Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Tractor, Oct 24, 2011.
We can safely assume that includes every SEC school and tOSU.
they (ncaa) blow more than they don't
Men's basketball (NCAA maximum of 13 scholarship players)
Women's basketball (NCAA maximum of 15 scholarship players)
Football (NCAA maximum of 85 scholarship players)
Men's golf (NCAA maximum of 4.5 scholarship players)
Women's golf (NCAA maximum of 6 scholarship players)
Women's soccer (NCAA maximum of 12 scholarship players)
Women's tennis (NCAA maximum of 8 scholarship players)
Women's volleyball (NCAA maximum of 12 scholarship players)
CU also has a cross country team, a track and field team, and a ski team - which adds to the scholarship numbers. But I can't tell how many they have for each sport..
Adding up what I do know - CU already has at least 155.5 potential scholarship athletes. At $2,000 (doesn't say if that's per year, or per semester) that would cost CU a minimum of $311,000.
Don't be silly. $2,000 would be for football and men's BB only. As it is, I doubt cross country, track, and ski athletes get full scholarships.
You don't be silly. How would you justify giving Football and Men's BB preference with regards to Title IX?
That would make for some nice lawsuits, to be sure.
Exactly. No way would just giving stipends to football and men's bb hold up in court. And it would go to court. I hate the idea of paying players. Just hate it. Only, maybe, 15 or so atheltic programs operate in the black as it is. Not only that, this would just open another avenue for cheaters to cheat and get away with it. It would be much more difficult to monitor illegal payments.
I think it would be great if a "full ride" truly meant that tuition, books, room and board were covered 100% for these athletes.
As it is now, it's my understanding that a full scholarship falls short of providing this for athletes by about $2,000. Which means kids from underprivileged areas could really struggle to eat if they are on a scholarship that doesn' provide for full food and they are not allowed to work since they are on the team.
What's the problem with this? It's overdue IMO...
Actually the $2,000 figure might just be an "average" number. I've seen reports that scholarship athletes still have to pay $10,000+ for fees and so forth at some schools, and as little as a couple hundred dollars, at others.
There's not a "problem" with this - other than it is going to bankrupt many an athletic program - or force athletic departments to drop sports entirely. Sure - CU could afford to pay every athlete $2,000 a year (or even a semester). But CU is sitting on a fat payday from the Pac-12. How is CSU going to afford that expense? There are plenty of non-BCS teams who don't get nearly the same pay-day from the television networks - how will they pay?
They'll most likely start by cutting non-revenue sports...
Do you CU athletes have to pay to live in the dorms?
How will that jive with Title IX?
It's hard to make a rule that covers everyone in order to make up for a few tough cases. And, unfortunately, there are more tough cases than a lot of folks are willing to admit.
You live in an inner-city slum in the south. You're a minority. You go to a ****** public school. You only have one parent at home, and they're just barely around because they're working two jobs to make ends meet. You have this talent: you play damn good football. It's your ticket out of this slum, and it's the only way you can afford to go to a "good school."
Except the only good schools you get scholarship offers from are Minnesota, Wisconsin and Colorado. You realize that your mom will never get to see you play in person, because she can't afford to get to any games, and the rules don't allow anyone to help her out. But you make that sacrifice to get to your dreams.
Then January rolls around, and you realize that it's really, really ****ing cold. Cold like you've never experienced in your life. The rules say that your team can't give you coats, hats, gloves, etc - and, unfortunately, there's no way you could afford to buy any on your own. And, by the way, you can't get a job on the side to earn some money to buy that stuff...
Now, throw in the fact that you made a mistake in high school and got your girlfriend pregnant. She's essentially abandoned the kid, and you're doing the right thing and trying your best to raise him. Sure, the school can provide room in family housing for you and put you on a campus meal plan, but that meal plan can't cover your kid, and if you want your child to have a winter coat and gloves, let alone good meals that don't have the word "ramen" in them, you're going to have to figure out a way to do it without taking on a part-time job or accepting help from anyone that can even remotely be connected to the university.
Situations like that are a reality. They aren't the "norm," but they are more common than most realize. The NCAA doesn't do "exceptions" to their policies, so they have to set policies that can encompass all situations, and right now, their policies **** over a lot of kids. They either have to open up the can-of-worms that is making exceptions for particular situations, or adjust their policies in other ways to solve.
If they start with men's non-revenue sports, I can't imagine it's a problem. Then an equal number of spots in women's sports, I suppose...
I admit I do not know how many men's non-revenue sports most places have.
I would assume that most are like CU - where the only men's non-revenue sports have a women's counterpart.
Separate names with a comma.