Emmert supports additional $2K grant for student athletes

[Seinfeld]

$2,000

Can someone explain to me the point of this or why it is necessary? What exactly is the "full cost" of college that is not included in a full athletic scholarship?

I didn't have any money when I went to State, I never got anything other than an occasional(once or twice / semester) tank of gas from my parents, yet my academic scholarship paid for everything I needed. I worked one semester so I could afford things like buying a used jeep, an Xbox, etc, but I sure as hell didn't "need" those things. Unless there's a distinct difference between the amounts included in athletic and academic scholarships, I really don't get this. Furthermore, if the NCAA thinks this is going to somehow curtail $100 handshakes, that's hysterical.

I also like the part where they say it won't be mandated, but it will be allowed. Trust me, if you allow it to anybody, then it's pretty much mandated everywhere if you want to be even remotely competitive in recruiting.

 

[Seinfeld]

$2,000

Can someone explain to me the point of this or why it is necessary? What exactly is the "full cost" of college that is not included in a full athletic scholarship?

I didn't have any money when I went to State, I never got anything other than an occasional(once or twice / semester) tank of gas from my parents, yet my academic scholarship paid for everything I needed. I worked one semester so I could afford things like buying a used jeep, an Xbox, etc, but I sure as hell didn't "need" those things. Unless there's a distinct difference between the amounts included in athletic and academic scholarships, I really don't get this. Furthermore, if the NCAA thinks this is going to somehow curtail $100 handshakes, that's hysterical.

I also like the part where they say it won't be mandated, but it will be allowed. Trust me, if you allow it to anybody, then it's pretty much mandated everywhere if you want to be even remotely competitive in recruiting.

 

[RobbieRandolph]

So I see nothing wrong with this.

 

[Coach34]

to make mandatory 6am workouts that are extremely physically demanding? Have practice every afternoon risking personal injury? Spend your Fall Saturdays entertaining 55K+ alums? Rish death or paralysis- broken bones, or other orthopaedic ailments?<div>
</div><div>and in addition to all that- THEN you had to study to maintain grades. And then after all that- find time to socialize and get some *****?</div><div>
</div><div>Those guys do an awful lot for that scholarship</div>

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

i see nothing wrong with a stipend similar to a stipend a grad student receives for teaching some classes/lbas and helping with research.

 

[Squiddog89]

You do realize it is their choice to play a sport in college right? They are not being forced to do ****. These athletes know what they are getting themselves into before they sign on to play college sports. Don't try to paint the image that athletes are being forced to workout andbeing forced to 'entertain' 55k alums (give me a 17n break). They are playing these sports because its what they love, and they are already getting paid a damn fortune to do so. Playing college sports, or really sports in general is a privilege, not a requirement. Let me guess, you think Albert Pujols deserves all that money that he is asking for? There are a lot of school teachers, medical workers, law enforcers, and other people who deserve that $2,000 dollars more than any of these selfish athletes of today could even dream of.</p>

 

[Seinfeld]

because by and large, they wouldn't be in college much less on a full ride if it weren't for the sport that they play. Why shouldn't they be working their asses off to warrant the $120K in scholarship money given to them?

 

[davatron]

Here is why I ask- my "scholarships" when I was at State pretty much bought my books and maybe paid a little tuition, but I knew people that had all of their tuition paid for plus cash leftover in their pocket to pay rent or other bills. I guess what I'm saying is there are varying levels of academic scholarships that kids on football schollies don't qualify for or can't receive per NCAA rules so giving them a little extra doesn't bother me.

Maybe one of you knowledgeable types can enlighten the masses.

 

[Sterling Archer.nafoom]

[No message]

 

[dawgstudent]

[No message]

 

[Dawgzilla]

[No message]

 

[Johnson85]

There are a lot of school teachers, medical workers, law enforcers, and other people who deserve that $2,000 dollars more than any of these selfish athletes of today could even dream of.</p>

but the fact is, if there is anybody willing to voluntarily pay them $2000 more for doing something that's legal, they are certainly allowed to accept

I don't see why college athletes (or athletes in general) shouldn't be afforded the same liberty.

 

[Squiddog89]

What the hell do they need money for? Food? No. That's provided. Rent a movie? Thats ONE dollar. By the way, they are allowed to get jobs in the offseason and summer.

 

[pikedawg]

Our players get $250/month for "shoes and clothes", and a "per diem" for each day they are required to be in Starkville when the university is closed (Thanksgiving Break before Egg Bowl, and Christmas Break practices before bowl games)</p>

 

[KurtRambis4]

I really don't have a problem with it. Hell I never did anything while at State taht made the university millions of dollars.

