NCAA approves $2000 for cost of attendance

quote:

Originally posted by Mark B:
How will this new rule passed today affect baseball? If you have a 50% ride would you be entitled to $1000 or do you think regardless of %, you would get the entire $2000? Also, if school want to they can award schollies for multi-year instead of it being a one year renewal.

Dumb.

It will do nothing, as this money will have to come out of the general fund of the school. This will do nothing but raise tuition for ALL students.

This is D1 legislation only.

According to the press release, the possibility of $2000 only applies to head count sports or to players in equivalency sport who are getting 100%. So for baseball and nearly all other sports, probably only a handfull of players across the country will get more money. Quite possibly no baseball player will get additional money.

The much bigger news concerns academic standards. If the press release is correct (no sure thing), "The Board approved an increase in the transferrable grade-point average from 2.0 to 2.5 and limited the number of physical education activity courses to two." I suspect that this will be a problem for a number of players at JCs, and it is effective Aug 2012.

There is a similar issue for younger high school players. The standards to be a qualifier will increase sharply in 2015. " Specifically, incoming student-athletes would need to earn a half-point higher GPA for a given test score compared to the current standard. For example, an SAT score of 1,000 would require a 2.5 high school core-course GPA for competition and a 2.0 high school core-course GPA for aid and practice.

Players now in a JC who hope to transfer to a D1 need to immediately re-assess how many credits they have that will be transferrable and meet a 2.5 GPA.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:
Dumb.

It will do nothing, as this money will have to come out of the general fund of the school. This will do nothing but raise tuition for ALL students.

You may be right on its implementation with some schools...but it is not "dumb" (nor stupid) at all.

Inner city kids recruited in football and basketball to make big $$ for their schools deserve at least the cost of transportation to school in the Fall, home for the holidays, back in January and back home in May/June.

All the conference realignment, TV deals, etc... The kids deserve at least money for transportation and minor incidentals. So no, I would not agree one single bit that it is "dumb."

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:
Dumb.

It will do nothing, as this money will have to come out of the general fund of the school. This will do nothing but raise tuition for ALL students.

You may be right on its implementation with some schools...but it is not "dumb" (nor stupid) at all.

Inner city kids recruited in football and basketball to make big $$ for their schools deserve at least the cost of transportation to school in the Fall, home for the holidays, back in January and back home in May/June.

All the conference realignment, TV deals, etc... The kids deserve at least money for transportation and minor incidentals. So no, I would not agree one single bit that it is "dumb."

So, other students should pay for this?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:
So, other students should pay for this?

That would be the school's implementation's problem, not the recruited players' problem.

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:
So, other students should pay for this?

That would be the school's implementation's problem, not the recruited players' problem.

Could you answer the question, please?

I did...Sir!

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:
I did...Sir!

No, you didn't. Should other students subsidize this stipend?

Matt- He did answer the question. I am fully behind justbaseball's opinion 100%. It is not the recruited athlete's fault or responsibility to worry about where the money comes from. However in my opinion, some of the schools should start to reconsider who's pocket all of this revenue money is falling into, rather than pinning it on the other students like you alluded was a possibility (and you are sadly absolutely right...it probably is a huge possibility). I think it is a step in the right direction if executed properly, albeit a tiny step.

I see reading comprehension, again, is not the strong suit of this board. I didn't ask about the athlete's responsibility.

Matt,

Perhaps the fault does not lie with others' comprehension. There have been 125 views of this thread so far, and many readers appear to have had no trouble comprehending that your initial assessment ("dumb") of the measure and your antagonistic baiting of those who attempted to engage you on the issue do not hold much promise of a mature discussion.

Even so, I am sorry we disappointed you. You are cordially invited to find a board whose members' intellect and temperaments are more in keeping with your standards. Perhaps you'd feel more at home at Mensa4Jerks.com. There are two criteria for membership; I'll vouch for you on the second one.

[Various comments deleted by moderator. This thread remains open to those who want to discuss the announced topic.]

So, I assume it would be your opinion that other students are already paying for athletic scholarships?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:

So, other students should pay for this?

quote:

Originally posted by MTH:
So, I assume it would be your opinion that other students are already paying for athletic scholarships?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:

So, other students should pay for this?

