Full Cost Scholarships Approved
The NCAA has passed a measure to allow scholarships to include cost of living for all student athletes. Not a surprise given the heat the NCAA has been under recently. I still think that players shouldbe provided the ability to earn more. Why create an artificial cap on endorsement money and other secondary forms of income?
Anyway, the measure will allow for schools to pay between $2000-5000 extra per year. That's not a ton of money now, but when I was in college, that would have been huge. Small step, but it is in the right direction. It passed 79-1. The lone dissenter was Boston College.
Maybe Gordon Gee was right about doing business with the Catholics? Shrewd lot they've got there at BC. (I'm teasing, Catholics. Relax.)
Saw this on twitter as an ESPN article, but screw ESPN. Here is a CBS link:
January 18th, 2015 at 9:25 AM ^
The NCAA's days are numbered. This is just the beginning.
January 18th, 2015 at 11:03 AM ^
If so, it will probably just be replaced by a similar organization. Colleges have an interest in having a regulatory body.
January 18th, 2015 at 9:28 AM ^
January 18th, 2015 at 9:37 AM ^
Then take $1 million off of administrator and coaching salaries. I hope those guys don't miss any meals.
January 18th, 2015 at 9:41 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 18th, 2015 at 9:46 AM ^
Outside of Harbaugh, who is competing? Coaches already make the jump without a pay increase. And honestly? The NCAA is a farm league to the NFL for players. Is it really THAT bad to think that coaches would make that jump as well? In terms of competing against other schools, all big programs are now bound to this. So each will decide what a coach is worth now compared to what a coach was worth before.
We may see ticket price increases, but we have seen those skyrocket already. Schools were seeking that ceiling before this. This won't change ticket prices much at all. The only other option is cutting sports. That would definitely suck, but I would hope that the public reaction would be enough to make that a non-viable option.
January 18th, 2015 at 9:52 AM ^
January 18th, 2015 at 10:02 AM ^
Again, I was just pointing out that cutting coaching salaries does have consequences...whether you consider those consequences good or bad i did not make any judgement on. I agree that the real negative effect will likely fall on nonrevenue sports.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 18th, 2015 at 11:08 AM ^
January 18th, 2015 at 9:50 AM ^
like that is ever going to happen
January 18th, 2015 at 10:03 AM ^
The coaches get paid because they have value. This is just a small piece of their impact, but when a guy like Harbaugh gets hired he has an immediate financial impact, and not just on football. The price of a ticket for the basketball game when he was rumored to be announced went from $30 to to upwards of $300. I'm guessing football tickets are back up, apparel sales are up, etc. Seeing pictures of Harbaugh at local restaurants must be good for their sales. Having a coach that win games makes a huge financial impact which gives them value. So does having a coach that loses games and doesn't go to bowls. I'd guess UM's bottom line in Hoke's last season is not what Harbaugh's first season will be. Don't get me wrong, it seems a little wrong that coaches get so much and the kids get so little, but lets not let the fact that the kids don't get much equate that the coachs don't have value.
January 18th, 2015 at 1:47 PM ^
there certainly was an increase in the Stubhub prices for Harbaugh's return, but the fact that some season ticketholders got all excited and asked for the moon doesn't mean they actually sold them for that price. My brother bought 2 tickets in my section upstairs for $30 a piece--though some in my section were asking $200. Out of curiousity we asked for prices outside the stadium. The (professional) scalpers were asking $50-$100 upstairs, but the real price was in that same $25-$30 range. Its kinda like looking at the listed prices for the Super Bowl and what you can actually get in for.
January 18th, 2015 at 10:51 AM ^
January 18th, 2015 at 9:52 AM ^
I am sure the Power5 will have no trouble filling the void. When football pograms are pulling in anywhere from $30-$90 Million a year, just football, I think you'll be all right. Not to mention the $25mill a year per school (BIGwise anyways, no idea about SEC). I think the schools will manage.
January 18th, 2015 at 9:52 AM ^
I am sure the Power5 will have no trouble filling the void. When football pograms are pulling in anywhere from $30-$90 Million a year, just football, I think you'll be all right. Not to mention the $25mill a year per school (BIGwise anyways, no idea about SEC). I think the schools will manage.
January 18th, 2015 at 10:09 AM ^
Compared to what networks and all other parties associated with college football make in a given year, yes $2,000 to $5,000 per player per year isn't much. While the decision inevitably puts smaller schools in a financial bind, this is a small step toward a more equitable system for the student athlete. And no, I am not of the opinion the cost of attendance alone is fair compensation. The restraints on the lives of student athletes and (particularly in football) their risk of serious injury should command greater compensation.
January 18th, 2015 at 4:27 PM ^
I am about 99% sure that whatever gets given to the football team is going to be doubled in stipends to female athletes to be compliant withTitle IX.
The next step is to just let athletes take money from whatever outside sources want to give it to them as long as it doesn't affect the perceived integrity of the results on the field.