 

[Hector.sixpack]

What do you need money for?...because food is the only thing people needin life.

Look, I'm all about calling a spade a spade- they're just trying to legally pay players. But they deserve it. College athletics is basically funded thru football programs. ALLother programs wouldstruggle or diewithout football.I may not be fair, but thats the way it is.

And yes,I guess it is possible to get a job after working out for 8 hrs with Balis.

 

[drt7891]

How are you going to justify to them (who work out just as much as football players, take cross-country bus trips instead of flying everywhere with little to no fan support, and have twice the number of games in a season as football) that they can't get paid because their sport is not as popular as football? That makes zero sense. The women's basketball team, soccer team, volleyball team, and softball teams do just as much off-season training and have twice as many games throughout the year (even though they may not win as much, we are talking about the principle of the matter). That's what this whole thing is about. If the argument is about time spent practicing, in the weight room, and studying and the ONLY difference being fan support, why aren't we making this argument for other sports?<div>
</div>

 

[Hector.sixpack]

Its not like these players have formed a Union and are on strike. This stuff is coming from the top down.

And whatever Pujols gets paid is what somebody is willing to pay him. Its not his fault he's top 10 of all time.

 

[Johnson85]

How are you going to justify to them (who work out just as much as football players, take cross-country bus trips instead of flying everywhere with little to no fan support, and have twice the number of games in a season as football) that they can't get paid because their sport is not as popular as football? That makes zero sense.
<div>
</div>

If you provide a product or service that people perceive as valuable and are willing to pay for, you generally are in a position to make money off of it, unless lots of people are able and willing to provide an equivalent product or service for free. In this case, lost of people are willing to pay a lot of money to see good college football, so it makes sense that football players would be paid. It's not the working out and practicing that players should be/are paid for, it's producing good football.

Since very few people are willing to pay any money to watch women's sports (or workout or practice), it would make sense that participants in women's college sports not get anything.

 

[memphodawg]

Another source of income these guys have is a Pell Grant. You can have a full ride from athletics and still get a full Pell grant, $5500 per semester. Not saying all qualify for this but I would imagine quite a few do.

 

[drt7891]

About the WNBA and NFL, but this is far from that. We are talking about STUDENT ATHLETES not professional players. Every student athlete in the NCAA is bound under the same rules and restrictions, whether they play football or run cross country, but you want to give special favors in the form of more money to football players and keep other athletes from getting more money like track or softball just because football is a more popular sport? That is idiotic. I don't care where the trend is going or what sport makes more money, that isn't right.

 

[DerHntr]

nm</p>

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

The value of the scholarship is not measured in the true cost. To add some chairs to classes that already exist for 20,000+ costs a very minimal amount. The Athletic Department pays the school for every student athlete that has a full ride (except at Vanderbilt). They make enough money to pay coaches and administrators millions of dollars and fund the scholarships for all those sports that do not make money for the Athletic Department. Most student athletes do not have a full ride and have to live by the same rules as those that are on one. Baseball has only 11.7 scholarships to split between the 35 or so players on the roster. SO most of the non Football or Basketball players are paying something to go to school.

So let's take the number of $120,000 that someone mentions as the value of the scholarship. Most non FB and BB student athletes are paying $60,000 + to attend school. They are now allowed to work and can earn from $1,200 to $2,500 to make up for some of the costs being on a partial scholarship. (Summer they can earn more, but it is still monitored and can't be something that is derived in part of that person's fame from the athletic endeavor.)

So stop the jealousy ********. This is not a communist/socialist country. You people that agree with the "Occupy" crowd should actually be on the side of the student athlete. If there is any worker that is being used (exploited) for the big corporations to make an obscene amount of money and they get a very low percentage of that income, it is NCAA Student Athletes.

 

[Coach34]

good job

 

[cps36]

Geez. Are there rules against that too?

 

[boomboommsu]

and a full ride would put you over the CoA. i know you can't get a fed loan when already over teh CoA.

 

[memphodawg]

and a full ride would put you over the CoA. i know you can't get a fed loan when already over teh CoA.

I have a friend that is the assoc. AD at Memphis and he told metheir players, that qualify for Pell grants, can get one with a full ride scholly. Couldn't tell you how it works

 

[Johnson85]

Right now, athletes in the non-revenue generating sports are getting special favors because they get a free ride to do something that doesn't generate money.

