<p>
</p>
<p>Well the solution is certainly not to force other (some of which are also “impoverished”) students to foot the bill (through increased fees) so the athletes (who unlike most of the students aren’t paying for their education) can buy some pizza. While in the meantime the other students have to take out a higher loan to pay for the fee increase.</p>
<p>Are you intentionally misunderstanding me?</p>
<p>No, I just don’t understand where you expect this stipend money to come from when the vast majority of schools are already subsidizing their athletic departments?</p>
<p>The only reasonable conclusion is that the money would come from the other students in the form of increased tuition/fees (as UNC already demonstrated by attempting to increase athletic fees after having to pay a fired coach 1.8 million).</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/[/url]”>http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/</a></p>
<p>
I agree most schools would position the problem that way and claim increasing the fees would be the only way to pay the stipends. However, I believe student fees are far from the only reasonable way to pay these fees.</p>
<p>Let’s look at one sport … 15(?) scholarship players and $2000/semester per player … or $60,000/year to pay for the stipends. Schools would probably charge funds outside the athletic department … but they don’t have to. Reduce the coaches salary, fly coach instead of a charter, stay in a less spiffy hotel, don’t pay for the band and cheerleaders to travel to games. How hard can it be to find $60k if a school really wanted to find it.</p>
<p>College sports is cesspool in so many ways … however, asking the players to live on less than financial aid recipients is not part of the solution; it another one of the problems.</p>
<p>This would be much tougher for football with 85 scholarships … now the school needs to find $350k … tougher nut to crack but doable if they wanted to.</p>
<p>One last comment … this is only an issue for full scholarship sports … which for men are, I believe are basketball and football. For women I am not sure of the list but it also is a short list of sports.</p>
<p>I could get behind this if schools could find the funds without increasing tuition/fees for other students.</p>
<p>It does not say 22 college football programs made money-it said 22 departments that have college football as part of the sports made money. Football alone makes money at far more FBS schools and with new TV money that number is increasing again…</p>
<p>
It doesn’t matter, because either way the athletic departments don’t have any money to give out stipends in the first place.</p>
<p>*and I don’t think I claimed college football was losing money, just that athletic departments were</p>
<p>My proposal says lets the kids make money on their own- through endorsements, autographs, appearance fees, selling the various trinkets they get from bowl games etc.</p>
<p>If they do any of that now their ineligible. I say let them stay eligible.</p>
<p>The problem with allowing kids to make money from endorsements is that it fundamentally changes the recruiting process and impacts the nature of the university. Suddenly a high-profile recruit is less interested in finding the best fit and will likely make his decision based on maximizing his income potential.</p>
<p>USC and UCLA will become more popular with athletes as recruiters point to the #2 media market and national exposure. Schools like Baylor won’t be able to compete on a compensation level with the UTexas-type schools that have massive alumni bases and state-wide popularity.</p>
<p>If a student-athlete wants to be part of an educational institution, he cannot make his decision based on how much money he is able to wring out of the process.</p>
<p>That is not a problem to me.</p>
<p>Why? The university is choosing the player based on how much money they can wring out of the process. </p>
<p>Parents are on here all the time talking about careers that pay best. Earnings after grad for certain institutions. Choices made based on how much money they will make. </p>
<p>I agree Tom.</p>
<p>It would probably hurt in the long run as it would end with all the top recruits congregating to ~5 major market schools (like the NBA) killing competitive balance and reducing the sports popularity thereby cutting off the endorsement money.</p>
<p>Top recruits go to a limited number of schools now for football and basketball. Rutgers generally can not get the same recruits Alabama can get for football or NC in basketball.</p>
<p>They can get some but the top recruiting classes end up at a limited number of schools.</p>
<p>I question the cynicism expressed here. There are many universities that emphasize finding student athletes that match the campus without regard to income potential of the students. Duke, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Stanford and more refuse to consider certain athletes due to the institutional standards.</p>
<p>Another issue with allowing endorsement income is that a cottage industry will arise of boosters hiring athletes to sign autographs. “If you come to Big State U, I will pay you $1 million for your autograph!” It will become a bidding war that will make life even more chaotic for 18-year olds.</p>
<p>There are 350(?) D1 basketball players … and 1000 (?) FBS football players … who are under consideration to receive stipends. If the ability to chase sponsors was implemented instead of stipends it would split the players … a few star would get big bucks … and the lion’s share of players would get nothing and be where they are now … not sure I agree this comes close to fixing the issue trying to be addressed while raising a whole new set if issues.</p>
<p>I would also think it might raise some Title IX concerns as the benefits would overwhelmingly go to men.</p>
<p>My best friend’s son played basketball at a NJ HS power and I have knowledge of kids who attended some of the schools you listed, The kids were poor and could not return home when relatives passed away. I actually heard a now NBA player say- I am given x pairs of shoes for games and practice way more than I need. Why can’t I sell a pair?</p>
<p>What is wrong if a HS kid could negotiate a $1 million bucks for himself?</p>
<p>3togo- any private entity would be free to hire any player. Sure some would make more but the local pool store might pay a swimmer $500 to be available in his store on a Saturday. Why is that wrong?</p>
<p>There are plenty of kids on college campuses who go through the normal FA process and do not have the money to fly home. The idea of moving away from home and becoming an adult is a difficult process for everyone and offers a variety of challenges. Many students (including athletes) choose to stay closer to home so that trips home are affordable.</p>
<p>The problem with a HS kid negotiating a million dollar offer is that he is almost certain to be taken advantage of by someone in the process. By definition, whoever is offering the money has access to resources far beyond what any HS student can imagine. At least now, the universities are legally restrained about what they can and cannot offer.</p>
<p>I do not want the universities to offer anything. I have no problem with private parties outside the university hiring these kids as speakers, glad handers at openings etc.</p>
<p>I so agree with you Tom.</p>
<p>The number of athletes who make money for the universities and have a chance at the NBA or NFL is a small number. The field hockey player from a D2 school is costing the school money. Trying to lump the 2 together is insane. Pay the people who are helping the universities make millions of dollars otherwise it is nothing more than illegal labor practice. Much more egregious than the unpaid internships that gets everyone all riled up.</p>