Not opinion, but fact. There is no school that does not have a substantial amount of support from the general fund. There are only two schools (tOSU is one, I can't remember the other) whose athletic departments made money last year, and both would have been in the red without general-fund contributions.

Hmm. A little testiness here on the board might be due to the early season snowfall, or to the impending end of baseball 2011.

(C'mon St Louis, keep this going one more night!! WALKED ONE IN!!! Tied it up. Fun.)

I have no reason to jump into a debate. But, having worked in higher ed and having sat in on various budget meetings over the years, I just want to say that it is entirely possible that this new cost will not be passed on to other students dollar-for-dollar.

Costs of implementing this new regulation could be partially absorbed by ticket revenue, by fundraising, by a special financial aid drive in the athletic fundraising efforts, increase in an activity fee, or all of the above.

The trustees / AD / president / CFOs of impacted universities will look hard at how this new 'unfunded mandate' will be taken into the overall operating budget. I can tell you that faculty reps on the budget committes will fight hard against letting this new NCAA reg get directly funded by a dollar-for-dollar tuition increase.

They would be foolish to simply pass it on to their 'paying customers' directly. Despite public sentiment and bad press, colleges ARE sensitive to costs and struggle to keep tuition increases manageable.

I am 100% in favor of this new regulation (and the others ... I think ...haven't read it carefully.) Did everyone read that Atlantic Monthly article earlier this month? There is something very sad about the way that athletes can be used as such a commodity, a source of revenue in a HUGE way for a big time programs, and yet the poorest of these kids can't even afford to go home for holidays.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:
Not opinion, but fact. There is no school that does not have a substantial amount of support from the general fund. There are only two schools (tOSU is one, I can't remember the other) whose athletic departments made money last year, and both would have been in the red without general-fund contributions.

Here's some facts, rather than opinions. At least 132 college football and basketball programs made a profit or broke even in 2009-2010. Texas leads the way with a nearly $69M profit...some of which is 'donated' back to the general scholarship fund...even in the face of the football coach's $5M+ salary. FAR more than the "two schools" quoted above. (BTW, tOSU football made nearly a $32M profit and is merely #14 on that list ).

NCAA largest profits

Additionally, at least 22 college athletic departments as a whole made a profit in 2010 according to other reports...up from 14 in 2009. Still far more than "two schools."

Lastly, from direct firsthand experience, every single Stanford athletic scholarship is endowed and not funded by the university at all...nor even funded by gate receipts from football/basketball/etc... All of that goes to athletic department operating expenses. I would bet there are other schools in this position, but don't have time to research it. Your statement above that there are only "two schools" who turn a profit doesn't motivate me any further to waste my time with additional research when 132 and 22 were so easy to find.

None of this accounts for the added 'alumni pride' type donations to general funds, scholarship funds and capital investment funds that I am told firsthand by one BCS school's general scholarship fundraising representative...directly in my office, to my face...are, 'No question, very, VERY substantial.' Why do you think this fellow who was trying to solicit a 5-6 figure donation or alternatively a bequest, for the general scholarship fund spent 75% of the conversation with me talking about the school's football and basketball teams and offering box seats to a game 'next time I'm in town' (didn't take them)? Do you think there's a connection?

Even outstanding academic schools, Ivy and smaller but also academically elite, find it worth 'investing' in athletics because of the added collateral benefits from alums, student life, corporate donations, capital donations, sponsorships, grants, etc... No doubt it costs them $$ to enhance the overall student life experience just as they invest in green grass, trees, nice buildings and programs for the arts.

Given that nearly all colleges are thriving with faculty salaries higher than ever...they must find some value in it all. (And just in case you question my credentials to say that, I am the son of two university faculty members who would have agreed with my opinion on this).

I think those schools that wanna play with the big boys can afford an extra $2,000 per football & basketball player. Whether they dip into the general fund or not in the face of these profits...is really an issue for the schools' president and board of trustees.

Write a letter to your school's board/president rather than insult posters on this board, Matt.

Back when I was in HS we would call that "a burn".

quote:

I see reading comprehension, again, is not the strong suit of this board.

WOW!!!!!!!!!! :

Is that an insult? Or maybe we aren't smart enough to figure that out.

