SoCalWolverine

March 16th, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^

I don't think a $2000 stipend for student athletes per semester is unreasonable. Some need the money for basics and when you can't have a job or a family that can front you money, it makes sense. Its really no different than when I got scholarships/grants in college and used the excess for living expenses.

BlueDragon

March 16th, 2011 at 11:51 AM ^

However, paying every student athelete $2000 regardless of sport will force some schools to eliminate some varsity sports.  In addition, the $2000 is a big incentive not to add varsity programs, such as men's lacrosse at Michigan.  Paying atheletes a stipend for each term would create more problems then it would solve, as opposed to, for example, increasing scholarship and grant aid to student-atheletes.  These kinds of financial incentives come with more strings attached then a stipend.  One condition could be that the student-athelete has to stay in on-campus housing and eat a set number of meals per week with the team or in a campus cafeteria, which does not sound unreasonable.

justingoblue

March 16th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^

I agree here, but only because of how messed up the system is now anyway. Right now Illinois really wants to add hockey as a varsity sport, but they need to double the scholarships for Title IX. Add on top of that 2,000 per scholarship and that's far more expensive.

Let alone schools like Cal who are actually cutting teams right now.

Section 1

March 16th, 2011 at 3:05 PM ^

Not that it matters.

The theory seems to presume that all universities operate like Texas, or Ohio State, or Michigan.  With vast revenues from two, three, four or more revenue-producing teams, and that are awash in money.  Or that at worst all schools are microcosms of  Duke/basketball, or Georgetown/basketball, or North Dakota/hockey.  Or Johns Hopkins/Lacrosse, or Tennesse women's basketball.

The theory doesn't account for Title IX, and it doesn't account for all of the thousands of athletes in non-revenue sports, at revenue-negative athetic departments.  It widens the gulf between 'Have' schools and 'Have-not' schools.

I'll let Jalen break the news to the athletic directors at Ohio Weslyean, Bemidji State, and, yes, Cal-Berkely, that they need to carve out of their budgets the extra cash to pay all of their scholarship athletes $2000 a year, or $2000 a term, for all the iTunes they could be getting if only they could get a job, and not have to play a varsity sport.

Zone Left

March 16th, 2011 at 11:53 AM ^

I think that's about all people who want to pay athletes are looking for. You don't need to make them rich, but helping them with a small stipend in exchange for being the public face of the university makes sense.

cheesheadwolverine

March 16th, 2011 at 11:53 AM ^

As an aside has anyone else noticed how articulate and sucessful in politics, journalism, business, etc. the Fab Five has become?  You know, for all the stereotypes about them. 

As for the content, makes sense to me at Michigan and peer schools, but a lot of athletic departments outsie of power six conferences already hemmorage money.  I don't know if they could afford this.

LB

March 16th, 2011 at 11:59 AM ^

I am 100% in favor of stipends. I can see people googling semantics to check the spelling, but it is not the same thing, to my way of thinking. Among other things, a stipend could be applied equally among all athletes. Free education, travel, and opportunities aside, being forced to live like a pauper invites too many temptations along for the ride.

justingoblue

March 16th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^

I think where Jalen loses me is in the arbitrary amount of the stipend.

I think the better thing would be to lift the wage restrictions on athletes, and let them be compensated for their worth to a business when they are permitted to have jobs. That wouldn't cost the school anything extra, and it would reward the athletes who produce huge revenues to the school without harming non-revenue athletes.

justingoblue

March 16th, 2011 at 12:56 PM ^

My point is that for some places, they are worth that much. Also, it's not like the schools are paying them. I have no problem if Denard is selling Nike's at 100k (well, I guess it would have to be Adidas, but whatever). Apparently they made huge money off of all the shots with his Adidas shoes untied, why shouldn't he be able to see that.

I don't think it would lead to a competitive advantage, either. There would be local businesses too, but there are local businesses at every college. The other argument is asking what the difference is between Jalen or Webber getting paid whatever they can over the summer (I'm not sure what team rules are for jobs at other times) and any other student.

GVBlue86

March 16th, 2011 at 12:11 PM ^

I do not agree with this idea. Unless they are required to pay it back later. I would be in favor of a 0% interest loan. They still benefit more financially than someone who has to work part to time to pay for college. Most people paying their way still have some loans to take out.

GVBlue86

March 16th, 2011 at 12:22 PM ^

That's an interesting question. I think you might want to limit it because someone might possibly overvalue their own pro potential and take a larger loan. Thinking they will easily pay it back after making millions in the pros, only to not make it in the league, or something. I would think a cap near a few thousand would be just fine for anyone.

justingoblue

March 16th, 2011 at 12:29 PM ^

I think this might be the best temporary (ie realistic) solution now that I think about it more. It doesn't solve the philosophical problem that I think is inherent in the system, but it solves the problem of athletes needing pocket change while they are not able to hold jobs, and would probably mitigate dealings with agents and the like.

