Big 10 (plus 2) considering proposal to help athletes cover living expenses

[Chip R]

Insert your own tOSU joke here.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6564134

[Slyder]

Insert your own tOSU joke here.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6564134

NCAA would step in I think. Its something that they are going to have to deal with in order to keep some competitive balance. I heard one idea on ESPN this morning that any athlete who graduates would be given a grant.

[BuckeyeRed27]

NCAA would step in I think. Its something that they are going to have to deal with in order to keep some competitive balance. I heard one idea on ESPN this morning that any athlete who graduates would be given a grant.

The plan is backed by the head of the NCAA.

This has been in the works for years and looks like an actual plan will be laid out soon.

[Brutus]

I applaud this effort, even if it was initiated with a side agenda in mind.

Bottom line is that collegiate athletics have become a multi-billion dollar business. In the working world, 'interns' that are expected to abide by the kind of rules, regulations and expectations that athletes have to live their lives by would essentially be classified as employees, and be expected to be compensated under Federal minimum wage guidelines. While I'm not suggesting this means these players should be paid actual wages, I just think it's gotten to the point where paying millions of dollars to coaches, getting billions in television revenue and then penalizing players for selling off their own stuff for profit is essentially exploitation.

I think this was long overdue. The tricky thing will be deciding how to implement it.

Obviously Title IX is going to add a layer of difficulty. While logically the revenue should be distributed in proportion to how much money is earned by that sport, it won't be and can't be because of the other problematic Federal issues. Thereby, it will probably end up being in proportion to numbers of scholarships. In the end, each scholarship athlete is likely to get the same allotment regardless of sport, though I don't necessarily think that's the right way to go if at all possible.

I love the idea of a perk at the end of a player's graduation though. I think that would be a great idea in conjunction with this plan. It might not keep most players in school four years if they're likely to be drafted, but it might be added incentive to the fringe players.

[Hoosier Red]

I agree that its a laudable effort. I've long thought it would be in the NCAA's best interest to establish things like a "need-based" loan program for athletes in school where they could loan the money out to athletes and athlete's families to help cover short term needs.

Hand in hand with that would be a much heavier hand for athletes and programs that continued to break the rules.

In other words, bring the money questions above ground, eliminate any of the excuses, and bring down the hammer if you still break the rules.

[Chip R]

Of course there's no way this will happen with just the Bigger 10 doing this on their own. It would be too much of a competitive disadvantage for the other conferences - especially the non-BCS conferences.

I'm not necessarily opposed to giving players some kind of stipend but where do you draw the line? Does the QB of the football team get more than the center? Does a football player at a school with a strong football program but a weaker basketball program like Miami (FL) get more than a basketball player? Would a female basketball player at UCONN get more than a football player there? Would programs in non-BCS (and some BCS) schools have to be cut to fund this? What constitutes living expenses? A pizza every couple of weeks? Payments on a car? If it's clothing, what kind of clothing? Jewelry? Dates? Tattoos? And what makes anyone think this will stop abuses? If a player is getting a $2,000 stipend, why not do things that are against the rules to get $1,000 more?

[Hoosier Red]

Of course there's no way this will happen with just the Bigger 10 doing this on their own. It would be too much of a competitive disadvantage for the other conferences - especially the non-BCS conferences.

I'm not necessarily opposed to giving players some kind of stipend but where do you draw the line? Does the QB of the football team get more than the center? Does a football player at a school with a strong football program but a weaker basketball program like Miami (FL) get more than a basketball player? Would a female basketball player at UCONN get more than a football player there? Would programs in non-BCS (and some BCS) schools have to be cut to fund this? What constitutes living expenses? A pizza every couple of weeks? Payments on a car? If it's clothing, what kind of clothing? Jewelry? Dates? Tattoos? And what makes anyone think this will stop abuses? If a player is getting a $2,000 stipend, why not do things that are against the rules to get $1,000 more?

The problem now is that because 1) Enforcement is pretty spotty and 2)The players are not in the best financial position to turn down small amounts of money, even a level headed cost/risk analysis shows that there's not a lot of good reason to turn down agents.

