Huskers could gain advantage with B1G stipends

NUance

Well-known member
Penn State, Wisconsin and Nebraska could gain advantage with Big Ten stipends

Posted by Kevin McGuire on March 3, 2015, 10:12 AM EST

A new age in collegiate athletics is upon us with power conferences making a power play to provide more for student-athletes. That means power conference members handing out stipends to college athletes on top of a full scholarship to take care of other financial needs and obligations. How much each school will be able to provide to players will vary by school, ...

<snip>

Penn State came out on top with a stipend of $4,788. Wisconsin’s stipend amount came out to $4,265 and Nebraska’s total added up to $3,544. Indiana ($3,036) and Maryland ($3,024) were the only other schools to have stipends over $3,000. By comparison, Ohio State’s stipend total is calculated to be $2,454. Michigan’s is $2,054 and Michigan State is at the bottom of the Big Ten with a stipend total of $1,872.

LINK
The Whorns mentioned possibly handing out $10,000 in stipends. Seems like Nebraska should try to stick pretty close to the top amount given out. To maximize the advantage of the stipend thing, that is. And negate the under-the-table money given out by SEC schools.
default_laugh.png


 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was kind of hoping the stipend thing would be even. I worry it will turn into a bidding war now.
If so, wouldn't that work out to our advantage? Maybe not an advantage over every school, but an edge over most of the teams out there.

I'm generally in favor of keeping a lid on costs. But it seems like money in the pockets of athletes is money well spent.

 
It seems like it's a calculation based on federal cost-of-living numbers so hopefully that number will be fairly well set and not a bid war. Won't be a fixed number but hopefully be stable.

But I agree with NUance that the Huskers should be behind anyone as far as we're allowed to be. "Resources aren't an issue."

 
Could someone briefly explain why the stipend amounts vary by school. I'm not understanding how/why one school could do $5K or, in the case of Texas $10K, while other schools are limited to $2K+/-. Doesn't seem like a very fair system or one that is based on any common sense.

 
From the thread in the Football forum:

How do they come up with this figure?
Cost of attendance is an amount calculated by university financial aid offices, using federal regulations that include the total cost of tuition and fees, room and board, books and supplies, transportation and other miscellaneous expenses. The NCAA proposal would now count all of those elements into the athletic scholarship.
A 2012 study found that out-of-pocket expenses for a full-scholarship FBS athlete ranged from $1,000 a year to $6,904 a year, depending on the school. The average NCAA gap is now around $3,500.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24966011/cost-of-attendance-reaches-ncaa-finish-line-and-new-complexities

It adjusted school-by-school and accounts for cost of living differences between cities and states.
 
Still clear as mud but thanks for the effort.

So, the differences basically come about depending on how each school decides to determine cost of attendance aND due to regional cost of living. Still doesn't seem like a fair or equitable system. So, cost of living in Lincoln is supposedly greater than in Columbus or Michigan? By $3k per year? I'm not buying it but am all for it if it gives us an advantage.

 
Why in the hell is their stipend based on tuition costs that they don't have to pay?
Just for everyone else, it's the difference between the costs they don't have to pay (tuition, room & board, etc.) and the total cost of many other items deemed to be part of the total cost of attendance.

 
Let's just hope it's enough so they can finally buy those books on the recommended reading list.

 
My guess the average cost of transportation to home- our athletes cover all over the US from coast to coast. OSU and Mich have the majority of athletes from right in their own neighborhood. Texas is just plain gaming the system.

 
Please explain to me how Bloomington, Indiana is so much more expensive to live than West Lafayette, Indiana.

IU = $3026

Purdue = $1920

If you're a stud athlete in Indianapolis....where are you going?

Let the bidding war begin.

 
Please explain to me how Bloomington, Indiana is so much more expensive to live than West Lafayette, Indiana.

IU = $3026

Purdue = $1920

If you're a stud athlete in Indianapolis....where are you going?

Let the bidding war begin.
I see what you're saying but, let's hope these student athletes won't make a decision based on $1,100 per year in spending money. (unless it benefits us
default_ph34r.png
)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was kind of hoping the stipend thing would be even. I worry it will turn into a bidding war now.
If so, wouldn't that work out to our advantage? Maybe not an advantage over every school, but an edge over most of the teams out there.

I'm generally in favor of keeping a lid on costs. But it seems like money in the pockets of athletes is money well spent.
Yes, I realize it would work to our advantage, but I was thinking about the effect on college football in general.

Just the kind of thing that gets my dystopian future generator of a mind cranking.

2/15/2050: "Nebraska couldn't make a deal with their star QBs agent for the last 2 years of his contract. The QBs representative said his client was unhappy with the 2 year 13 million dollar offer. The QB will now become an unrestricted free agent for the remainder of his eligibility but Nebraska will receive a compensatory selection in this springs high school draft. "

Okay that was prolly a little too far, but I had fun writing it.

 
Back
Top