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

Big 10 discusses a living expenses stipend for varsity athletes

Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Buffnik, May 19, 2011.

  1. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,621
    Likes Received:
    16,258
    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6564134

    The idea, which is backed by current NCAA president Mark Emmert and was favored by late NCAA president Myles Brand, is to bridge the gap between what athletic scholarships pay and other expenses like transportation and clothing. That difference has been estimated at between $2,000 to $5,000 per player.

    -and-

    He acknowledged many schools and conferences across the country couldn't afford to cover those additional expenses, which could run about $300,000 a year just for football and men's basketball players alone.

    -then this gem of a quote-

    But some Big Ten officials say if they can help out their athletes, then the concept of using the same rules for all teams should be abandoned. Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said the stakes are simply higher for schools like his than for those in the MAC or Sun Belt.

    "The reality is, if there's cost of attendance and you can't afford it, don't do it," Smith said. "The teams you're trying to beat can't do it either. Don't do it because Ohio State's doing it. That's one of the things schools at that level get trapped into thinking."


    ***************

    I hope that other BCS conferences get on board with this. It needs to be done. I also think it's a signal that the Big 6 conferences are on the path of separating from the rest of the NCAA D1.
     
  2. chipwich

    chipwich Administrator Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    20,683
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Cheat and lie ?
     
  3. Buffellow85

    Buffellow85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    164
    Gene Smith- 'Do as I say, not what I do "
     
  4. Folsom Field

    Folsom Field Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    13
    It would not surprise me one bit if the Big Ten leads the way on this, like they have on other issues like instant-replay.
     
  5. GoBuffs08

    GoBuffs08 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    644
    Exactly-Gene Smith is hoping that pay for play is approved, and grandfathered in, thus allowing him to ignore another large stack of NCAA violations.
     
  6. Mick Ronson

    Mick Ronson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    9,866
    Likes Received:
    270
    and stone-walling a playoff. thanks so much Jim Delaney.
     
  7. PhillyBuff

    PhillyBuff Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    6,987
    Likes Received:
    293
    Salary Cap?
     
  8. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,621
    Likes Received:
    16,258
    I really think this is another step in the direction of about 60 programs breaking away under the BCS as a governing body. The NCAA is focused on a level playing field and the big boys don't want that. Should programs that draw between 50k and 100k in attendance while having media deals that play $15-25 million really be playing by the same rules as programs that draw 15-35k and get a couple million bucks in conference media revenue?

    Scholarship limits and a host of other things have been designed to artificially level a playing field to the point where an Ap State can go into Michigan and win a football game. Now we've got this federal case trying to force an expanded playoff that includes the small conferences. Give me 5 conferences with 12 teams under the BCS, put the conference champions as auto-bids into a playoff system that uses the big bowl games, and add the 3 highest ranked at-large teams to round out the field. Or something similar.

    As a side benefit, we gain even more separation from CSU and Air Force in-state as they get relegated to basically 1-AA status.
     
  9. Mick Ronson

    Mick Ronson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    9,866
    Likes Received:
    270
    i agree. nothing about those quotes doesn't say first class and coach. and given where the zeitgeist is on any form of regulation or "leveling" measures from a "governing body", the ideological climate for a "if you can pay for it, then you got it" move is right.
     
  10. SINKRATZ

    SINKRATZ Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,175
    Likes Received:
    1,160
    Tattoos and rental cars will hereafter be considered necessary living expenses and this rule will be retroactive to Maurice Clarett's freshman year.

    So you see NCAA infractions committee, we weren't cheating, we were simply ahead of the curve when it comes to looking out for the best interest of our student athletes. I expect a full apology and 5 additional scholarships to compensate tOSU for these heinous accusations.

    Signed,
    Jim Tressel
     
  11. BuffNut99

    BuffNut99 Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    13,080
    Likes Received:
    2,498
    Couldn't. Diasgree. More. CU would not benefit from this, we would get $eparated from the pack (again).
     
  12. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,621
    Likes Received:
    16,258
    Not with the Pac-12 deal. Within 5 years, it's likely we'll be getting $25-$30 million a year. That's up from our current $8-$9 million. I don't care how much CU raises tuition, if we need to increase coach salaries in football and basketball by 75%, and if we need to pay off the current loans. That still leaves more than enough cheddar to roll with a plan that could divert $300k to maybe $500k once all sports are included. Hell, just paying off the loans so that there aren't annual debt service payments probably frees up enough working capital to cover this.
     