I don't think students are ever not going to pull a Reggie Bush, but getting them some extra money would probably cut down on the amount that do. This would also be able to be instituted far more easily than most other schemes, IMO.

Blue Lurker

March 16th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^

to put his proposal into perspective I tried to figure out how much this would cost.

If a school used every scholarship in every sport (206.9 mens, 174 womens according to the a couple of references that I found) allowed then this would be 761k per semeser or 1.5 mil for a year total.  

I know that a lot of schools don't have all sports nor do they currently run a surplus, but that number isn't that large...

 

King Douche Ornery

March 16th, 2011 at 12:29 PM ^

It ain't gonna happen and doesn't need to. Yes, athletes are exploited and get no profits from playing. and YES they know this going in. Too bad. Free education and all. I really don't give a rip about some guy not being able to date some co-ed while on the team or not having the money "for a pizza"

WE ALL know most top athletes aren't wanting for anything on the typical college campus. 

And you know what? Perhaps they should take their academics a bit more seriously while at college and TRULY get what they're there for. Besides, very few of them are ever going to earn a paycheck in pro sports--why pay them in college?

Lame, stupid, and whiney. It's probably not a coincidence that a meber of the so called "Fab Five" is now arguing for paying players. Oh well, at least he'll always find a warm, rationalizing, forgiving audience in the masses of stupid Michigan fans (hypocrites).

justingoblue

March 16th, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^

If you don't have sympathy for an athlete who generates huge money for a university (e.g. Jalen) not being able to afford a pizza, who exactly do you have sympathy for? They work their asses off, they're successful in their fields, and the money they make goes to everyone else (including other student's scholarships). Regardless of what you think about paying athletes, that was just an asshole statement.

I'd also like to show solidarity with BlueDragon and ask where, exactly, I was hypocritical or stupid. Given your general comments, I would say this is the pot calling the kettle black, at best.

King Douche Ornery

March 16th, 2011 at 1:18 PM ^

You mean a college education, free medical and health care, food, and the means to be coached and ply your wares by auditioning on the Big Stage for several years while visiting the entire country and other parts of the world, then you, my friend, are onto something!

Sorry, just because Jalen says something doesn't make it right, true, or worth listening to.

OMG Shirtless

March 16th, 2011 at 1:59 PM ^

King of Belch/The Barking Sphincter will never go away.  He'll just come back with a new name and the same old tricks.  When you know it's all an act, which was proven when someone found his posts on another board about trying to stir up trouble here, it's at least more entertaining than some of the trolls we've had around here.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

March 16th, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^

The problem is it wouldn't solve anything.  I guess it's reasonable, given that as a ROTC student I was paid a $400 monthly stipend by the time I was a senior (so not quite as much as $2000/semester, but it helps because the time commitments are similar.) But I just don't see where the middle ground is between fair compensation for the fact that they don't really have time for a job (and I still think "fair compensation" is the scholarship), and assuaging the greed that's inevitable with certain players and all agents. 

Would it stop the agents, the boosters, the hangers-on?  No, absolutely not.  Those people don't do it out of legitimate concerns for the welfare of the athlete.  They do it for their own self-gratification, to raise their own power and influence.  Which means they'll just keep finding ways to funnel money to players, just, more of it.

justingoblue

March 16th, 2011 at 12:37 PM ^

While I do disagree about legitimate compensation, I think you're missing the point in your second paragraph.

I believe that status compromising dealings would definitely be cut down because there would be less of an incentive to deal with some of these people. If an athlete can buy a nice bottle of booze for him and his girlfriend, or can afford to leave town a couple weekends a year, there is much less he has to gain from taking substantial sums of money from shadier characters. It doesn't have to do with concern, in my mind at least.

VBSoulPole

March 16th, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^

I'll preface this by saying that I'm still in favor of paying students a small stipend. Providing them with this small amount I think would go a long way in showing appreciation for all the funds they provide to instutitions and athletic departments.

That being said, we need to remember that this is Michigan, where we have more money than the The Situation has tanning memberships. If we looked outside of the Big Ten, and looked at say, the MAC. This could have a very detrimental effect on how they run their departments and which varsity teams they could support. I'll admit I've done absolutely zero research as of yet on the smaller D1 programs but I'd be willing to bet that this expense might devastate an athletic department such as EMU. If I recall correctly, even Colorado's athletic department was completely upside down as of recent...

st barth

March 16th, 2011 at 12:59 PM ^

A stipend is a worthless idea.  These student athletes already have all of their basics needs (clothing, food, healthcare, etc.) covered during their four years on campus.  And the argument about how these kids can't afford a Big Mac while "their" jersey is being sold across the street is weak.  How often does that actually happen?  Maybe once when the young student foolishly spent his pocket money on the latest video game instead of planning ahead for dinner.  I'm not buying it.

