Now Legal: Schools Buying Players

[TexanMark]

The University of Tennessee and four other major-college athletics departments are set to offer players an additional $5,000 or more in scholarship assistance starting this fall, according to a Chronicle analysis of financial-aid allowances at the 65 wealthiest NCAA institutions. Ten other athletics programs have plans to distribute at least $4,000 more in aid.

The money, part of a new spending allowance approved in January by the five biggest conferences, allows Division I colleges to cover the full cost of players’ scholarships. Previously, colleges could cover only the cost of a basic scholarship — tuition, fees, room and board, and books.

The change was designed to direct more money to players as television money has expanded. But disparities in what programs can offer has put new pressure on college budgets and altered the dynamics of recruiting.

Spending power among the five biggest conferences — the Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big 12, Pacific-12, and Southeastern — varies greatly.

Here are the schools:

1. Tennessee: $5,666 SEC
2. Auburn: $5,586 SEC
3. Louisville: $5,202 ACC
4. Mississippi State: $5,126 SEC
5. Texas Tech: $5,100 Big XII
6. Penn State: $4,788 B1G
7. TCU: $4,700 Big XII
8. Oklahoma: $4,614 Big XII
9. Oklahoma State: $4,560 Big XII
10. Ole Miss: $4,500 SEC
11. Wisconsin: $4,316 B1G
12. Texas: $4,310 Big XII
13. South Carolina: $4,151 SEC
14. Kansas State: $4,112 Big XII
15. Arkansas: $4,002 SEC

http://chronicle.com/article/At-Least-15...ms/229229/


Hmmm guess which school is in the bottom 5?

It is ridiculous to think it is more expensive to live in Auburn, AL than Boston or LA

H/T: Maize

 

[oldpinepoint]

$1,600? Blow through that in a semester

 

[CarolinaCuse]

I was just going to post a link to this article. We're in good company - a little nugget:

"Not everyone has as much to give. Three private colleges have the lowest cost-of-attendance numbers among the 65: Boston College ($1,400), the University of Southern California ($1,580), and Syracuse University ($1,632)."

 

[HeaterCuse22]

This absolutely needs to be regulated to a fixed amount that all schools in the P5 can afford. Immediately.

 

[TexanMark]

It doesn't take a SU2NASA to figure out where this is going.

SU gets raped by the NCAA for an administrator writing a paper for a player while the SEC can tell us it is 3 times more expensive to live in the rural SE than LA and Boston and the NCAA just watches.

But the good news for the SEC...they are still paying the athletes way less than they have to pay the handlers and relatives to get these kids to commit.

 

[jr4750]

Syracuse shows a differential of $1632. Better than I hoped. So, for an additional $500,000 or so a year we can cover the price of a full scholarship and equal the big boys. Get rid of the Giasantes and make it happen. Seems like a no brainer to me. What am I missing.

 

[javadoc]

So many ways to spin this.

The first question is, how the hell does a school calculate this? Does each school calculate it the same way? If not, how can you open that can of worms? It boggles the mind how the amounts can be so different, especially when comparing the areas in which the schools are located.

If you sort the list by the TCoA adjustment so that the schools that will "pay the least" are at the bottom, here are some notable appearances:

#1 BC
#3 Syracuse
#4 Georgia Tech
#8 Notre Dame
#12 Duke
#13 North Carolina
#17 Wake Forest
#19 NC State
#23 Virginia
#30 Virginia Tech
#31 Miami
#40 Pitt
#46 Clemson
#50 Florida State
#63 Louisville

11 out of 15 ACC members will be paying an extra stipend that is in the bottom half of all stipends. And, oh my!, lo and behold, look at which three schools will be giving out the most. Shocked, I tell you.

Now, this is not supposed to represent a new cash award as payment, right? It's supposed to bring the kids back up to water level for reasonable expenses they will incur by being students at the school. Thus, you can spin this as an identification of which schools have been exploiting their athletes until now. The ACC looks pretty good in that regard.

Also note that some good programs are not going to be awarding much extra (official) cash. U$C is #2 on the above list, Michigan State is #6, Michigan is #11.

 

[rrlbees]

Remember, this isn't an NCAA "thing". This is one of the areas that the P5 member schools can set their own policies. The vote on this was near unanimous with only BC voting no.

 

[javadoc]

Remember, this isn't an NCAA "thing". This is one of the areas that the P5 member schools can set their own policies. The vote on this was near unanimous with only BC voting no.

Yep, understand. Someone help me out with the basic question, though - what is this money expected to cover?

For instance, Syracuse will pay $1600 and Pitt will pay $3300. What does that extra $1700 have to cover at Pitt? For that matter, what does the $1600 at Syracuse cover?

If it truly is money that is "already spent" due to real, unavoidable expenses, and it's not a slush fund, then fine. But if it is a slush fund, we're at a competitive disadvantage with local recruiting rivals Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, and (especially) Penn State. That wretched hive of scum and villainy will be paying an amount in the top 5 of all schools.

In general we're not competing directly with SEC schools for kids, so there will be some popcorn entertainment value from watching them fight each other over the stipends. Tennessee seems most likely to start pissing off conference mates with its largesse.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

This could be so much simpler if they just let the players profit from their own name and likeness.

 

[TexanMark]

Remember, this isn't an NCAA "thing". This is one of the areas that the P5 member schools can set their own policies. The vote on this was near unanimous with only BC voting no.

I realized the NCAA allowed this but they needed to set guidelines...

 

[rrlbees]

I realized the NCAA allowed this but they needed to set guidelines...

The schools developed this thing. The schools knew what the process was. SU and everyone else voted yes. A big part of the disparities is based upon how much each school wants to spend. The privates are going to be in the lower end. I'm betting SU could provide $4k too if they wanted too.

