Michigan not among schools paying academic bonus
Apparently the new rules the NCAA passed last year allowed school to pay an almost $6k bonus for good grades to athletes but only 21 out of 130 schools are paying it and Michigan is not on the list. Among B10 schools only Wisconsin is or has plans to pay this bonus. I wonder what's going on there.
If you read the article, it doesn't necessarily say that. Those 21 are 21 schools that were forthcoming with the information. The problem is, they don't list the names of the schools in the other categories.
21 (listed) said they have plans in place
34 said they haven't decided
21 said no plans this year, but plans for next year (it does say 5 B10 schools are in this category)
15 said no plans
10 responded to the FOIA request with "we don't have any documentation on that matter" -- which sounds entirely like something Michigan would respond with IMO.
That's a good clarification. Thanks. Still, it seems like information Michigan would WANT to be out there - at least in my opinion.
yeah, that sounds like something we’d do - make a public announcement about something that has no impact outside the building. we do that a lot.
You are consistently insufferable.
How does announcing you're going to be paying the student athletes for something they are doing have no impact outside the building? Don't you think recruits would like to know this information?
there are many ways to let recruits know without making a press release.
How about that, North Carolina is on the list. Is there a bonus for fake grades?
I think you answered your own question. If it's recorded it's up to the NCAA to determine if it's fake
Grading student athletes was my least favorite part of being a Graduate Student Instructor at Michigan. Pressure to ensure that instructors help athletes remain academically qualified is not restricted to schools in the ACC and SEC.
As a former professor who has felt pressure regarding student-athlete grades--married to a current professor who has felt such pressure, too (not regularly, but have felt it), I'd say that there's ample room for messiness in this context. While--on its face--it looks like a way to get kids paid, I'd say any smart institution would ask a lot of questions before signing on: Are you getting money to kids who need it most? Will it actually induce target athletes to sign on? Help insure you retain them? How does it compare to sums that may get thrown at star athletes for less work? Who will oversee, and be responsible for making such a program rigorous? Etcetera.
The reflexive response if we are not doing this might be to wail about M failing to take advantage of opportunities, but
My wife worked a number of years as an administrator at a power conference school famous for its football team (not Michigan or one of its direct rivals). The shenanigans around 'academic progress' of football players were quite apparent. It was obvious coaches were applying pressure on instructors. I have since assumed that this is the rule at most schools with athletic programs they're highly invested in.
I taught at a D1 school and didn't feel any pressure about grades. To the contrary, most of my players, male and female, did pretty well because they have what I didn't as a student: discipline and awareness of the value of working every day.*
However, changes in athletic department in the past few years suggest that may have changed.
The mix of academic and athletics in our "athlete-scholars" is tough.
* One player had problems because he was over his head academically and thought his coaches' advice to sit in the front row and submit work on time would be enough to pass the class.
After reading the SCOTUS decision on NIL, including Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion, it was game, set match. I believe that any attempt to limit financial rewards available to college athletes will not end well if challenged in the courts.;
Need-based payments have a nice sound to them but in this day and age, when it comes to major athletic programs it is little more than wishful thinking. While I hold out hope that Michigan has figured out how to play the NIL game, so far it seems little more than words. While Saban was touting how his new QB was already in the million dollar club, Michigan was talking about T-shirt revenue sharing.
I realize that the SEC had years to acquire NIL experience before the SCOTUS made us aware that players would lawfully be compensated for their efforts, I'd like to believe that the "leaders and best" can follow suit and level the playing field.
What constitutes a good grade (asking for a tall Spartan)?
If Michigan isn't doing this then what are we doing here?
This was going to be my question as well. The definition of “good grades” could be quite different from conference to conference and school to school.
Like many, I'm tired of the hack journalism. The article's title is somewhat deceptive. If you read the article, which I unfortunately did, you see that most schools are in the process of determining how they will handle potential payments. To make matters worse, the author takes a backdoor shot at Michigan, and writes:
Michigan negotiated a $3 million raise for football coach Jim Harbaugh in 2022 after he led the Wolverines to the College Football Playoff, but has not yet decided whether it will use some of its nine-figure budget to pay academic bonuses.
The insinuation is that Harbaugh's well-earned raise, or the athletic budget for all sports, is somehow connected to Michigan either rejecting academic payments or delaying their decision. At best, this is lazy reporting. At worst, this is a hit job on us and the other schools that received similar treatment in the article. To surprise of no one, Dan Murphy is a Fig Thing (Notre Dame) grad. Shockingly, Notre Dame is not included in the article.
To be clear, I take zero issue with the OP posting this garbage because it's a relevant topic. But this is garbage.
To me, this is something that Michigan should have put out a statement about once ESPN started asking around. You need to get out in front of topics like this so that ESPN (or others) can't take shots at you like the above mentioned.
To your Notre Dame point - aren't they a private university so they couldn't get records from them? The article specifically references public universities for that reason I think.
