Stipends for Student Athletes

Submitted by UMgradMSUdad on

 

Now that stipens for athletes is just around the corner (they begin in the 2015-16 school year) for the Big Ten and other Power Five conferences, it's time to consider how much money will be involved and what kind of disparity there will be between schools.  David Jones, of pennlive.com has an interesting article that includes a table showing tuition and incidental expenses (labeled Stipend) from 2014-15 for each Big Ten school.

Jones discusses the competing interests within universities that will play into determing the amount for these stipends: ADs want them high enough to help lure top athletes while other university officials want to keep them low enough to not scare off prospective students and their parents who are trying to figure out how budget for college expenses.

Jones also points out that "Penn State coach James Franklin is on record recently as saying the expenses stipend is definitely on the table as a recruiting factor."  Even though the stipends in the table below are for the current academic year and not what will be paid next year, it's no surprise that Franklin is willing to use stipends in recruiting, given that Penn State's incidental expenses or "stipend" is more than double the amount for some of the other universities, including Michigan. 

http://www.pennlive.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/03/penn_state_cost_of_attendance_recruiting.html

 

        School                        In-State       Out-Of-State    Stipend
1 Penn State $34,506 $47,456 $4,788
2 Wisconsin $24,475 $40,725 $4,265
3 Nebraska $22,625 $36,545 $3,544
4 Indiana $24,417 $47,270 $3,026
5 Maryland $24,214 $44,507 $3,024
6 Rutgers $29,875 $44,653 $2,763
7 Illinois $29,568 $44,194 $2,500
8 Ohio State $23,589 $40,089 $2,454
9 Northwestern $65,844 $65,844 $2,326
10 Minnesota $25,740 $32,990 $2,194
11 Iowa $20,861 $40,191 $2,128
12 Michigan $26,834 $55,254 $2,054
13 Purdue $23,322 $42,124 $1,920
14 Michigan State $25,286 $47,051 $1,872

 

Canadian

March 4th, 2015 at 10:31 AM ^

and these are the tuitions listed? for just this year? this is why I could never attend the University of Michigan.... over $55000 USD for a year of school. Dang I knew it was high but it has been a while since I've even bothered to look at these numbers.

L'Carpetron Do…

March 4th, 2015 at 4:19 PM ^

I don't think any university is that much.  I went to UofM out of state and I have to say I'm not sure it was worth all the student debt...

This is a huge problem in America today:  College prices have risen inexorably for years.  But wages have remained stagnant.  

I'm not sure college is the great investment they said it was.

WolvinLA2

March 4th, 2015 at 5:14 PM ^

Or you could argue that college has been waaaay below market price for a long time, and it's just now catching up. College has been a no-brainer for much of America for a couple generations, and that usually suggests that it was under-priced. So just because that price goes up it doesn't mean it's now over-priced. Considering how it impacts your income over your career, I would argue college in general (not any particular school) is still a bargain.

Now, is a good purely financial deficion for an Indiana resident to attend Michgan over IU or Purdue in-state. Probably not in many cases. But there's also value in sending your children to the schools they like best, if you can afford it.

Gulogulo37

March 4th, 2015 at 8:30 PM ^

There are plenty of countries that are as expensive as or more than the US, and they don't have tuition even close to what we have. College in Germany isn't free because Germany is dirt poor, it's free because it's subsidized.

I'd also really dispute that our colleges are much better than other developed countries for undergrad. Graduate school is a different story.

Also, you're definitely right about staying in-state. There's no way I'd recommend someone from out of state to go to Michigan unless they got a lot of money saved up to cushion the huge blow. Going to Indiana or Purdue in-state for half the cost is well worth it. I went to UofM-Flint for undergrad, got really good grades and crushed the GRE, and I guess had good letters of recommendation although I never saw them, and got accepted to Carnegie Mellon and the London School of Economics for masters' programs. Granted, Ann Arbor would have been a hell of a lot more fun than still living at my mom's place near Flint, but you really don't need to go to a top-notch, pricey university in undergrad to get into good graduate programs.

ak47

March 5th, 2015 at 9:14 AM ^

I don't think that's the case. College costs exploded when student loans became readily available. Schools don't care if you default on your loan 10 years later they already got the money. Administrative costs have surged and there is now a huge arms race for having crazy nice buildings. There is no need for south quads dining hall to look like it does and that is true across the county.

