Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Moontan, post: 515416, member: 166"]
It definitely could open Pandora's box.

I'm all for "Cost of Attendance" level scholarships. If student athletes are going to be students they need to be able live like other students. This includes the ability to go to an occasional movie, grab a slice at the Varsity, go out on a date, etc.. All of those typical student activities cost money. Some students receive those funds from their parents, others have jobs. Student athletes on scholarship are not allowed to have outside jobs. For those student athletes who come from less affluent backgrounds there is no money for those activities. Providing a stipend to student athletes is one way to help address this need.

Outright "pay for play" could lead to some interesting changes. Do all student athletes get paid or only those on certain teams? Do all of those teams' players get paid or only those that get on the fields or start? Does the QB make more than the kicker?

Do players that are paid have to pay for their tuition?

Will players have the choice of tuition or pay?

Will those that choose to be paid even have to go to classes?

If the lawsuit is successful I have that it only leads to Cost of Attendance stipends for all student athletes (if a school chooses to offer them). I may even be able to go along with an increase in the stipend (say up to double) for the revenue sports, if the school so chooses. In such a model it would be interesting to see if Hopkins would provide $ to its lax players just to be able to compete with the rest of D-1 schools (from the Big Five conferences) which would be paying their players.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?