Besides, the real problem with the poor student athletes is not the student himself but the poor family that the students comes from.  The six-figure payouts (Reggie Bush, Cam Newton, etc) tend to be funnelled towards family members.  I don't blame a kid for trying to help his family out if his parents are unemployed, disabled, on welfare, etc.  But what is really sad is that some of these kids are from middle class homes and are, in fact, just greedy.  In those circumstances, no amount of stipend will ever be enough.

Hannibal.

March 16th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^

I'm pretty much in agreement.  At worst, student athletes have to live like the rest of the student population.  Even that's debateable.  So Jalen Rose had a piece of shit car?  Welcome to life as a student.  Most people have a shitty car or no car.  And unlike Rose, they will might have loans to pay off while making significantly less than $2 Million per year.  A player can't afford a pizza?  Then how the hell did he afford a pizza when he was in high school and the university wasn't paying for room and board? 

But I guess I'm not vehemently opposed to small stipends from a purely selfish standpoint.  It would probably present an advantage for schools like Michigan.

MGoKereton

March 16th, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^

I absolutely love the idea of an athletic-based loan.  Just have it so the atheletes can "elect" to partake in the loan for whatever reasonable amount they want (obviously, the more they take out the more they pay back).  If there's money in the loan fund afterwards, it's just funneled back into other things.

FreddieMercuryHayes

March 16th, 2011 at 2:03 PM ^

This idea is the most plausible idea so far, but it would have to be regulated. Otherwise big universities with big boosters could offer bigger loans to come play there. Also, it would have to be available to all scholarship athletes and not be determined by which sport you play. And then that gets into trouble because no bank is going to see a worthwhile return on investment with field hockey. Not to mention in every sport that the majority don't make money off their athletics.

AlwaysBlue

March 16th, 2011 at 1:52 PM ^

Somehow this seems ridiculous to me.  These student athletes have the most expensive parts of college paid for and they can't figure out how to earn a few thousand dollars during the summer (when many of us are trying to earn spending money plus for the next semester)?  Yes, I know it's difficult but is it really any more of a burden than the decades worth of loans the average student faces after they graduate, even after having worked during the summer and sometimes school year?

And let's face it, very few of these student athletes reach "face of the university" status.  The university does gain a lot from their collective efforts but on an individual basis, I'm betting most of the athletes get far more with a free education and related perks.

BlueCali22

March 16th, 2011 at 2:35 PM ^

Hey all this is my first post ever so please be kind....

I was a student trainer at Michigan and previously worked at other D1 schools (both major and mid-major schools). I am vehemently OPPOSED to paying student-athletes just because I've seen how things are run in atheltic departments. Football and basketball players should never complain about not being feed. They have "training table" in which they are fed steak, shrimp, etc. I've eaten with them a few times so I know firsthand what they are fed. As opposed to a mid major school who tries to save money. For example, I've worked for a volleyball team that was not allowed to buy soft drinks for lunch/dinner since the coach wanted to save money on a road trip. So they can go on a future Europe trip (we never went because we did not raise enough money)!

My point is that there is a huge disparity between the lives of basketball/football players and the 'other' student-athletes. All athletes work and practice just as hard as football and basketball players do. So obviously a stipend would have to be equal for all athletes.  But I agree with previous posts that this is impossible for some smaller mid major schools to implement.  $2000/athlete may not seem a lot to the Michigan atheltic department but for may departments it is their whole budget!!

BlueCali22

justingoblue

March 16th, 2011 at 2:47 PM ^

Congrats on your first post, I remember mine was a little nerve-racking too.

Which idea (or all three) do you oppose? So far there has been Jalen's idea of a stipend, my idea of allowing them to earn unrestricted amounts in the offseason working jobs they can get because of their celebrity, or GVBlue_is_still_blue's idea of giving institutional loans?

I have a girlfriend who is a scholarship non-revenue athlete in a smaller conference, I can tell you she doesn't have the same benefits as M football players do. The flipside of that is that she doesn't produce for her school like a star football player does for M.

BlueCali22

March 16th, 2011 at 3:00 PM ^

I think working for urestricted amounts due to their celebrity may be unfair for the student-athletes who are not really celebrities.  I mean take your girlfriend for example. If her and say Dee Hart applied for the same job and both got it. Would it be fair if the employer paid Dee more because he was a more famous athlete and he "needed" the money more? 

I am more in favor of a low % interest loan which will be optional to all student-athletes. Because honestly from what I've seen, only the people who need it should be taking out loans. If there is no interest, every student-athlete will be utilizing the loan. From the departments I worked at, most athletes can get by without an extra loan but of course there will be exceptions like Jalen Rose.  The loan will get paid back after graduation and there should be a max amount loaned each year or semester. 

justingoblue

March 16th, 2011 at 3:08 PM ^

Well I doubt they'd be applying for the same jobs. She might get a job helping out at a softball camp (I don't even think that's allowed) where Dee might sign an endorsement deal with Nike. The fairness argument doesn't stand up, IMO, because that's how the world always works. Someone who can make more money for a shoe company or a car dealership will always get hired over someone who won't.