WolvinLA2

March 5th, 2015 at 11:54 AM ^

I don't think student loan availability has had as much of an impact as people think, especially with the higher end (price-wise) schools.  Most kids who are paying 50k+ per year aren't taking out most of that in loans.  Most students who rely on loans choose more affordable schools, which is smart.  The kids going to Northwestern or any Big Ten schools out of state are, by and large, attending because their parents can afford it, not by taking our massive loans (kids on scholarship excepted).  

I think upper-middle class and above families just feel that a very good college is worth a lot of money.  When that number went from 40k/year to 60k, very few families changed their habits.  The best school your son or daughter can get into is still worth all of that money to enough families that the trend hasn't stopped yet.

ak47

March 5th, 2015 at 12:15 PM ^

You'd think wrong, there is a direct correlation between the increase in loan avaialability and increase in prices.  Most middle class to upper middle class families are still taking out loans if its 50k a year for tuition.  Loans became readily available in the 80's  and there was a huge spike in prices in the late 80's and early 90's.  Loans also allowed many more people to go to college period, driving up demand and the increased perception that college is necessary has led people to paying whatever is necessary to get  a degree.  Colleges took advantage of this mindset to jack prices.  

http://www.bestvalueschools.com/understanding-the-rising-costs-of-highe…

ak47

March 5th, 2015 at 1:39 PM ^

I understand the difference between correlation and causality but just saying that doesn't make it not true.  Pretty much everyone who studies these things agrees that an increase in the availability of student loans led to an increase in college tuition because it led to more money being available and higher demand.  You can certainly argue that benefits outweigh the negatives as more minorities and low income students are able to get college degrees which yes are a huge need in todays economy though aren't super helpful if you are defaulting on loans 2 years out.  However the fact that you can raise prices because of increased demand does not excuse the fact that Michigan more than tripled its administrative staff and costs while raising tuition and has recently spent billions on renovating building that didn't need it.  I lived in south quad for 2 years in 09-10 and 10-11, it didn't need to be renovated but they spent the money to do it because of the facilities rate race.  

ak47

March 5th, 2015 at 12:13 AM ^

Out of state to Michigan probably isn't a great financial choice but getting a college degree isn't just about increasing potential revenue. It's about doing something you want to do. Most jobs most people want to be in require higher ed degrees now. For every one bill gates there is a million people who dropped out to work and get stuck in dead end jobs with no happy future. I want to work in non profits, that means probably max 75k salary if I'm high up at a large non profit and I probably will need a graduate degree too. It's about opportunity also.

Zarniwoop

March 4th, 2015 at 2:47 PM ^

I got TWO college degrees at MSU for 50 thousand dollars TOTAL including room, housing, gas, burgers, fishing, summer vacations, girlfriends, etc..

I graduated in 1998 and then second degree in 2005.  I cannot believe the outrageous increase in pricing.  Without COPIOUS financial aid I could NEVER afford to send my daughter to school.  I have a job that pays far above the medium income and those prices PER YEAR would destroy me forever financially.

I don't understand how some guy making 75k a year (or God forbid, less) could possibly send a child to Michigan or Northwestern.... or really any school. Hell, I don't see how someone making 100,000 a year could afford that unless their house payment is 700 bucks a month and they had 2 decades to do nothing but save.

This is a problem that borders on insanity. My daughter is a foreign national and will likely be attending college for MUCH less in Australia.  There must be MASSIVE amounts of financial aid for anyone under 100k per year.

WolvinLA2

March 4th, 2015 at 3:19 PM ^

You don't wait until your kids are in college to start saving. If you're a responsible parent, you'll start a college fund when your kids are born and by putting away a very reasonable amount per month your children can go to any school to which they get accepted. The only parents who complain about college costs are the ones who didn't make it a priority when they should have.

pescadero

March 4th, 2015 at 6:08 PM ^

If a median income family puts away 10% of their income every year (and 10% is not "a very reasonable amount") from the time the child is born until 18 years of age, and they manage to make 10% returns (which is a pretty standard figure for an index fund over ~20 years)...