 

[TexanMark]

The schools developed this thing. The schools knew what the process was. SU and everyone else voted yes. A big part of the disparities is based upon how much each school wants to spend. The privates are going to be in the lower end. I'm betting SU could provide $4k too if they wanted too.

To the typical shallow minded 17-18 year old...this is not going to end well for us.

 

[javadoc]

The schools developed this thing. The schools knew what the process was. SU and everyone else voted yes. A big part of the disparities is based upon how much each school wants to spend. The privates are going to be in the lower end. I'm betting SU could provide $4k too if they wanted too.

It can't be a question of how much a school "wants to spend," though. The TCoA is something that the school sets across the board for all students. There was even a quote in the article about how it has already happened that an athletics department asked the school about jacking up that number so that it could pay more. So it doesn't sound like a question of each school deciding how much it wants to pay and then choosing a TCoA value. Haven't those levels been set already, and for years predating this new policy?

 

[Shenexon]

So SU got sanctioned by the NCAA for players being paid a few thousand dollars for working and there is no standard for how much cash is given to students for expenses with significant variation by school & conference? I think my Rubik's cube of a brain must not be lined up right yet...

 

[javadoc]

So SU got sanctioned by the NCAA for players being paid a few thousand dollars for working and there is no standard for how much cash is given to students for expenses with significant variation by school & conference? I think my Rubik's cube of a brain must not be lined up right yet...

Nice avatar, by the way. Is that across Flowed Lands?

 

[rrlbees]

It can't be a question of how much a school "wants to spend," though. The TCoA is something that the school sets across the board for all students. There was even a quote in the article about how it has already happened that an athletics department asked the school about jacking up that number so that it could pay more. So it doesn't sound like a question of each school deciding how much it wants to pay and then choosing a TCoA value. Haven't those levels been set already, and for years predating this new policy?

If that's all true why are the privates in the lower end?

 

[cuseguy]

It's only a matter of time before this blows up in a huge mess. I couldn't believe this was actually going to happen when I first heard about it, if this isn't corrected, the imbalance in recruiting will be enormous. SU might as well become a mid major.

 

[rrlbees]

Each school determines what is included. So SU could in fact give more if they wanted.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/08/17/ncaa-full-cost-of-attendance/14200387/

 

[SU68]

I made this comment in the article before I read this thread, so I copied it here:

I lived in North Carolina and have visited each of the other states. With the cost of flights in and out of Hancock and the NYS sales taxes, I don't believe for one second that SU's cost of transportation and miscellaneous expenses is lower than every other school but BC. I call bullshit on our amount!

 

[javadoc]

If that's all true why are the privates in the lower end?

Because they've been doing a better job of paying those expenses all along?

 

[ImperialOrange]

This will turn into an absolute show.

Big winners in the SEC:
Tennessee $5,666
Auburn $5,586
Mississippi State $5,126

Vs.

Massive programs in the SEC that won't be a fan:
Florida $3,320
Louisiana State University $3,096
Alabama $2,892
Texas A&M $2,706
Georgia $2,598

No way Bama, UGA, LSU, aTm, and Florida allow those 3 to have such a massive advantage.

 

[javadoc]

Each school determines what is included. So SU could in fact give more if they wanted.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/08/17/ncaa-full-cost-of-attendance/14200387/

More confusion. One of the schools cited things like administrative fees, student activity fees, etc. How can that not have been covered until now? Seriously, how? Isn't the point of the scholarship that the kid can go to school free - at least with regards to the fixed or predetermined costs that such an education entails? Have SEC schools been forcing the kids to pay their (out of control) add-on fees by themselves until now?

What I want to see is a boilerplate list that all schools must adhere to. So, for instance, all monies paid to the school as an educational cost of attending the school should be covered by the AD and cash should not change hands for that - why the hell is someone going to give a kid $1000 and then ask him to turn around and give it back to the school to cover a student activity fee?

Most food should be covered by the AD and the official training table. The extra allowances should be enumerated and should result in a relatively constant amount for all schools, except where there are bona fide differences, and even there I want strong, provable, data-based justification. The extracurricular "snack" budget should be fixed and equal for everyone, IMO. I think each kid's "travel" budget should also be fixed, but the school should be allowed to kick in to cover extra costs associated with flying out of tiny regional airports, etc. Don't allow cash to change hands for something like that.

The category of "miscellaneous expenses" is where the most oversight focus should be, because that is pure slush fund.

 

[CarolinaCuse]

Cost of attendance goes way beyond the discussion of paying student-athletes. While it is determined by each school individually, it is intimately tied into how financial aid is factored for all students attending the school. I would imagine that if Cuse wanted to increase their CoA for student athletes, they would have to increase the CoA for all students - which would impact overall admissions of the institution.

If paying of student-athletes goes unregulated, it's going to hurt the private schools for sure. Here's some light reading about CoA for all of you higher ed junkies:

https://ifap.ed.gov/sfahandbooks/attachments/0607Vol3Ch2.pdf

 

[Cheriehoop]

Cost of attendance goes way beyond the discussion of paying student-athletes. While it is determined by each school individually, it is intimately tied into how financial aid is factored for all students attending the school. I would imagine that if Cuse wanted to increase their CoA for student athletes, they would have to increase the CoA for all students - which would impact overall admissions of the institution.

If paying of student-athletes goes unregulated, it's going to hurt the private schools for sure. Here's some light reading about CoA for all of you higher ed junkies:

https://ifap.ed.gov/sfahandbooks/attachments/0607Vol3Ch2.pdf

As I've worried about for a while - it's all about money and reducing, pricing out the competitive field.