect high school student-athletes, were the ideas regarding full-cost, multiyear scholarships.
Heading into this week's presidents retreat, NCAA President Mark Emmert wasn't shy about expressing his opinion that fundamental changes to the NCAA model were necessary. Quickly.
In the post-meeting presser on Tuesday, Emmert suggested that the presidents expressed a groundswell of support for an opt-in policyone-year contracts between student-athletes and their schools, and must be renewed on an annual basis. Athletic scholarships also currently leave student-athletes paying an average of $3,000 out-of-pocket annually to cover transportation, food, clothing, and other living expenses, according to studies. regarding both full-cost and multiyear scholarships. Currently, athletic scholarships are only
The NCAA wouldn't mandate that each conference adopt either full-cost or multiyear athletic scholarships; however, the conferences that do could gain a competitive edge in recruiting (a concern that Emmert and the NCAA readily acknowledge).
NewMexHawk
Well-Known Member
Don't forget that all the men's and women's sports teams are going to get this. This is not exclusive just to football and (or) bb. So do the other sports teams players deserve to be paid? Most are basing this on the fact that the schools/NCAA make a great deal of money off the players and the players don't get "anything" in return.
How does paying other men's and women's teams work into this? The school/NCAA doesn't make any money off almost all these other teams so do those players deserve this benefit?
Football at the university is going to pay the way for these other teams so they can be "equal." This is going to be costly for many/most schools.
Remember the women's rowing team is going to get the same benefit that the football players get and most of these women never rowed one day before going to the University. How do they deserve the extra?
I guess today, just getting a full ride to a major university for 5 years with room/board, and getting to travel all over the place is not enough. A $100,000 to $200,000 scholarship is just peanuts I guess. When these kids come onto campus, it is like handing them a check for this amount of money. This investment is their future...right there for the taking. But apparently THAT is not enough for these poor kids.
Let's pay the rowing team and all the women's/men's minor sports on top of what they already get...
They have this incredible opportunity for their lives. If some choose not to take advantage of it, THAT is their problem and THEIR choice, is it not?
This is very skewed logic...
Plus, if the BCS schools create an even larger gap between the haves and have nots, eventually the have nots will do something about it or the whores in congress will do something about it.
How does paying other men's and women's teams work into this? The school/NCAA doesn't make any money off almost all these other teams so do those players deserve this benefit?
Football at the university is going to pay the way for these other teams so they can be "equal." This is going to be costly for many/most schools.
Remember the women's rowing team is going to get the same benefit that the football players get and most of these women never rowed one day before going to the University. How do they deserve the extra?
I guess today, just getting a full ride to a major university for 5 years with room/board, and getting to travel all over the place is not enough. A $100,000 to $200,000 scholarship is just peanuts I guess. When these kids come onto campus, it is like handing them a check for this amount of money. This investment is their future...right there for the taking. But apparently THAT is not enough for these poor kids.
Let's pay the rowing team and all the women's/men's minor sports on top of what they already get...
They have this incredible opportunity for their lives. If some choose not to take advantage of it, THAT is their problem and THEIR choice, is it not?
This is very skewed logic...
Plus, if the BCS schools create an even larger gap between the haves and have nots, eventually the have nots will do something about it or the whores in congress will do something about it.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
I disagree, I do not think non revenue producing sports should be included on this. After all they are benefiting from the football/basketball revenues by getting an education along with facilities to play on. It should only be awarded if the sport they are in is producing surplus revenue.
As far as there only being 22 programs making money, that number is bound to go up as the TV revenues keep flowing in. I cannot imagine any school in the Big Ten or SEC operating in the red. Keep in mind these organizations are supposed to be non profit so all the money coming in has to go back out.
As far as there only being 22 programs making money, that number is bound to go up as the TV revenues keep flowing in. I cannot imagine any school in the Big Ten or SEC operating in the red. Keep in mind these organizations are supposed to be non profit so all the money coming in has to go back out.
