Big 10 To Aid Living Expenses

BIG ERN

BIG ERN

All-American
CHICAGO -- Big Ten officials discussed (not official) a proposal that would pay athletes to help cover living expenses on top of their scholarships during the league's spring meetings this week.

"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."

I think this could help recruiting for all Big 10 schools, but I HATE when people say these kids don't get paid. FREE education. Average tuition and fees for a Big 10 school is around $20,000 a year. I'm not against the extra money, just sick of the people who cry about it. What do you guys think?

LINK

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Depends on your point of view. If you think that the players assist the college in generating a lot of revenue via the sport they participate in. Sure! Now; how about all the other sports that are actually in the red revenue speaking? Do you pay them too? You know, lacrosse, hockey, etc.

Where's 'ol Ernie when ya need him. He proposed paying the players way back when.

If you want to look at it another way; all students not on scholarships pay their own tuition, R & B and transpo. Well, someone does :) maybe grants, etc.

I personally believe it should be on a need basis. If a family of a player is financially solvent enough to assist the player then no. But if the players family is poor and on a subsidy level income then yes.

And corruption will run rampant as always. GBA

GBR

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your title is a little misleading. They haven't made this decision yet - they're just discussing it.

 
rawhide said:
Depends on your point of view. If you think that the players assist the college in generating a lot of revenue via the sport they participate in. Sure! Now; how about all the other sports that are actually in the red revenue speaking? Do you pay them too? You know, lacrosse, hockey, etc.

Where's 'ol Ernie when ya need him. He proposed paying the players way back when.

If you want to look at it another way; all students not on scholarships pay their own tuition, R & B and transpo. Well, someone does :) maybe grants, etc.

I personally believe it should be on a need basis. If a family of a player is financially solvent enough to assist the player then no. But if the players family is poor and on a subsidy level income then yes.

And corruption will run rampant as always. GBA

GBR
Click to expand...
Best idea yet.

 
I mean, you gotta walk a fine line. You start with that kinda stuff and then little by little people start to take it further and further. The last think you want is college football slowly turning into NFL Jr.

 
Yea, they get a free education, but you gotta live, too.

My schooling is paid for, but I'd be in trouble if I didn't have time to at least work a part time job while going.

 
saunders45 said:
Title IX will kill it.
Click to expand...
They discussed all scholarship athletes getting the stipend this is not just a football thing. It would have to be across the board to be okay with the NCAA. This may hurt a school like OSU which has more varsity sports than any other university, but the AD said he may be on board with it anyhow.

 
My uncle was a kicker for Wyoming in the 80s, and I ended up discussing this with him at some point. Something that a lot of people don't realize is that they (college athletes) physically are not allowed to get a job while being a part of the program (mostly due to constant interference with practices, lifting, film, games... etc.). In my opinion, I think the players at least deserve to receive some of the millions of dollars they are raking in for the schools/NCAA. I know they get a free education, but like Malth said, you gotta' be able to live.

ESPN had this on today, and Jalen Rose did a bit of talking about it, and I thought he had a great perspective on it. While he didn't mention much about his opinion on it happening, he focused on what this does for the B1G. He made two points: (1) When the "good guys" start to get in trouble with rules on money and players(*cough* Tressel) it's time to change the rules, (2) he thinks this is going to be a major recruiting advantage for the B1G. He said that if it went through, we'd have a great chance at the Big Ten landing huge athletes that are generally limited to the SEC. Any opinions on this?

 
I think if the B1G did this, the SEC and Big 12 would be very close behind. The smaller conferences would just get smaller.

 
This is treading upon a slippery slope. You know if this were to be ok'd for football, what about all the other intercollegiate programs (volleyball, track, swimming, etc). Then on top of that, what about the schools with smaller budgets for athletics or D2 or D3 schools?

 
walksalone said:
This is treading upon a slippery slope. You know if this were to be ok'd for football, what about all the other intercollegiate programs (volleyball, track, swimming, etc). Then on top of that, what about the schools with smaller budgets for athletics or D2 or D3 schools?
Click to expand...
That was one of the arguments, the haves being able to distance themselves from the havenots even more (i.e., power conferences/schools being able to pay the extra money and the lower ones not), but again, according to the BiG meeting discussions (how I took it anyways), it was not just for football, the stipend would go to every scholarship athlete no matter which sport.

 
Malth said:
Yea, they get a free education, but you gotta live, too.

My schooling is paid for, but I'd be in trouble if I didn't have time to at least work a part time job while going.
Click to expand...
Players already get stipends on top of their scholarships if I'm not mistaken. I don't know too many student athletes that are having problems making ends meet while in school. Their families may be a different story though. Some families rely on their children to pitch in during and after high school to make ends meet.

I think the majority of supporters feel that schools make a lot of money of the backs of young student athletes and that they need to be compensated more than they currently are. Although it is a good theory and would likely be well received by larger universities, and obviously the athletes themselves, smaller universities will find it difficult to financially compete even if it's properly regulated.

If it does come to fruition, they are going to need to create significant amount of guidelines and regulations. I would much prefer to give back to the student athletes by sinking the money into better facilities and equipment (much like Nebraska has/is doing).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
When this subject comes up, I always think back to a story Trev Alberts would tell back when he was on ESPN about a fellow starter who was getting razzed by teammates for always wearing his jersey and blue jeans, regardless of weather or day.

Come to find out, save for a couple pairs of blue jeans and a few ratty t-shirts, the best and only clothes this player owned were his game jersey and his blue jeans.

Makes me a sad panda to think about some of the tough backgrounds some of these recruits come from. Anything to help them out with basic necessities while attending school should be done.

 
It is nothing more than a line in the sand to the sec. We have been complaining about alum and whoever else giving these kids money for ever. So the B10 responce is well if you are not going to stop doing it, than we will do the same, just above the table thats all. The B10 has the money and are willing to put it where their mouth is. One way or another they will force the sec to a showdown. What ever happened to the Cam Newton thing?? Whats happening at OH St??? See what I am saying? You cant compete when the rules are different or enforced differently conf by conf.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top