  13. Folsom Field

    Folsom Field Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    13
    Oh, I think once Delaney gets all his ducks in a row, the Big Ten will also break away from the BCS, too and we'll get the playoff system. Delaney is the most powerful man in college athletics.

    I think this is just another Phase in the project to demolish the BCS. I also believe he will ultimately force Notre Dame's hand into joining the Big Ten by not allowing any Big Ten school play ND in football, ending their matchups with MSU, Mich, Purdue and sometimes NWestern and weakening their schedule even further.

    Once ND joins the Big Ten, they will then pick up 3 more schools to become a 16 teams super conference. Probably adding West Virginia, Pitt, Rutgers and <holding my nose> Mizzou.

    Notice the new emblem: B1G...will easily be a B16
     
  14. Del

    Del Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    24
    I see this as a bad move. Yes we may have some future revenue to look forward to but do you really think we can pay as much as Oregon, USC, Texas, and Ohio State? Just makes it even easier for these programs to cheat if you ask me. Players getting cash payments will be even harder to track now that the have "legal income" coming in. I can see it now at these places....every Tuesday the players at said school will go into the coaches office to get their "laundry money" check and also receive 2-3k in cash in the same envelop that their stipened is in....I have no problem with the idea of paying players as I think they should get something since they make so much money for the university but the execution will be taken advantage of just like everything else.

    Also I don't think Delaney wants a playoff at all after reading Death to the BCS. He likes the system how it is because it makes it easier for schools in his conference to reach the NC game. A playoff would level some of the playing field and that is not what he wants at all.
     
  15. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,471
    Likes Received:
    4,478
    You're missing the point. Every team in the conference would be paying the same amount. The competition wouldn't be between teams within the conference, it would be from other conferences. If the stipend from the B10 is $500/Mo and the stipend from the SEC is $750/Mo., that's where the inequity comes in. But every player at every school within those conferences would be receiving the same amount.

    And yes, I agree that this is another move to break away from the NCAA. It's not just writing on the wall, it's giant neon colored spray paint.
     
  16. Del

    Del Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    24
    Right and mean while we are in yet another arms race with all the other conferences upping the amount every few years to beat the other conferences offer and taking away money that could be spent on facilities which we need about 163 million dollars invested to get us to the level we should be at according to the 2011 master plan.

    Also like I said earlier, this just makes it easier for the big schools to pay players over the amount. Cash stuffed stipened envelopes are a lot easier to get away with when the player already has money coming in. A player that is not allowed to work under the current model is easier to track when they get paid for stuff.

    Anyway, It won't happen as long as title IX is around and good luck getting that changed. Do you really think Ohio State is going to pay every athlete 5k a year in the 35 sports they play?
     
  17. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,621
    Likes Received:
    16,258
    I don't think we'd see different conferences pay different amounts. They'd agree on a rule from the governing body on what the stipend amount would be for a varsity athlete. I really don't see how this would increase the potential for abuse. It's not like the AD wouldn't have to keep records and show its books. If anything, it reduces the temptation for athletes to take money under-the-table from boosters. Honestly, this benefits the student athletes. It's wrong that the schools are making tens of millions of dollars and the athletes that supply the entertainment value are sometimes in situations where they can't even afford a new coat for the winter.
     
  18. Bone Buff

    Bone Buff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    2,380
    Likes Received:
    101
    There is no way in hell the rest of the NCAA would allow this.

    Also, F*** Gene Smith.
     
  19. SINKRATZ

    SINKRATZ Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,175
    Likes Received:
    1,160
    I think they're counting on that. The way this is headed they won't need to ask NCAA permission if they ultimately break away.
     
  20. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,471
    Likes Received:
    4,478
    Yup. I don't think the B10 gives a damn what the NCAA thinks. This is a shot across the bow. The NCAA won't have anything to say about it. They can whine and cry all they want, but schools not in the NCAA don't have to adhere to NCAA rules.
     
  21. Lt.Col.FrankSlade

    Lt.Col.FrankSlade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    207
    This will not end well.

    The Fed / States won't allow this. Can't see the Colorado legislature allowing a school like CU to pay players a monthly stipend while CSU can't afford to do the same.
     