January 18th, 2015 at 9:32 AM ^
January 18th, 2015 at 9:43 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 18th, 2015 at 9:32 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 18th, 2015 at 9:33 AM ^
January 18th, 2015 at 9:40 AM ^
As you are a non-revenue sport enthusist (or coach?) I can understand how you would feel that way. This opens up a couple routes for many schools. Either cut administrative costs, drive up ticket prices, or cut non-revenue programs.
I would HOPE that schools approach that list in the order I put them. Nobody needs more than $500,000 a year. Anything above that is excess. Hopefully schools decide to not stick fans or non-revenue athletes with the bill.
I would suggest alumi contact their school's AD to make sure their opinions are heard.
January 18th, 2015 at 10:25 AM ^
January 19th, 2015 at 1:08 PM ^
I played college soccer, and I was on a partial scholarship. I understand the consequences. Also, don't confuse a differing view on a subject with shortsightedness. That's some political talk radio bullshit.
January 18th, 2015 at 10:31 AM ^
Let me guess: you never took an economics course in your life. Amiright?
January 19th, 2015 at 1:05 PM ^
I took two.
January 18th, 2015 at 11:49 AM ^
January 18th, 2015 at 9:38 AM ^
It is still a lot of money if you are on a full ride and the school is giving $5K ($2 is different) - your food is paid for, your housing is paid for, your schooling is paid for. All that money is going to is "fun" or things like cell phones. Or eating off campus. I mean what are you spending $5000 on during a college year as extras? I guess if you have a car that would be the only type of person who could go thru that money quickly but for everyone else that is plenty. The only other major expense I can think of for generic college athlete on full ride is travel costs if he/she lives >500 miles away and wants to fly home for Thanksgiving or what not.
Different story for partial scholarship sports, that will help towards tuition..
January 18th, 2015 at 9:43 AM ^
They could also put it in the bank or invest it so they have a little something available when their injuries from providing entertainment and making millions for the university, the conference, and the NCAA catch up with them.
January 18th, 2015 at 10:34 AM ^
I don't know of any college student that ever put money in the bank or invested it for when time catches up with them. I doubt athletes are any different.
January 18th, 2015 at 5:11 PM ^
January 18th, 2015 at 10:48 AM ^
Invest it for later or buy booze?
BOOZE!
January 18th, 2015 at 9:34 AM ^
1) Does anyone have any data on how that stipend differs from school to school. I know the $2,000-$5,000 depends on a schools full cost of attendance but was wondering if there were some specific examples of differences per school. I wonder if that might be used in recruiting.."come to school X and you get 5k extra cash each year and if you go to that other school you only get 2k cash"
2) Any idea how it works with sports that have partial scholarships? Im guessing for a baseball player that gets a 1/3 scholarship then he will get 1/3 of tuition/room/board and then additional 1/3 of this extra stipend.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 18th, 2015 at 9:55 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 18th, 2015 at 9:58 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 18th, 2015 at 11:02 AM ^
January 18th, 2015 at 10:32 AM ^
January 18th, 2015 at 9:40 AM ^
This wasn't really the NCAA passing it, it was the only Power 5 conferences. Those are really all that matter but it's still not a NCAA rule now the way I understand it. The schools outside of the Power 5 are still NCAA but aren't subject to this.
How many players are going to want to commit to Boston College now that they are the only ones to vote against paying the players? Bad move on their part, should have got on the train.
January 18th, 2015 at 9:41 AM ^
I believe that conferences outside the Power 5 do not have to adhere to this rule, but may elect to follow it. I think that is how it works.
January 18th, 2015 at 9:47 AM ^
Long overdue! Will be interesting to see what effects this may have, as will some of the financially weaker schools start cutting some cost - either administratively or sports. Hopefully not the later.
January 18th, 2015 at 9:50 AM ^
January 18th, 2015 at 10:14 AM ^
Actually, at least to me, the SEC support for full cost scholarships isn't too shocking - even Slive himself broached the idea almost three years ago, citing the rather plentiful revenue streams of college football (which you can discuss if you're the commissioner of the SEC). Of course, he did tack on the numbers on the average shortfall from scholarships versus the calculated cost of attendance and framed it as giving students the ability to do day-to-day things like get meals, do laundry, etc...
In that regard, I'll agree with him - I don't know that every Power 5 school is in this boat - likely not - but Michigan and many others funnel a lot of money into non-revenue programs and have the ability to hustle to make up the difference for this relatively easily. I have to think that at least in some places this is little more than a bump tht gets smoothed out in time.
January 18th, 2015 at 9:51 AM ^
January 18th, 2015 at 10:00 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 18th, 2015 at 10:24 AM ^
January 18th, 2015 at 10:57 AM ^
An interesting thing that this living expense/stipend causes is that this money is considered income and the students must claim it as income on their federal taxes. Giving them more money will just make their income more and may result in them having to pay additional federal taxes. I know it doesn't seem like much, but I know the IRS really looks at scholarships closely and tries to squeeze all the money they can out of college students.
January 18th, 2015 at 11:04 AM ^
January 18th, 2015 at 11:15 AM ^
http://www.housing.umich.edu/billing/undergrad-rates
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 18th, 2015 at 12:13 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 18th, 2015 at 9:59 AM ^
The N SEE DOUBLE AAAAAAA is in trouble.