If you 1) Provide a legitimate outlet to get the basic needs met, and 2) Amp up enforcement and punishment, it becomes a more foolish gamble to meet with an agent and/or take money that you shouldn't.

[Unassisted]

Good. College athletics is a multi-billion dollar business. The athletes should get some of that so they can focus mainly on school and their sport and avoid having to sell their belongings to pay living expenses.

[Chip R]

The problem now is that because 1) Enforcement is pretty spotty and 2)The players are not in the best financial position to turn down small amounts of money, even a level headed cost/risk analysis shows that there's not a lot of good reason to turn down agents.

If you 1) Provide a legitimate outlet to get the basic needs met, and 2) Amp up enforcement and punishment, it becomes a more foolish gamble to meet with an agent and/or take money that you shouldn't.

I don't see how enforcement will be any better under this scenario. If anything there's going to be more work to do. It will be a bureaucratic nightmare. I really don't see how paying players is going to remove the temptation to accept more under the table money. For the kids who don't have their hands out or are not talented enough to play at the next level, it's great. For the ones that have legitimate pro prospects and have their hands out, that stipend probably isn't going to be enough. If Player X is rumored to have a little extra spending money, it can just be chalked up to that stipend he receives.

I don't know if there is a solution to this problem. Players getting money under the table has been around since intercollegiate athletics began. No one has been able to stop it yet. I think it would be a good idea for the players who are making all this money for the schools get compensated in some way and for the abuses to stop but I don't believe this proposal is the answer. Is it fair for a football player to get more money than a soccer player? The football player generates more revenue but the soccer player is part of the university's athletic department as well. You may not watch the games but they do show women's soccer on the Big 10 Network which is where all this money is coming from.

I understand it's tough on these athletes to have some walkaround money. I know it used to be illegal for them to hold jobs however I seem to recall they are able to do that now. Even if they could, though, between classes, film study, practices, workouts, team meetings and study halls where are they going to find the time to hold down a job? Even during the summer, there are unofficial practices and team activities the athletes participate in to improve. If they aren't going to class they may be able to get a job but that's not going to apply for every athlete.

[Hoosier Red]

I don't see how enforcement will be any better under this scenario. If anything there's going to be more work to do. It will be a bureaucratic nightmare. I really don't see how paying players is going to remove the temptation to accept more under the table money. For the kids who don't have their hands out or are not talented enough to play at the next level, it's great. For the ones that have legitimate pro prospects and have their hands out, that stipend probably isn't going to be enough. If Player X is rumored to have a little extra spending money, it can just be chalked up to that stipend he receives.

I don't know if there is a solution to this problem. Players getting money under the table has been around since intercollegiate athletics began. No one has been able to stop it yet. I think it would be a good idea for the players who are making all this money for the schools get compensated in some way and for the abuses to stop but I don't believe this proposal is the answer. Is it fair for a football player to get more money than a soccer player? The football player generates more revenue but the soccer player is part of the university's athletic department as well. You may not watch the games but they do show women's soccer on the Big 10 Network which is where all this money is coming from.

I understand it's tough on these athletes to have some walkaround money. I know it used to be illegal for them to hold jobs however I seem to recall they are able to do that now. Even if they could, though, between classes, film study, practices, workouts, team meetings and study halls where are they going to find the time to hold down a job? Even during the summer, there are unofficial practices and team activities the athletes participate in to improve. If they aren't going to class they may be able to get a job but that's not going to apply for every athlete.

No this proposal doesn't mention enforcement. But it would give the conference/NCAA a much steadier ground if they were to step up enforcement and penalties.

Right now, even if it's only 1 out of 100 kids who truly need the money from an agent to pay for necessities, how many kids are playing NCAA football. That can bring in a significant amount of sympathy to the kids even if you have to enforce the rules. And that sympathy provides a small amount of PR cover for the players who are simply cheating because they want money and aren't considering the consequences.

By taking away that temptation if you will, the NCAA can say, "Look- you knew the terms of the contract when you signed it, if you needed money, there were legitimate avenues to go down, you still chose to cheat."

I don't think anything would "fix" the problem, but I think this might put a band aid on a gusher which might be the best thing you could hope for.