I believe there is already a disparity in scholarships given to student athletes. My cousin was given a partial scholarship to play on the womens golf team, and she was thrilled to receive it. I don't see how this changes the status quo that much. Others may have gotten full rides, I don't know, but I don't think the equality of scholarships even exists right now.....which is fine. Like someone else said, if you're a non-revenue generating sport then I think its natural to be treated differently. Should we build a new practice facility for all the other sports as well? The high profile sports deserve the high profile (legal) benefits.
Whether they "should be" is irrelevant.
It is an all or nothing thing.
Title IX will see to that.
If full cost scholarships are implemented for only revenue generating sports, not only would they get sued to all get out, the people trying to push that through would get fired in about one second.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
That is not true, each sport has an opportunity to produce more revenue. BTN does not show only football, they also show womens sports as well. It should not be to difficult to split the revenues based on which sport is producing it. Also if say womens basketball wants the same benefits then the program should help promote the sport so that it produces more revenue. Once they get in the black then they can be eligible to receive the reimbursement for expenses. It is like running a business, you can not spend more than what you have coming in.
If you honestly think each sport is run equally now then you live in fantasy land. These athletes that are playing other sports I can guarantee are happy to just get their school paid for. The vast majority of student athletes turn professional in something other than the sport they play. Same is not true in high revenue producing sports like football. Alot of football players sacrifice their education for the sport. There is more pressure on them to take the classes that gives them the most time to participate in practices. There are some that participate in those sports with the hopes of pursuing a career in that sport.
You really think that a student athlete would sue the university because they could not get the same reimbursement that football players get? Especially knowing that if they won the lawsuit then it would mean their program got cut?
If you play golf, soccer, volleyball or any of these minor sports those student athletes are happy with anything they get.
The total number of scholarship $ is equal for men & women.
That LEGALLY CANNOT change. Title IX
Therefore any increase to achieve full cost scholarships will be across the board in total.
You're correct that not every athlete gets full rides, etc.
They won't with full cost scholarships either, but the dollar amounts will be equal between men and women. Any increase to mens scholarships will result in an equal increase for women.
And yes, if it didn't happen that way, I'd bet my life that the universities, the ncaa & anyone else remotely associated with either will be sued out of their mind.
This is correct.
Excerpts of the law:
(c) Athletic scholarships. (1) To the extent that a recipient awards athletic scholarships or grants-in-aid, it must provide reasonable opportunities for such awards for members of each sex in proportion to the number of students of each sex participating in interscholastic or intercollegiate athletics.
(2) Separate athletic scholarships or grants-in-aid for members of each sex may be provided as part of separate athletic teams for members of each sex to the extent consistent with this paragraph and §106.41.
§ 106.41 Athletics. (a) General. No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide any such athletics separately on such basis.
(b) Separate teams. Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, a recipient may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport. However, where a recipient operates or sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex but operates or sponsors no such team for members of the other sex, and athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, members of the excluded sex must be allowed to try-out for the team offered unless the sport involved is a contact sport. For the purposes of this part, contact sports include boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball and other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact.
(c) Equal opportunity. A recipient which operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics shall provide equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes. In determining whether equal opportunities are available the Director will consider, among other factors:
(1) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;
(2) The provision of equipment and supplies;
(3) Scheduling of games and practice time;
(4) Travel and per diem allowance;
(5) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring;
(6) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
(7) Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;
(8) Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
(9) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
(10) Publicity.
Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.
Thank you!
The point or purpose of "full cost of attendance" is to price out the little guys.
It is being presented as "its what's right for our athletes, for our students, etc" but its meant to separate out the have's & have not's further.
I don't think you're understanding the situation here. All the athletes must receive the same benefits. It's guaranteed by law. Whether you think it's fair or not is, as treychase said, irrelevant. They absolutely have to do so or they will be in violation of Title 9.
But hey, I suggest you get the airwaves and argue about how male athletes should receive benefits that female atheltes will not. Let me know what kind of reception that gets. Even if there was no Title 9, all the athletes would get the same benefits in this day and age. There's no way around it.