Mark Emmert asks NCAA to allow 2K payments to student athletes

[ProudWFGrad]

Reported per ESPN.


I really like this idea and think it will keep a few kids out of trouble.

Mainly I am posting this because I have a few questions that someone might be able to answer.

This would be any student-athlete on full scholarship, not just football?

The school is not forced to offer this incentive, just as they can choose to offer partial scholarships, correct?

Is this 2K per year or semester?

 

[BBDeac]

BCS programs in all likelihood won't have any problem with the extra money, but what about programs like a Ball State or something? Are they gonna have to come up with an extra $2,000 for every scholarship athlete? That could be an extra $200,000 per year for just 100 scholarship athletes.

 

[ITK]

BCS programs in all likelihood won't have any problem with the extra money, but what about programs like a Ball State or something? Are they gonna have to come up with an extra $2,000 for every scholarship athlete? That could be an extra $200,000 per year for just 100 scholarship athletes.

Its optional.

 

[BBDeac]

Its optional.

If they do it for one team do they have to do it for all their teams? It makes sense to pay the football and basketball teams, but then do you also have to pay the women's cross country team? I suppose Title IX could come into play here.

 

[ITK]

Its a grant so its an individual thing. You could give it to 1 player on the BBall team but not another. I think it gets around Title IX that way. Its for any sport.

 

[BBDeac]

Its a grant so its an individual thing. You could give it to 1 player on the BBall team but not another. I think it gets around Title IX that way. Its for any sport.

Interesting. More separation between the haves and the have-nots. You won't be able to stay competitive in recruiting with the big boys without offering the extra $2,000. At least in football and basketball.

 

[Deacon923]

Its a grant so its an individual thing. You could give it to 1 player on the BBall team but not another. I think it gets around Title IX that way. Its for any sport.

All I know about this is from reading the linked story, but the story says it would be on a conference by conference basis, not individual institutions. Will be interesting to see if all conferences support it. You can bet the SEC will be first in line to approve it.

Also, while I am no Title IX expert, I don't see how this gets around Title IX at all. Title IX basically says you have to fund women's sports at parity with men's sports. If all 98 scholarship players on the football and basketball team get a $2,000 raise (i.e. $196,000), then the women's sports are going to have to get $196,000 in funding. I think that can come in the form of additional spending (i.e., could be more basic scholarships, spending on facilities, etc), not necessarily tacking on $2,000 to 98 women's scholarships, but I am not sure about that.

So, the cost of being a big time college athletic department is going to go up by about $400,000. That's almost a rounding error to big state schools in big conferences but is a meaningful number to smaller schools (like Wake) and schools in less-prestigious conferences.

 

[RacerDeac]

Reported per ESPN.


I really like this idea and think it will keep a few kids out of trouble.

$2000 is going to keep a kid from taking gifts from boosters and agents? Really? That's some lala land thinking. It can be debated whether this is a good idea to help cover the "full cost" of attending school, however that's defined, but it certainly isn't going to cut down on cheating, extra gifts, etc in any way.

 

[RacerDeac]

So, the cost of being a big time college athletic department is going to go up by about $400,000. That's almost a rounding error to big state schools in big conferences but is a meaningful number to smaller schools (like Wake) and schools in less-prestigious conferences.

And we already fund much more expensive scholarships than the big schools anyway.

 

[94Deac]

To pay for it they should just raise tuition on all the students who aren't getting a free college degree.

 

[deacs1995]

can of worms

 

[ProudWFGrad]

$2000 is going to keep a kid from taking gifts from boosters and agents? Really? That's some lala land thinking. It can be debated whether this is a good idea to help cover the "full cost" of attending school, however that's defined, but it certainly isn't going to cut down on cheating, extra gifts, etc in any way.

No, not boosters and agents. That allure is to powerful.

I am speaking to more petty crimes and misdemeanors, theft and slinging dime bags, as some of our athletes have been implicated in.

Poverty and a sense of entitlement, when you can't even take your girlfriend out to Village Tavern, can be quite the motivator to an impressionable young man.

 

[RacerDeac]

No, not boosters and agents. That allure is to powerful.

I am speaking to more petty crimes and misdemeanors, theft and slinging dime bags, as some of our athletes have been implicated in.

Poverty and a sense of entitlement, when you can't even take your girlfriend out to Village Tavern, can be quite the motivator to an impressionable young man.

Even with regards to that, I just don't see $167 per month changing someone's decision on whether to steal things and/or deal drugs or not.

 

[dcon69]

167 mo wouldn't pay for Tennessee players ammunition or keep gas in the get-away car.

 

[ITK]

All I know about this is from reading the linked story, but the story says it would be on a conference by conference basis, not individual institutions. Will be interesting to see if all conferences support it. You can bet the SEC will be first in line to approve it.

Also, while I am no Title IX expert, I don't see how this gets around Title IX at all. Title IX basically says you have to fund women's sports at parity with men's sports. If all 98 scholarship players on the football and basketball team get a $2,000 raise (i.e. $196,000), then the women's sports are going to have to get $196,000 in funding. I think that can come in the form of additional spending (i.e., could be more basic scholarships, spending on facilities, etc), not necessarily tacking on $2,000 to 98 women's scholarships, but I am not sure about that.

So, the cost of being a big time college athletic department is going to go up by about $400,000. That's almost a rounding error to big state schools in big conferences but is a meaningful number to smaller schools (like Wake) and schools in less-prestigious conferences.

Yes, I read it wrong. But I agree with the person who says that an extra $167 a month won't be the difference.

 

[OblongPickle]

Why anyone would think that the dirty programs wouldn't just give their players $5K or $10K instead of $2K is beyond me.

Open that door, and it just brings individuals in to cook the books

 

[ChaosDeac]

"Give them an inch and they'll take a mile"

 

[tau06]

Why anyone would think that the dirty programs wouldn't just give their players $5K or $10K instead of $2K is beyond me.

Open that door, and it just brings individuals in to cook the books

Bingo.

 

[AnonymousDeac]

$2000 is going to keep a kid from taking gifts from boosters and agents? Really? That's some lala land thinking. It can be debated whether this is a good idea to help cover the "full cost" of attending school, however that's defined, but it certainly isn't going to cut down on cheating, extra gifts, etc in any way.

You're looking at this the wrong way. This is about the NCAA taking proactive measures to preserve the sanctity of amateurism. By adding this stipend, it helps eliminate the argument that a scholarship is not enough to fully provide for a student-athlete. Because of all the articles discussing paying athletes, this is simply done to protect the NCAA.

This has absolutely nothing to do with preventing future illicit activity.

 

[RacerDeac]

You're looking at this the wrong way. This is about the NCAA taking proactive measures to preserve the sanctity of amateurism. By adding this stipend, it helps eliminate the argument that a scholarship is not enough to fully provide for a student-athlete. Because of all the articles discussing paying athletes, this is simply done to protect the NCAA.

This has absolutely nothing to do with preventing future illicit activity.

I know. I'm simply disagreeing with the OP who suggested that it would. This is a CYA for the NCAA. The only thing that's actually going to cut down on the cheating is for the NCAA to get serious about it's punishments.