<p>@ Great kid: No none of those, only a fair time swimming the 500, but he does have a 99.7 GPA, first in his class and an 800 on the Bio SAT. Maybe that’s why I sound bitter about athletic scholarships; I want the colleges to “show me the money”. LOL</p>
<p>I would not consider a stipend in the $2000-$2500 range as now under consideration as “paying athletes”. It is just providing the full scholarship as indicated in the school’s cost of attendance. It could be done conference by conference and based on need.</p>
<p>[NCAA</a> considering need-based stipend for athletes | CollegeFootballTalk](<a href=“NCAA considering need-based stipend for athletes - NBC Sports”>NCAA considering need-based stipend for athletes - NBC Sports)</p>
<p>[Big</a> Ten commisioner Jim Delany pitches NCAA reform plan - ESPN](<a href=“http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9506460/big-ten-commisioner-jim-delany-pitches-ncaa-reform-plan]Big”>Big Ten commisioner Jim Delany pitches NCAA reform plan - ESPN)</p>
<p>Yeah, what the heck? I just read today that Oklahoma State got nailed for paying athletes, and providing tutors for them, and apparently getting professors to give them a pass even if they did little or no work.</p>
<p>Appalling. Sports should be severed from the Universities altogether. We should honor and highlight the skills that actually make a difference in society like the boy working on a disease cure or the girl who is creating something valuable.</p>
<p>My son and I argued about this for awhile today. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m with you, Disneydad! Let’s honor what MATTERS. Sports are fun and everything, and there is the value of taking care of one’s body and keeping in excellent shape (assuming one DOES and doesn’t just hurt himself taking performance-enhancing drugs), but other than that, college is NOT about sports.</p>
<p>Let’s untwist our values and get it right. </p>
<p>(And I have a kid great at a particular sport - but who is also a brainiac. I could not care less about the sport, which is just for fun, in my mind, but care a lot about his love of learning, which he has)</p>
<p>For a bunch of educated people, the unfortunate level of either/or thinking is depressing. </p>
<p>It’s not either/or. </p>
<p>One has nothing to do with the other. </p>
<p>You aren’t getting the TV money and the shoe contracts and sports scholarship money in the math department if the sports go away. You just aren’t getting the sports money. </p>
<p>You also aren’t getting the alumni football weekends and the donations the liberal arts departments DO get from those. Do you think these schools don’t understand the math? Really?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only 24 schools actually make money off their athletic departments, the average school loses 10 million a year due to their athletic programs (and this is AFTER alumni donations).</p>
<p>Ok devils advocat now. </p>
<p>There are 250 colleges that have football programs. Assuming that college sports was once an amateur endeavor which helped young men (and later women) grow into well rounded people. Spectator interest has grown exponentially with the result being a billion dollar industry. This environment has fostered a culture that worships athletes. The NFL and NCAA have created a monopoly that requires football players to play in college for no compensation. These colleges consequently make millions despite the fact that very few of the players ever payoff of a pro contract. The amount of time and effort required of these athletes prevents them from being successful academically. This devalues the "scholarships " that they receive and therefore the quid pro quo of an education in return for playing a sport is a sham. Monetary compensation is the only way to correct this inequity.</p>
<p>Where are all these schools “making millions”? Please show me… I count only 24 that even make a profit.</p>
<p>I would be delighted if sports were severed from the university. I would be delighted if the mission of the university was academics rather than fund raising. I would be delighted if funding wasn’t being cut, positions eliminated and whole departments let go. I would be delighted if adjuncts were always paid living wages and got benefits. I would be delighted if post-docs were better paid. Probably none of that is going to happen. It does seem possible we can insist student athletes not be exploited. That seems doable imho. And I don’t think it will harm the non-athletes. ymmv</p>
<p>The Atlantic article was recommended to me by a young friend from a comfortable middle class background who played Div 1 football, was a Rhodes Scholar, and is now an attorney. The football worked out great for him even though he didn’t have the talent to go pro. However, he felt the majority of his team mates were exploited. I will take his word for it.</p>
<p>
UNC already charges their students a fee to pay for their athletics programs.