 

They will still be about $20K short of funding 4 years at Michigan OOS... and god forbid they have a second child.

WolvinLA2

March 4th, 2015 at 6:32 PM ^

I'm curious what numbers you used. But either way - I didn't say every family would be able to save 100% of that money before the student even starts school, but you'd have to assume they'd still contribute that amont during the 4 years their child is in college and the balance is earning interest during those 4 years as well.

But if you save 150k during that time it makes an expensive school manageable. That's the point I was making. They can have their child take out a small amount of loans as well.

I also don't think that 10% is unreasonable for your kids' education. It's one of the most important things you'll spend money on.

pescadero

March 6th, 2015 at 4:11 PM ^

Median family income in the USA was ~$54K in 2014. Half the families in the USA made less than $54K.

 

10% of $54K is $5400.

 

If you put away $5,400 per year for 17 years, making a 10% APR... you'll end up with about $220K... or a little less than 4 years of OOS tuition at Michigan.

 

...and 10% may not be "unreasonable" - but it's pretty far from "very reasonable" for folks making median or less (and that is over half the households in the country).

 

 

ypsituckyboy

March 4th, 2015 at 10:46 AM ^

That Michigan out of state tuition is ridiculous. I love Michigan and am a proud alumnus, but there's no way in hell I'd send my kid if he had to pay out of state tuition. That's just absurdly expensive.

I'm going to encourage my kids to go to two years of community college and then transfer to a reputable state university. "College expierence" be damned. No "experience" is worth a decade of debt-filled misery.

bluebyyou

March 4th, 2015 at 1:45 PM ^

Why would that be?  Why not charge based on need?  The agrument used to be that parents of in-state students paid vast amount of property taxes and thus should have favorable tuiton rates.  That was decades ago.

And please, don't start with how much the State of Michigan contributes to the University.  It is OOSers and gifts that keep the school afloat as well as paying for much of the physical plant that makes up the school.

The Mad Hatter

March 4th, 2015 at 4:05 PM ^

You want discounted tuition based on financial need?  Go to a school in your own state.  Or get into Harvard.

So the State of Michigan isn't sending enough $ to Ann Arbor anymore.  Well they sure as hell did in the past.  In fact, many of those beautiful old buildings still used today were paid for with pubic funds.

 

maizenbluenc

March 4th, 2015 at 11:46 AM ^

My oldest son has a merit based full tuition + scholarship to Alabama (Engineering for CS). The debate there is debt free at graduation, versus one to two nice new cars worth of debt graduating from NC State Engineering. He wants the flexibility to pursue less mainstream or startup options, so is choosing the no debt route. There are better intellectual and cultural fits for him, but he is using reasonable objective logic.

My middle son wants to go to Michigan, or another top engineering school. The discussion is maybe by co-oping or an ROTC scholarship (like I did) that is doable. Right now, Georgia Tech is the higher likely candidate because it is $40K less across four years, and has a better co-op program and semester abroad program for engineers.

As much as Michigan tops every search criteria every time we look - out of state tuition really makes that choice very, very hard to pursue.

UMgradMSUdad

March 4th, 2015 at 5:01 PM ^

Don't be afraid to let your son apply to Michigan.  You never know what kind of merit  scholarhips he will qualify for.  My oldest daughter was a National Merit Scholar and got a full ride to MSU.  Her younger sister wanted to follow her footsteps and did get enough merit scholarships to give her in-state tuition plus another couple thousand off.  We said no thanks and she went to a lesser school here in Oklahoma where the out of state tuition is less than MSU's in state tuition.

But, she worked hard in her classes (tell your kids to attend every class--you'd be surprised how in today's world that sets them apart from the mass of college students), got great recommendations from her profs that opened the door for paid internships.  Now she is a senior and has an offer for a job that will pay her tuition and half salary to attend grad school.  She will go to a very good grad school that will essentially make her not-so-great undergrad school a moot point anyway.

My advice is to do the undergrad that is affordable and go for a grad degree at a better school where assistanships are often available to pay the way.

 

L'Carpetron Do…

March 4th, 2015 at 4:29 PM ^

THe president has a plan to make all community colleges free of tuition which I think is a great idea.  

