• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

APU

Strickland, off the top of your head, who wears #3 for Texas A&M? How is he being exploited? Who is making millions off of his jersey? Let's go down the roster of LOWF and see who is earning his $57,000 a year scholership. How about the backup QB's we've had? With Skinner and Price around, they aren't getting much playing time. Emert was recruited and given a scholarship and the two walk-ons get more playing time. How about Pineda, two years of school and what on the football field. Gallagher and Heartsill can still get their degree without seeing the field. Should they get medical benefits for the rest of their lives paid by LOWF? I honestly don't know a 300 lbs person who doesn't have a bad back. Their are a bunch of guys getting an education who are not being "Exploited".
 
Strickland33 said:
No.



No. And what are these schools?



So, you think therefore it is? Wut.
Click to expand...

In order:

Yes.

Allen high school with its 60 million dollar, 18,000 seat stadium, and coach getting >$120,000 per year.

Yes, I think it's a great offer that many would take. I haven't collected the data, but I guess you disagree?
 
Rafi said:
Walmart, mcdonalds, apple - I don't think the content producers are getting much in those multi billion dollar industries. If you want a more skilled employee comparison (which makes more sense), there are part time physicians making less than 50k per year while med center CEOs make millions.

If you really want to compensate athletes based on the revenue they help generate, then adding a stipend isn't going to do it. It also won't reflect the discrepancy in money generating power between manziel and the last scholarship player at a&m.

Wouldn't the next step then be to pay high school players too? Some schools in Texas makes millions off high school football.

I guess I'm one of the few (only?) on here that thinks college athletes have a pretty decent deal. At wake they are getting about 50k per year in tuition, room, board, and gear. I think if you went to the IM football fields at Wake on a given night, and offered students a spot on the team and scholarship, 95%+ would take. It's obviously simplistic, but to me it indicates that being a college athlete on a full ride is probably already a pretty good deal and a very desirable position.
Click to expand...

This whole post is spot on.

Calling a person who voluntarily chooses to gets $60,000+ a year in benefits "exploited" is the highest of hyperbole.
 
When non-revenue athletes no longer get scholarships, and in fact pay the university for the privilege to play college sports, then you can fully justify the argument that athletes get a portion of what they truly earn the university.

Because college sports is only about money, right?
 
Bill, where ever there is a pile of money, there are long lines of people who know how to spend it better than the owners of it.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
This whole post is spot on.

Calling a person who voluntarily chooses to gets $60,000+ a year in benefits "exploited" is the highest of hyperbole.
Click to expand...

How about an in-state student athlete at a public school who gets closer to $6,000+ a year?
 
I'm confused. Do the "benefits" include money that the athletes have any discretion over?

What exactly is the benefit of having an education paid for when we're talking about income?

Do you guys equate a full scholarship with student loan "income" or Daddy writing checks? It's not the same.

Seriously, take a look at what graduate funding looks like for the best and the brightest, which, of course, includes programs that don't fund all students equally, some that do, and some that don't fund students at all. That's the better comparison for how to proceed with the gargantuan task of reforming the NCAA.
 
DEACS76 said:
Bill, where ever there is a pile of money, there are long lines of people who know how to spend it better than the owners of it.
Click to expand...

Why is there a big pile of money?
 
Let's take it a step further, the University can have donors endow scholarships so that they can have larger pools of money to provide athletes with stipends.

Radical reformation implies changing the entire structure of collegiate athletics, from athletic departments and financial aid offices to the entire NCAA organization.

Of course, in the Wake context it means that Ron Wellman might want to make a couple of new hires.
 
So now we're asking donors to pay for stipends, to cover the cost of giving money to athletes that cost the school way more than they bring in? I thought this was all about kids getting what they earned? Because if that's so than just play football and basketball, pay those athletes for their services, and kill everything else. That's the only way your argument holds any water.
 
Strickland33 said:
I'm confused. Do the "benefits" include money that the athletes have any discretion over?

What exactly is the benefit of having an education paid for when we're talking about income?

Do you guys equate a full scholarship with student loan "income" or Daddy writing checks? It's not the same.

Seriously, take a look at what graduate funding looks like for the best and the brightest, which, of course, includes programs that don't fund all students equally, some that do, and some that don't fund students at all. That's the better comparison for how to proceed with the gargantuan task of reforming the NCAA.
Click to expand...

Yet some people believe paying students at $7500 stipend for a semester would destroy college athletics.

Here's a simple solution that would work well at Wake. Let's just use $60K as the value for a full football scholarship at Wake. One scholarship equals 8 stipends. If the money isn't there to give stipends to every scholarship player, give out 9 fewer scholarships than the 85 allowed and use that plus $30K out of Grobe's $2.3M to fund the 76 remaining scholarship players.

Or the NCAA could implement a model in which half the scholarships for every sport are stipend scholarships at the set NCAA amount. A kid could decide to take a non-stipend scholarship from Alabama or a stipend scholarship from Wake. There are ways to make it work.
 