  22. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,621
    Likes Received:
    16,258
    Why?

    They allow Metro State to offer scholarships with lower transcript requirements than CU must agree to. It's really none of the state's business. Nor is it the Feds business whether some schools are NAIA members, others are members of the NCAA and others may become members of a new entity. As long as they're abiding by the rules and not breaking any laws, it's not a governmental issue.
     
  23. Del

    Del Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    24
    Agree with Slade...May not be the states business but won't stop the CO politicos from stinking their nose in it. They could threaten to withold some of what's left from the CU funding if there is a gap, also how do you think this will go over in general community about paying athletes "when we can't give our professors a raise the past three years" -- Just saying it opens up a Pandora's box of problems and won't end well regardless if on the surface it seems like a just idea to compensate the athletes who bring in money for the university.

    Won't happen though with title IX, I think this is just a way to distract people from the problems tOSU is in with the NCAA.
     
  24. Lt.Col.FrankSlade

    Lt.Col.FrankSlade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    207

    It doesn't have to be anybody's "business." As long as the state legislature has control of the budget, and as long as the feds have the commerce clause they can interject themselves right in the middle of the debate.

    Also -- there is absolutely no way that they will be able to limit their stipends to football / men's basketball players alone. Title IX already forbids that sort of thing, and lawsuits would be rampant if any school decided to pay men's scholarship athletes while denying female athletes the same benefit. And what about smaller sports? It will be tough to justify a football player receiving a stipend while a scholarship tennis player or gymnast does not.

    If you assume a school has 250 scholarship athletes (both mens and womens, all sports included) and pays a stipend of $500 a month - that's $125,000 a MONTH for stipends. There are very few colleges who would be able to afford that pricetag.

    Also -- how do you make the value of the stipend equal? $500 in Boulder, Colorado won't go very far - but you'd be doing pretty well in Manhattan, Kansas.
     
  25. Lt.Col.FrankSlade

    Lt.Col.FrankSlade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    207

    Why on earth would they agree to that? The teams in the Big 12 conference already don't equally split their television revenue. Why would Texas agree to limit what they pay to a student athlete to be the same as what OSU or Texas Tech pays? Why would the Big 12 agree to pay student athletes the same as what the Big 10 pays, or the SEC pays, etc? They want every advantage they can get, and are perfectly willing to spend to get it.
     
  26. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,621
    Likes Received:
    16,258
    For the same reason that every school once agreed that the stipend for laundry money was $15 under the rules of the NCAA governing body back in the day.

    This is not about turning collegiate athletes into professionals. No one wants that. It would be terrible for business (players would have rights to a cut of media, could unionize, licensing, etc.). This is about the big dogs separating themselves from the pack under the guise of helping the student athlete. Fortunately, it actually would help them. They're so limited under current rules, that many of them struggle. They can't work during the school year. It would be good for the players.

    We're talking about maybe $2k per scholarship player per semester to assist with living expenses while they're under scholarship.

    Edit: To answer your question more directly...

    Because it's more than they get now and it would effectively trump half of the current D1A programs and increase competitive advantages for the big programs. There are too many benefits to the UTs of the world to quibble over whether they're also gaining advantages over Iowa State.
     
  27. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,471
    Likes Received:
    4,478
    I have no idea why the Feds / states would think they have any business in making such a decision.
     
  28. SINKRATZ

    SINKRATZ Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,175
    Likes Received:
    1,160
    They're already asking why the NCAA doesn't use a playoff system, I'm sure the feds would have no problem sticking their nose in this too. Besides at some point it's going to be hard for ADs to maintain non-profit status and the govt is going to threaten taxing these "businesses".
     
  29. BuffAlum2007

    BuffAlum2007 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,390
    Likes Received:
    87
    I don't understand why this is something that an individual conference would be allowed to consider on its own...wouldn't something like this have to be decided on by the NCAA Division I Committee???
     
    GregInArlington likes this.
  30. TimmyDUBs

    TimmyDUBs Dirty haole Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2011
    Messages:
    6,567
    Likes Received:
    949
    I'm with you on this one. conference inequity would also be a bad thing in my mind. It paves the way to make the current corruption even easier to cover up and really just kicks it up another notch.
     

Share This Page