B1G: Dollar, Dollar Bill Y'all

Thanks_Tom RR

Thanks_Tom RR

All-American
Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany has proposed that Big Ten schools add a $2,000 stipend to athletic scholarships to help bridge the gap between scholarships and the "full cost of attendance."

http://nebraska.247sports.com/Bolt/Big-Ten-discusses-full-cost-of-attendance-28640742
Click to expand...
Story, here http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20140513/GW0201/305130053/Big-Ten-commissioner-Delany-stipend-plan-under-AD-discussion?nclick_check=1

6m8d0s4wcsycewl97pf784ck2.500x282x14.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erRA6Ib5SZs

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bye Bye Big XII said:
Can somebody tell me what is meant by "the full cost of attendance"?
Click to expand...
It is usually a blanket for other expenses not directly related to attending class: travel home, clothing, etc.

In the media, the cost-of-attendance stipends were equated with pay for play. Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman said that simply isn't the case. "I think we should go farther than $2,000," Perlman said. "I think the NCAA ought to allow us to give up to the cost of attendance, whatever it is. It depends on where you live, and how high-cost your institution is. For me, the line is we don't pay student-athletes to participate. We don't give them a wage. They're not employees. This is college. If they want to get a wage for doing it, they should go to the pros. But the cost of attendance, which is calculated by the institution for every student, creates that line."


Here's what Perlman means. When Nebraska officials calculated the cost of attendance for an out-of-state student planning to live on campus for the 2011-12 school year, they told the federal government that student would have to pay $19,848 in tuition and fees, $1,020 for books and supplies, $8,196 for room and board and $3,422 for miscellaneous expenses including travel home, clothing, laundry, etc. The total cost: $32,486. According to the NCAA's definition of a full scholarship, Nebraska would only be allowed to give an athlete $29,064. That $3,422 is not covered.
Click to expand...
SI

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If I am not mistaken, student-athletes with lesser means can still apply for Pell grants to cover the additional $3,422.

 
Dbqgolfer said:
If I am not mistaken, student-athletes with lesser means can still apply for Pell grants to cover the additional $3,422.
Click to expand...
Given the amount of money the schools are pulling in, they are (and should) be able to supply living expenses to the kids without asking them to turn to federal aid. That they're unable to do so right now is a pretty frustrating situation for the schools.

 
exswoo said:
Dbqgolfer said:
If I am not mistaken, student-athletes with lesser means can still apply for Pell grants to cover the additional $3,422.
Click to expand...
Given the amount of money the schools are pulling in, they are (and should) be able to supply living expenses to the kids without asking them to turn to federal aid. That they're unable to do so right now is a pretty frustrating situation for the schools.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
I agree. My preference is that the schools would pay instead of the Federal Gov't. I don't think I would be a big fan of the school paying the "full cost of attendance" and still have the kids be able to get a Pell Grant. I also think the school should be able to factor into the full cost of attendance the travel expenses for parents to attend a couple of games to see their kids play.

 
exswoo said:
Dbqgolfer said:
If I am not mistaken, student-athletes with lesser means can still apply for Pell grants to cover the additional $3,422.
Click to expand...
Given the amount of money the schools are pulling in, they are (and should) be able to supply living expenses to the kids without asking them to turn to federal aid. That they're unable to do so right now is a pretty frustrating situation for the schools.
Click to expand...
This already happens.

 
http://m.omaha.com/article/20140518/HUSKERS/140518552/1002&template=mobileart#barfknecht-for-nu-big-ten-security-beats-costly-alternative

Overall, though, this hardly qualifies as a financial burden for the Power 5.

One of the smartest people I know in college athletics called $500,000 to $1 million a year “a rounding error” for most schools — especially in the Big Ten, with an extra $15 million to $20 million a year coming in toward the end of the decade with a new TV deal.

That’s great news for the “haves.” But the Power 5 in football can’t let the other 63 schools in the FBS wither or die.

The reason is you need somebody to play. If future revenue-sharing is too tilted and cost-of-attendance checks too out of balance, maybe 10 or 12 schools drop football in 10 years and another dozen operate so hand-to-mouth to hardly be functional.
Click to expand...
 
In 1978 (the first year Division 1 football was split into division 1 and 1-AA) there were 138 teams that played division 1. In 1982 the Ivy League, Southern Conference and Southland Conference switched to 1-AA leaving the total number of division 1 teams at 113. The number of Division 1 teams hit the low point in 1987 & 1988 with 104 teams playing division 1. The number has grown since then. 107 in 1990, 108 in 1995, 116 in 2000, 119 in 2005, 120 in 2010 and there will be 128 (125 full and 3 transitional) in 2014.

Would it really be that bad if 20 FBS schools had to drop down to FCS and we ended up with roughly the same number of FBS teams we had in 1995?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top