Fair point. Generally, I agree. But you're assuming this hack actually "asked around" as opposed to just zapping out a generic FOIA email request. Plus, I don't even think this is that big of a deal. So what ... we're not paying athletes (yet) for good grades? My reaction is "fart noise, wanking motion."
Now, if a majority of the B1G starts doing the payments, then maybe I'll give three fudges. But when there's a lazy, cheap way to bash Michigan/Harbaugh/Warde, why would you not swing at that pitch if you're a Fig Thing, amirite?
I just read that section of the article differently. Basically a bunch of schools were saying “we’re gonna pay but it’s not in the budget for this year” and the author (using Michigan when they could use others) basically saying “well you had no problem blowing up your budget to pay your coaches double”, which I think is a fair criticism.
In a way, you're agreeing with my interpretation, but disagreeing with my conclusion (that this is hack journalism). You and I apparently agree that the (so-called objective) author is criticizing Michigan. We also seemingly agree that the author is implicitly tying the large AD budget to his criticism. It seems we disagree on whether the criticism is fair. I think it's premature and based on almost no substance. The use of Harbaugh's name makes it a borderline ad hominem attack.
To reiterate, I'm not taking a shot at you for posting. I think it's a relevant article, but complete garbage journalism. It's a opinion piece masquerading as news-reporting.
Yeah, I'm ascribing neutral intentions to the author (he could have chosen Michigan because Harbaugh is the most high-profile of coaches) and you're ascribing negative intentions (guy is a ND alum so it's not out of the question). Just a difference in interpretation of intentions there.
Howdy, stranger,
I don't think it's complete garbage reporting and I agree that it's mostly different interpretations on the same evidence.
However, with all due respect, I believe it's naive to consider that making Harbaugh an example is simply neutral application of a well-known name.
Even if the piece hadn't been written by a Notre Dame grad, invoking Harbaugh's salary feels pointed enough to be a jab.
And it may very well be. I just didn’t read it like that
But 90M to one-hit wonder TuckComing is ok? Smh.
I had not heard about this particular NCAA rule --- but, hmmm. It's certainly not a trivial amount of money. If Michigan has ~ 900 student-athletes across the sports, and if you paid $6K to each of them, that's $5.4MM!!
I don't know --- it just feels that this will yet again accelerate the collegiate sports arms race. If one school is paying this money and has a rather "low bar" for "academic success" (GPA of at least 2.0!!!), that's an advantage for them. So others will inevitably follow.
And when it comes to schools not as wealthy as U-M, this additional "necessary" $$$ will often come from increasing "student fees." The starting LB, already on a scholarship (!!!), at an AAC or C-USA or MAC school is getting $6000 a year, on the backs of their classmates that weren't gifted with commensurate athletic skills.
--------
As someone else above said too, I can't imagine your average FBS-University Professor is in favor of this. This incentivizes shenanigans.
Hadn't thought about all the potential shadiness, but it's a great point; when there's $6k on the line, there's definitely going to be a lot of pressure on profs to make sure athletes are getting good grades. Seems like it was well intentioned but poorly thought out.
But why the NCAA is doing this at all is beyond me, when there are (IMO) bigger issues that should be addressed. Like eliminating the equivalency designation for sports (currently all but football, M/W basketball, and W gymnastics, W volleyball and W tennis are equivalency sports) and making them all headcount sports. To explain, football for instance can have a max of 85 players on scholarship, and each player must get a full ride. Same for basketball (13 max scholarships, all full ride), etc. But hockey can have a max of 30 players receiving scholarships, but only the equivalent total of 18 full scholarships. So a hockey team can have 18 players receiving a full ride, or some number more than that (up to 30) receiving less than a full ride such that the total sum doesn't exceed 18. Similarly, baseball can give scholarships to a max of 27 players, but can only give out 11.7 total scholarships.
To me that's asinine. If 30 hockey players or 27 baseball players can get scholarships, than all 30/27 should be able to get full rides. If that's too high a number (30 maybe seems high for hockey), reduce it some, but there's no reason (besides small school cheapness) that the total equivalent of full scholarships is less than the total players allowed to receive a scholarship. Start there before doing something like this academic payment that is rife with perverse incentives...
Good post. The "head-count vs equivalency" difference has always struck me as bizarre --- why and how did a difference come to be in the first place? How did Women's Tennis, volleyball and Gymnastics make the cut as a head-count sport (Title 9 to offset football)?
I suspect, as you said, it's small-school cheapness and voting based on such. Which, fine, I understand their financial concerns. But that's just another problem, they shouldn't be in the same classification as the powerhouses. 350+ D-1 schools and growing is absurd.
Just yesterday, Stonehill College in Massachusetts announced they are the latest that will be moving up to D-1 (from the D-2 NE-10). Its a fine academic school, but the only thing their athletics program has in common w/ a Alabama or Michigan is that both are located on Planet Earth.
I suspect, as you said, it's small-school cheapness and voting based on such. Which, fine, I understand their financial concerns. But that's just another problem, they shouldn't be in the same classification as the powerhouses. 350+ D-1 schools and growing is absurd.
