Byron Larkon on paying players

[bearcatbret]

This may have be posted and I know he is not a UC player but the future will affect the Bearcats.
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/spor...roads/9551979/
But it does mention UC, xu, Miami, and tsou.

[red_n_black_attack]

The argument of having a stipend for scholarship athletes makes sense because athletes both have little time to work and there are NCAA restrictions on working. Scholarship athletes usually (or should) take summer classes to help lessen the load during the school-year while they are playing their sports. Like Larkin, most also "practice" on their own. The drive to be great is different for each person, but applies to all sports. During the school year there are both practices and "non-mandatory" weight lifting and conditioning sessions.

While all of this is going on, the student athlete is living on his/her own for the first time. There are "hidden" costs of being a normal college student living away from family home. There's gas money, if a car, and/or travel costs to and from home on some frequency. There's laundry, entertainment, and the desire to keep up with the latest fads and fashions. It's not as simple as saying the scholarship pays for tuition, room & board, and books. There is a need for cash that is not covered by the scholarship and one solution is a stipend.

The main issue with stipends is availability of funds. I received a stipend in grad school because my program leader had a grant to fund us, in part because of the extra time demands versus undergrad. There's no question athletic departments are already struggling. I see the main resource of additional funds being donations from alums/boosters to the Athletic Department. No matter what limit is placed on the amount of the stipend, some schools simply won't have the funds available to pay stipends. It will be an easy choice for kids to choose a scholarship offer with a stipend attached versus one without a stipend.

Secondarily tied to funds availability is the issue of where to draw the line. There's only so much money to go around. The swimming and diving team student athlete has just as many demands on his/her time as the football and basketball players. If you're going to give scholarship athletes a stipend because of time demands, then to be fair (Title IX??) shouldn't all scholarship athletes receive a stipend?

There may be a solution. I would propose that stipends be available with two stipulations: financial need and working it off at a university job. Some students will get financial support from parents because the parents have the cash. Much like financial aid needs assessments, each family has a different expected family contribution. Use that formula and add that the amount be divided by a certain factor (lets say 10 or 15). The result is the expected family contribution. Stipends make up the rest of the expected cost of attendance. Schools already pay many students to do jobs around campus, have those jobs be filled by scholarship athletes receiving a stipend. Those jobs usually are quite flexible between classes and often allow time to do some studying "on the job". This may displace other students, but (and I'm sorry for being cold-hearted) they do have the option of working off-campus.

[cpawstoney]

You voice some good points red_n_black.

[richard k.]

The argument of having a stipend for scholarship athletes makes sense because athletes both have little time to work and there are NCAA restrictions on working. Scholarship athletes usually (or should) take summer classes to help lessen the load during the school-year while they are playing their sports. Like Larkin, most also "practice" on their own. The drive to be great is different for each person, but applies to all sports. During the school year there are both practices and "non-mandatory" weight lifting and conditioning sessions.

While all of this is going on, the student athlete is living on his/her own for the first time. There are "hidden" costs of being a normal college student living away from family home. There's gas money, if a car, and/or travel costs to and from home on some frequency. There's laundry, entertainment, and the desire to keep up with the latest fads and fashions. It's not as simple as saying the scholarship pays for tuition, room & board, and books. There is a need for cash that is not covered by the scholarship and one solution is a stipend.

The main issue with stipends is availability of funds. I received a stipend in grad school because my program leader had a grant to fund us, in part because of the extra time demands versus undergrad. There's no question athletic departments are already struggling. I see the main resource of additional funds being donations from alums/boosters to the Athletic Department. No matter what limit is placed on the amount of the stipend, some schools simply won't have the funds available to pay stipends. It will be an easy choice for kids to choose a scholarship offer with a stipend attached versus one without a stipend.

Secondarily tied to funds availability is the issue of where to draw the line. There's only so much money to go around. The swimming and diving team student athlete has just as many demands on his/her time as the football and basketball players. If you're going to give scholarship athletes a stipend because of time demands, then to be fair (Title IX??) shouldn't all scholarship athletes receive a stipend?

There may be a solution. I would propose that stipends be available with two stipulations: financial need and working it off at a university job. Some students will get financial support from parents because the parents have the cash. Much like financial aid needs assessments, each family has a different expected family contribution. Use that formula and add that the amount be divided by a certain factor (lets say 10 or 15). The result is the expected family contribution. Stipends make up the rest of the expected cost of attendance. Schools already pay many students to do jobs around campus, have those jobs be filled by scholarship athletes receiving a stipend. Those jobs usually are quite flexible between classes and often allow time to do some studying "on the job". This may displace other students, but (and I'm sorry for being cold-hearted) they do have the option of working off-campus.

Of course the Ivies claim they do not give athletic scholarships, but years ago when my daughter was at Penn (NOT Penn St.) she used to laugh when telling us about football/basketball players who were working in food service, serving her meals and cleaning up afterwards. I don't know how a combination of an athletic scholarship AND a job would work, but it seems to me there should be a solution - UC tried that many years ago, even with the co-op program and ran in to trouble, if someone remembers the details they might post them.

[red_n_black_attack]

I believe there have been very few athletes through one of the Co-op degrees. I think Keith Gregor was in Engineering, but he wasn't able to Co-op because that violated the NCAA rules. I do not have the details, but it's time to have new rules...as long as it doesn't create haves and haves not more so that already exists.

[bearcatbret]

^I am not sure if I agree with you. I competed on the cross country, indoor track, and outdoor track teams and I co-oped and I was able to compete during my co-op quarters. Yes, I was an engineering student. Many of the distance runners at my time were engineering majors and they all co-oped. We had two aerospace majors that had 4.0 gpa's. In my case, competing all three quarters, it was difficult to support myself but I was the dough boy at a local pizza place and I opened up at 5 AM to make the dough. This was two hours per day during my non-coop quarters.

Oh, I was not on scholarship.

[richard k.]

^
Oh, I was not on scholarship.

And THAT'S the difference! If there are those who WERE on scholarship AND co-oped I'd like to hear about it - almost sure that many, many years ago UC ran into trouble with the NCAA for having scholarship players who also participated in the co-op program. Rules may very well have changed over the years.

[bearcatbret]

I do not know the situation now but 30 years ago, the track team had 13 scholarships and coach split those in half and gave 13 room/board and 13 tuition. Back then tuition was $600 per quarter.

[Binturong05]

One potential solution to the availability of funds issue would be to socialize the program the way the NFL has done. Either have the NCAA or each respective conference distribute a pool of funds to member programs. Sure, Blow$U and Oregon et al will be net payers as are the Dallas Cowboys in the NFL, but it levels the playing field. But that begs the question, do the big boys really want a level playing field? We all know the answer is "no."