BillBrasky said:
So now we're asking donors to pay for stipends, to cover the cost of giving money to athletes that cost the school way more than they bring in? I thought this was all about kids getting what they earned? Because if that's so than just play football and basketball, pay those athletes for their services, and kill everything else. That's the only way your argument holds any water.
Click to expand...

Do you think Ohio St could pay their players more than LOWF? The point of my post is that not every player delivers for the program.
 
BillBrasky said:
So we're not compensating non-revenue athletes in this scenario, or are we? Are we asking them to pay for their right to cost the university money?
Click to expand...

My proposal was for the AD to recruit more donors to endow scholarships, which IMO would allow for the University to use the money that they were giving to scholarships to stipends.

Athletic scholarships are probably north of $60k. Let's call it $70k/year.

Graduate stipends are typically between $10k-$20k.

Were undergraduate stipends at $7500/yr. ($833.33/mo. in a 9 mo. school year), that's a HUGE financial burden lifted off of the shoulders of the university. It also holds the AD more accountable to donors.

It's a longshot, but we're on a message board. From here it seems both reasonable and a win-win. Universities don't have to pay athletes what they're worth and the APU is probably satisfied for the time being.

What's your alternative, since we both agree that change is inevitable at this point.

ETA: Ph's proposal is probably much better and more realistic.
 
PhDeac said:
Yet some people believe paying students at $7500 stipend for a semester would destroy college athletics. Here's a simple solution that would work well at Wake. Let's just use $60K as the value for a full football scholarship at Wake. One scholarship equals 8 stipends. If the money isn't there to give stipends to every scholarship player, give out 9 fewer scholarships than the 85 allowed and use that plus $30K out of Grobe's $2.3M to fund the 76 remaining scholarship players.

Or the NCAA could implement a model in which half the scholarships for every sport are stipend scholarships at the set NCAA amount. A kid could decide to take a non-stipend scholarship from Alabama or a stipend scholarship from Wake. There are ways to make it work.
Click to expand...

PH, let them take out a $20,000 loan,which would be $100 a week. Which is more than enough for "expenses". If I'm spending your money, it's steak and lobsters tails every night, if I'm spending money that i'd have to pay back, then it's a loaf of bread and a lb of baloney.
 
Strickland33 said:
I'm confused. Do the "benefits" include money that the athletes have any discretion over?

What exactly is the benefit of having an education paid for when we're talking about income?

Do you guys equate a full scholarship with student loan "income" or Daddy writing checks? It's not the same.

Seriously, take a look at what graduate funding looks like for the best and the brightest, which, of course, includes programs that don't fund all students equally, some that do, and some that don't fund students at all. That's the better comparison for how to proceed with the gargantuan task of reforming the NCAA.
Click to expand...

Why do they need an income? They are provided housing, food, and gear while in school. On top of a free education, which if taken seriously, will provide them hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional income in the future.

As for the comparisons to graduate students - you believe individual universities should set the amount they are willing to pay for each player? I'm sure that will have no unintended consequences.
 
Gee whiz, maybe Offer would have stayed if he had a stipend.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Why do they need an income? They are provided housing, food, and gear while in school. On top of a free education, which if taken seriously, will provide them hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional income in the future.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know. Did you ever buy things that weren't provided to you on campus? How about a pair of clothes that isn't a sweatsuit or University-apparel? What about a new suit, khakis, and a button-down for a job interview or internship? Or a car to get to that job or internship, or an off-campus apartment (even a clunker requires cash up-front)? What about - shudder - a six pack of beer or a set of dishes for a new apartment, or a new set of sheets?

Seriously, your argument takes patronizing to the next level. I understand what you're saying, but it's completely unreasonable. That's why a lot of these guys get busted for taking small loans from boosters. It's hard to live on zero income. Try it sometime.

Some of these athletes are REALLY privileged and come from middle class backgrounds. Many are not, though, and this system really puts them at a disadvantage.

As for the comparisons to graduate students - you believe individual universities should set the amount they are willing to pay for each player? I'm sure that will have no unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

It hasn't had that consequence in graduate education. I attend an institution that gives each of the 17 members of my cohort the same funding package. My last institution gave three of 25 students full scholarships with stipends ($6500/yr.) with a guaranteed job, two students full scholarships with a guaranteed job, and the rest had to fend for themselves. For whatever reason, this practice is considered completely acceptable, legally and institutionally, and plenty of institutions (NYU, for instance) are so much worse.

Ph will be able to weigh on this proposal in a more serious way, but I think it's solid for speculation.
 
PhDeac said:
How about an in-state student athlete at a public school who gets closer to $6,000+ a year?
Click to expand...

There's not one school in the country where tuition + room + board is anywhere close to $6000.

The cheapest school in the country - New Mexico Highlands University - has an annual room and board estimate of $17,000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top