I agree that it's a valid concern, but not a reason to prevent other schools from giving out all full rides. And there's an easy solution that doesn't even require them to be at a lower level: if you can't afford giving out all the scholarships, don't. Nothing says that you have to give out a full complement of scholarships, either across the board or in certain sports. Still give out 18 in hockey or 11/12 in baseball if you want. Hell, some schools don't give out athletic scholarships at all, like the Ivies, or I'm pretty sure U San Diego when Harbaugh coached there.
But I give no respect whatsoever to programs that say that no school should be able to give out full rides to all their scholarship athletes in these sports because those programs can't (or won't) afford it. Athletes shouldn't have to suffer in the name of keeping the playing field level for small schools.
Agree additional spending trends most likely fall on student tuition due to lazy and ineffective government support / budgeting / leadership. However, I think you're blowing out of proportion your estimated 100% fulfilment, $6M, expenditure will have on the university's $2.5B+ budget.
Seems to me wider university trends such as renovating 10 y.o. dorms / facilities every year are much more egregious, especially when you take into account the revenue the AD brings in (regardless of the impact felt by students).
I can see two reasons for the decision to delay (or maybe not offer) academic bonuses.
First, is the one others have discussed: how to do it ethically, rather than simply manipulating grades in order to spread cash around.
See MGlobules and BlueMK1690 above, who both elaborate this point well from a professor's point of view.
Second, you're already distinguishing between players about playing time, which inevitably pisses off at least some players. With Academic Bonuses, you have to make more distinctions, which will inevitably piss off more people.
Neither of those are reasons NOT to offer Bonuses, but do suggest why it requires lots of thought and planning.
So it's up to the school to determine what constitutes a "strong academic performance?" Might as well just call it an athlete stipend, give it to everyone, and move on.
It would be nice if the rest of the students were able to get bonuses for good grades... especially if they were taking harder classes and also heavily involved in student activities.
Yeah, especially since for the majority of those receiving it, you can't even argue that it's "paying the players commensurate with the value they bring in," since the vast majority of college sports (and even some "revenue sports" at smaller schools) are money losers.
As someone else alluded to, it's really a slap in the face to the non-athlete students at the schools that charge fees to fund the athletic department as part of tuition, which at some schools can be in the thousands of dollars per year (see, e.g., https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/hidden-figures-college-students-may-be-paying-thousands-athletic-fees-n1145171)...
An extrinsic motivator for an extrinsic motivator? How would our psychology majors feel about this?
One way some schools may pay for this is by killing more lower tier sports programs. Hell, if you compare Michigan to the SEC football powers, we support many more programs. We have 29 varsity programs compared to 19 for Georgia, 21 for Bama. MSU supports 23 while OSU supports 36 programs, three of which are coed. Does anyone know what those teams are? Google failed me.
Bowling?
The article is a bit confusing because it notes a bunch of schools are in the process of evaluating what they'll do but didn't say they wouldn't.
And I'll add that when all but one team in the SEC is doing this it raises my eyebrow a bit because, well, some of those athletic departments have had some significant financial issues recently. Now if you told me they were just funneling money to players regardless of grades as a tax/oversight dodge in their NIL programs I'd believe that.
EDIT: For the record, I'm fine with athletes getting money for any number of good reasons, and if they're doing well in the classroom then reward them as such if allowed. But this sure feels like a rule that's ripe for abuse with minimal practical gain. Just give the ~$6k to athletes or not, but this feels a bit like APR in which Ole Miss is #2 and Clemson is ahead of Stanford.
Personal experience: I tutored an athlete in an advanced chemistry course, and was encouraged to give them "lots of help" on graded homework. I advised the faculty member that I would be providing appropriate and ethical tutoring services, and that the athlete would get through just fine.
I saw no reason to compromise my principles for the sake of an athlete's eligibility. In addition, the athlete chose to take a difficult course in a difficult major and I saw no reason to cheapen that achievement by doing work for them.
The athlete passed, stayed eligible, graduated, and last I knew was playing overseas. They thanked me profusely for helping them, and doing so the right way.
I really hope Michigan never does this. I don't think you will see the truly academic schools in big time college sports do this (e.g., UMich, Cal, UVA, NU, Stanford, ND, Wake, Vandy, Duke) but I could be wrong.
We need a rule for public universities that requires them to do for all students what they do for (increasing) non-student athletes.
Yes I’m still pissed that my summa cum laude kid lost her entire grad assistantship in 2020-21 due to budget cuts but WMU fully funded all sportsball scholarships and coaches. I’m fucking sick of this shit.
I am undecided on it as a regular student who gets good grades I get a pat on the back. Now if you offered me money bonus I would do even better
I wonder what the payout is for passing Urban Meyer's character and leadership course?
While I can't speak to that specifically - one of the women in my neighborhood dog park is a professor at OSU and was telling me she had to fend off numerous requests from Urban's flunkies suggesting that she give special treatment to players, which I am sure is completely shocking to everyone here.