And I haven't said anything about keeping other athletes from getting more money. If track or softball starts selling out stadiums and bringing in TV money, those athletes should absolutely get a piece of the pie.

 

[boomboommsu]

[*]"The amount depends on your financial need, costs to attend school, status as a full-time or part-time student, and plans to attend school for a full academic year or less."

-straight from the program webpage

now, CoA is a good deal higher than tuition, so a full ride could fall below that ceiling. Memphis could have a much higher CoA from higher living expenses. but i'm pretty sure that at State it's either above that or matches it. i don't know if athletic schollys cover summer school (academic ones don't), but if it doesn't then they could take a Pell Grant for the summer and pocket a lot of the money. that may be what your friend is referring to as well.</p>

 

[drt7891]

We aren't talking about professional sports, we are talking about intercollegiate athletics. Hell, even Nick Saban says his players are "students first." That's it. If they want to go make money playing sports, more power to them... but football players are already getting full rides where other sports just arent (i.e. baseball), so why give them even more if other sports, like baseball or track, can't give their players more than the NCAA says they can. I'm not arguing that football doesn't generate money, absolutely it does. But every sport at MSU plays under the same name and is regulated by the same organization and every athlete has to follow the same rules. Why give favor to more benefits for just football and not baseball, softball, or track (a whole different argument)? <div>
</div><div>Student athletes are students first and football players on full scholarships get way more than any student with a 32 on the ACT could ever dream of. That's more than enough. We are an educational institution, not a "lets pay players to come here" institution... regardless of what people want to think. </div>

 

[skb124]

"Fair Market Value?". Paying a $2000 stipend definitely is not fair market value. Cam Newton was much more valuable than Barrett Trotter last year, yet they would be making the same amount of money. That's not fair market. If you paid Cam more though, then that would be professionalism. I feel like paying players will open pandoras box. You pay $2000 to each football player (85 scholarship) thats $170,000 a year. Thats a ridiculous amount of money. Then do you just say screw you to the walk-ons? Theres another 20 or so which would be another $40,000. This doesn't even account for all the other sports that put in just as much time in as football. You can't just pay football, and shun the other sports. Some schools actually make money in other sports than just football. You also cant pay the SEC players more money than other conferences. You think teams from the SWAC or small conferences like that could afford to pay players? MVSU cant even play their home games in their own stadium because they are so poor. Its not that easy to just say yea lets pay them. Overall its a bad idea.

 

[Johnson85]

Not the most glorious role, but somebody has to do it.

 

[Johnson85]

"Fair Market Value?". Paying a $2000 stipend definitely is not fair market value. Cam Newton was much more valuable than Barrett Trotter last year, yet they would be making the same amount of money. That's not fair market.

for Cam to make $2000, plus another $180,000. then everybody could be closer to their FMV.<div>
</div><div>
<div>
</div><div>

</div> </div>

 

[The Usual Suspect]

get full ride scholly's? Any ideas? Yes you guessed it. BCA made it that way.

 

[SLUdog]

and at other larger athletic budgets, but at most colleges and universities athletics can be a major drain financially. In fact, except for football at some universities most athletic programs cost more than they produce. Perhaps, at a few places basketball or baseball does pretty well. It is a double-edged sword for colleges and universities because sports programs can also bring in students who would not otherwise attend that school. So, they become a necessity to attract students. I don't have a problem with giving reasonable stipends to students in athletics, band, speech/debate, theater, choir, etc, if they have scholarships and these activities preclude them from being employed.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

Not schools that don't make money in athletics.

 

[00Dawg]

<div>Student athletes are students first and football players on full scholarships get way more than any student with a 32 on the ACT could ever dream of.
</div>

But that's simply not true. While it was for other achievements and not my ACT score (which wasn't a 32, either), I got a full ride from State and several ancillary scholarships that put thousands of dollars in my pocket every year.
It's completely possible for a student with superb academics to make money from going to college.

 

[drt7891]

because of their academics (6 years ago). This past year, I heard of a situation of someone who went to my high school who is an instate student and made over a 30 on the ACT and is getting a housing scholarship and getting most of their tuition covered for. I understand State is cutting back on scholarships for top academic performers, as well as your average joe 26 on the ACT student. That's why I'm having a hard time supporting giving more money to athletes. I just simply don't think it makes any sense to give more money to your football players than your top academic performers at an educational institution. I know it's the real world and right now, it is what it is, but giving even more to football players without giving more to other students makes zero sense and I don't support it.