1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

ADs: Cost of attendance, not pay-for-play

Discussion in 'CU Buffs Newsroom' started by RSSBot, Jul 18, 2011.

  1. RSSBot

    RSSBot News Junkie

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    28,753
    Likes Received:
    200
    By Ted Miller

    [​IMG]Scholarships that cover the full cost of attendance is the answer, not pay-for-play, according to a*polling of a handful of Pac-12 athletic directors.

    USC's Pat Haden felt so strongly about the issue that he has a post on the matter on the school's official website.

    "The NCAA formulas used to determine student-athlete stipends are not appropriate," Haden said in the post.* "Having interviewed 15 different athletes and broken down their stipend against their bills, they are left with about $5 per day for food.* I just do not think that is right."

    Haden is not alone. Across town at UCLA, Dan Guerrero feels the same way.

    “I would much prefer to see the NCAA pursue the notion of allowing athletic scholarships to cover the full cost of attendance at an institution," he said.

    In fact, six conference athletic directors said the same thing. None who were asked for their take -- a number of ADs were on vacation -- said they were against increasing the value of scholarships to cover cost of attendance.

    But paying athletes for their services beyond a full-cost scholarship also was panned.

    "I am not in favor of any 'stipend' that would exceed that amount," Stanford's Bob Bowlsby said.

    Why not? Well, while a few ADs sounded*at least lukewarm*to a revolutionary idea where athletes in revenue sports -- football and men's basketball -- could receive a stipend, none said they'd heard of a way to do that and not fall afoul of Title IX laws on gender equity.

    "I haven't heard of one yet," Arizona's Greg Byrne said.*"It would have to be a group effort to see if that's even feasible."

    And even if someone produced*a revolutionary idea that circumvented Title IX, the notion didn't generate much support.

    "I'm not for pay for play," Washington's*Scott*Woodward said.*"I think it's a great structure the way it is."

    So cost of attendance it is.

    "Cost of attendance," in fact, is the new catch phrase. It means covering all reasonable expenses a college athlete might have. That would mean an extra $2,500 to $3,500 per athlete. That doesn't sound like much, but when you multiply it across an entire athletic department with, say, 400 or so scholarship athletes, it gets pretty pricey. Woodward estimated it would cost Washington an extra $1 million a year.

    Still, that doesn't sound like too much when automatic qualifying conferences in the BCS are signing billion dollar TV contracts.

    Ah, but that's part of the problem. Non-AQ schools would struggle to pick up the extra tab. Many already are losing money on college sports. If AQ programs started to provide "better" scholarships and non-AQ programs didn't, then it would increase an already sizable competitive advantage.

    Colorado's Mike Bohn has been an athletic director in non-AQ conferences -- San Diego State and Idaho -- so he understands why the idea isn't generating much traction outside of AQ conferences.

    "I recognize the challenges it would put on those types of institutions," he said.*"They would have to evaluate that and make decisions on what's best for themselves."

    Bohn also feels like many people don't recognize just how valuable a full ride is -- cost of attendance or not. He points out it pays not only tuition and room and*board but also health care, tutoring and other academic services and*summer school. And the experience of a major college athlete is a fairly privileged one.

    "It's important to accurately portray the investment each institution is putting into each student-athlete," he said. "The investment in these men and women goes far beyond the scholarship commitment."

    Still, there's plenty of momentum behind the idea of improving scholarships and taking further*financial burdens off athletes.

    Writes Haden, "In a year from now, our new TV contract is going to kick in with $20 million per year in revenue and it is not right to have a student-athlete tell me he or she is going hungry. It is unconscionable."

    Originally posted by ESPN.com - Pac-10 Blog
    Click here to view the article.
     
  2. Lt.Col.FrankSlade

    Lt.Col.FrankSlade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    207
    Doesn't every athlete get a food (cafeteria) pass?? I always assumed "room and board" meant a meal plan was included. Exactly how are they going hungry?
     
  3. absinthe

    absinthe Ambitious but rubbish. Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    25,890
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    vacations to start.
     
  4. Lt.Col.FrankSlade

    Lt.Col.FrankSlade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    207
    What about them? I am all for vacations.
     
  5. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,738
    Likes Received:
    16,445
    Haden didn't help the cause there. That was a dramatic (and false) argument. "Cost of Attendance" makes sense to me, though.

    It's definitely a move by the power conference schools to gain a further competitive advantage. They'll pretend it's about their deep feelings of wanting to do right by the athletes, which is spin, but it would actually benefit the player. I'm in support of it on both levels. Of course, I root for a program that could afford the extra million dollars a year.
     
  6. Lt.Col.FrankSlade

    Lt.Col.FrankSlade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    207
    Unfortunately "cost of attendance" is not universal.

    It costs significantly more to attend the University of Colorado than it does to attend Kansas State University. Does that mean that the University of Colorado can pay students more than KSU can?
     

Share This Page