I live in the DC area and one of the local CCs in Virginia runs ads on TV touting its "guaranteed admissions agreeements" with the state's public 4 year universities, meaning that if you get a certain GPA you get accepted automatically to those schools.  I think thats a brilliant plan.

So, if the president's plan becomes a reality, students in the area can go there for 2 years for free then go on to schools like UVA, William & Mary or Virginia Tech (which have dirt cheap in state tuition if I recall correctly).  

I think every state should have systems like that.  It wuold go a long way in curbing costs and preventing the explosion of student debt.  

I think college should be free (or at least one year or two of it should be free) 

ak47

March 5th, 2015 at 12:18 AM ^

Significantly less than 50% of community college kids wind up graduating from accredited 4 year schools. It's really easy to never make it out and is a really risky road. Also the connections you build in college can be crucial for future networking and thus earning potential, especially for kids who grow up in situations where they don't already have that network. Community college is a dangerous game to play. I'd do a lot of research and make sure you have a really motivated kid. All it takes is one bad grad at a cc to ruin your future.

akearney50

March 4th, 2015 at 10:57 AM ^

It isn't actually a stipend. Student-athletes will be able to get up to the cost-of-attendance. I'm not trying to argue semantics but cost-of-attendance figures have some federal aid implications. The cost-of-attendance figures can vary from institution to institituion, while also varying within an institution. It is not uncommon to have five or more cost-of-attendance figures at one institution. I believe Texas Tech has six.



One doesn't have to extrapolate too much to realize institutions will be able to toy with the parameters of specific cost-of-attendance figures on campuses to keep up with one another.

LSAClassOf2000

March 4th, 2015 at 10:58 AM ^

Some who want their school to project an air of prestige and exclusivity don't mind at all if it's lofty. Conversely, enrollment recruiters, commonly want to keep it low so their schools don't appear too expensive to parents and students already overburdened by prospective debt.

I actually didn't think about the stipend itself being a useful recruiting tool until I saw the OP's table above. I wonder what they would do to fix that, of course, because the amount don't seem to correlate very well to tuition cost. Would they index it to to tuition cost somehow or does it become something that schools would simply max out and it is what it is and you try to sell the other merits of your program / institution? Several questions arise, in my opinion. 

Auerbach

March 4th, 2015 at 11:02 AM ^

Serious Q: Given that there's obviously a huge market for college football and basketball, what exactly is the problem with just allowing the free market to pay these athletes what it feels they're worth like we do with every other adult who has a marketable skill?  

ijohnb

March 4th, 2015 at 11:59 AM ^

of amatuerism, that is the answer.  And it is an illusion that has to remain or else there will cease to be college sports, and that would make me sad.  I will eat up the illusion all day long as long as the University of Michigan and Michigan State Unversity still get to suit up two college football teams instead of watching the Michigan Great Lakers (that is the name that I have made up for the professional developmental team that I will replace the college team once we just go ahead and pay them).

jmblue

March 4th, 2015 at 12:30 PM ^

Besides the amateurism issue (which I agree is a factor), there are two other issues:

1) A lot of athletic departments are financially shaky as it is and to get into bidding wars for athletes would cripple their bottom line.
 
2) Competitive balance.  The playing field isn't necessarily level to begin with, but allowing any school to pay what it wants would make it even more unlevel. 
 

Mr Miggle

March 4th, 2015 at 12:30 PM ^

Imagine the NFL with no draft, no trades, no salary cap, no age restrictions, no roster limitations, no free agency restrictions. That would be a free market system.

There are a number of problems that would have to be overcome in order to let players take whatever they could get in a free market. Some of them are legal issues. One is Title IX. Another is that viable unions would need to be in place. Every limitation on the players, like the NFL has and more, would have to be negotiated.

There are a number of practical issues as well. One can argue that's it what schools should do, but in no way would it be an easy change to make. 

The Mad Hatter

March 4th, 2015 at 11:01 AM ^

on the amount of the stipend?  What's to stop a school from giving a $10,000 stipend?  Or $50,000?  More than a few, Michigan included, could afford it.

Also lol @ out of state tuition, and lol @ MSU costing about the same as Michigan.  For what?

Feeling pretty lucky to be living here with a daughter going to college in 2 years.