<a href=“http://www.unc.edu/finance/fd/c/sa/stu_fees/stu_fee_pdf/gf_athletic_fee.pdf[/url]”>http://www.unc.edu/finance/fd/c/sa/stu_fees/stu_fee_pdf/gf_athletic_fee.pdf</a></p>
<p>Bark, I’m going to need a cite on that 10 million dollar figure. Not that I think you are “wrong”. Just lets deal with citable facts. </p>
<p>Look, the revenue sports pay for the other sports. I think the whole thing is out of hand. Why not go to the NFL. And have them pay for the sports. That would include the lacrosse and women’s soccer and tennis. The Olympic sports. </p>
<p>I’m aware most schools don’t make a profit off of their sports, but the revenue sports pay for everyone’s athletics in the schools.</p>
<p>Doesn’t UNC give need based aid to students who may have difficulty paying fees? </p>
<p>You are concerned you may be helping out the athletes with these fees? That is the university benefiting, not the athletes imho. That is the reality of how a university operates these days. We can complain, but we probably can’t get athletics eliminated. Maybe we change how the athletes are treated. At least, I would like to think so.</p>
<p>I am definitely not a college sports booster.</p>
<p>I’m not a booster. But…, at UNC, most donations do come from boosters. For that matter, over 50% of all donations come from that other controversial segment … Greek alumni.</p>
<p>Bark. You do realize that fee is to pay for the Olympic sports and to help maintain the women’s sports auditorium? You also realize UNC has wildly low tuition? No?</p>
<p>Given the continued funding cuts, maybe UNC needs to increase its emphasis on athletic money making opportunities rather than have UNC parents advocate for eliminating sports there. The money to run the university is going to have to come from someplace.</p>
<p>I think the fund raisers know this. I know they know this.</p>
<p>A lot of information about athletics revenue and spending at specific colleges is available here:</p>
<p><a href=“http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/[/url]”>http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/</a></p>
<p>Here you go
[NCAA</a> FBS schools spending more than they make - ESPN](<a href=“http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9236478/ncaa-fbs-schools-spending-more-make]NCAA”>NCAA FBS schools spending more than they make - ESPN)</p>
<p>I was wrong, only 22/23 programs make a profit.</p>
<p>[22</a> college football programs made money in 2009-10, NCAA report says | al.com](<a href=“http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/06/22_college_football_programs_m.html]22”>22 college football programs made money in 2009-10, NCAA report says - al.com)
average lost is 9.5 million per athletic department</p>
<p>Add in stipends what happens to those numbers? It is already known that UNC tried to increase their Athletics fee for undergrads by $90 per student because they had to pay a coach they fired 2.7 million. [UNC</a> General Alumni Association :: Athletics Fee Increase <br>Request Voted Down |](<a href=“Carolina Alumni”>http://alumni.unc.edu/article.aspx?sid=8553)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2012/08/coaches-may-receive-pay-hike[/url]”>Coaches may receive pay hike - The Daily Tar Heel;
<p>The issue is that when they say a football program lost money, it has to do with that program supporting all athletics. Not football</p>
<p>The fee is for club play and intramurals, etc. to keep up the facilities for that use. The revenue sports at unc make money. The dean dome was built with donations. It’s a tough argument to make about unc. You should try a different school</p>
<p>Also, just to be clear, as I’ve said, all of these adults are making a very nice living off of there athletes. The athletes are not the ones getting rich. So I’m really not sure why you disagree that they should have some pizza money.</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that schools cut out any athletic related activities that don’t bring in $$$ ? (Title IX may get in the way of that)</p>
<p>Of course UNC’s athletic department did lose money once you subtract the schools’ required athletic fee from the equation.</p>
<p>Professional level athletics and a university education go together like health insurance and employment. It’s just become part of our of ‘normal’. Our continued acceptance and defense of the status quo simply continues the existence of a silly system. Tweaking a broken and nonsensical system just results in a tweaked nonsensical system.</p>
<p>Let’s get high level athletics out of the university system.</p>
<p>Let the NFL etc train their own supply chain.</p>