I'm thinking more on the lines of an Atomic Wedgie

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:
Here's some facts, rather than opinions. At least 132 college football and basketball programs made a profit or broke even in 2009-2010. Texas leads the way with a nearly $69M profit...some of which is 'donated' back to the general scholarship fund...even in the face of the football coach's $5M+ salary. FAR more than the "two schools" quoted above. (BTW, tOSU football made nearly a $32M profit and is merely #14 on that list ).

NCAA largest profits

Additionally, at least 22 college athletic departments as a whole made a profit in 2010 according to other reports...up from 14 in 2009. Still far more than "two schools."

Lastly, from direct firsthand experience, every single Stanford athletic scholarship is endowed and not funded by the university at all...nor even funded by gate receipts from football/basketball/etc... All of that goes to athletic department operating expenses. I would bet there are other schools in this position, but don't have time to research it. Your statement above that there are only "two schools" who turn a profit doesn't motivate me any further to waste my time with additional research when 132 and 22 were so easy to find.

None of this accounts for the added 'alumni pride' type donations to general funds, scholarship funds and capital investment funds that I am told firsthand by one BCS school's general scholarship fundraising representative...directly in my office, to my face...are, 'No question, very, VERY substantial.' Why do you think this fellow who was trying to solicit a 5-6 figure donation or alternatively a bequest, for the general scholarship fund spent 75% of the conversation with me talking about the school's football and basketball teams and offering box seats to a game 'next time I'm in town' (didn't take them)? Do you think there's a connection?

Even outstanding academic schools, Ivy and smaller but also academically elite, find it worth 'investing' in athletics because of the added collateral benefits from alums, student life, corporate donations, capital donations, sponsorships, grants, etc... No doubt it costs them $$ to enhance the overall student life experience just as they invest in green grass, trees, nice buildings and programs for the arts.

Given that nearly all colleges are thriving with faculty salaries higher than ever...they must find some value in it all. (And just in case you question my credentials to say that, I am the son of two university faculty members who would have agreed with my opinion on this).

I think those schools that wanna play with the big boys can afford an extra $2,000 per football & basketball player. Whether they dip into the general fund or not in the face of these profits...is really an issue for the schools' president and board of trustees.

Write a letter to your school's board/president rather than insult posters on this board, Matt.

Your facts don't take into account the big issue--the "profits" take into account the money contributed by the general funds of those schools. Those programs with "profits" do not have "profits" above that which was already contributed by the general fund.

It's akin to a business taking out a $100,000 loan from a bank, showing a net revenue of $90,000, and claiming that they make money. Take a look at the Knight Commission report.

quote:

Your facts don't take into account the big issue--the "profits" take into account the money contributed by the general funds of those schools.

Matt- Do you have any facts whatsoever supporting this claim? Please reiterate if you do, I don't think our reading comprehension is high enough to follow along with your argument. Citing the Knight Commission does not justify your position, it only fortifies the policies being enacted.

quote:

Originally posted by J H:

quote:

Your facts don't take into account the big issue--the "profits" take into account the money contributed by the general funds of those schools.

Matt- Do you have any facts whatsoever supporting this claim? Please reiterate if you do, I don't think our reading comprehension is high enough to follow along with your argument. Citing the Knight Commission does not justify your position, it only fortifies the policies being enacted.

Yes. This is the largest data collection to date.

http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/

It's an eyeopener.

And yes, the KC report does support my argument.

In my college football days, 1972-1976, all scholarships were for 4 years as long as one obeyed the rules and stayed eligible academically. We also were give $15 per month for "laundry". Really. 99% of those funds went to buying suds, but not the laundry variety.

I like the multi-year scholarship coming back. Way too many athletes have been run off or ignored into transfers, or had scholarships "non-renewed" (NCAA speak for "cut").

This might be the first athlete-friendly thing the NCAA has done in many years. Maybe the thought that the BCS schools might walk away from the NCAA has had an impact?

This is the link to the article that 3FG was quoting from.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/...ts-package-proposals

It is hard to tell why there is such a difference in views/results because Matt13 is so cryptic in providing information or facts for his views and justbaseball, as is usual, is cogent and up front with facts to support his comments.
If Matt13 is going to be so antagonistic and demeaning, he might take the time and show respect to other members by providing the information, not a link and/or reference to the Knight Commission.
The impression I have from his cryptic comments is Matt13 is referencing what is known as the "academic" model for NCAA sports.
justbaseball is referencing the "economic" model.
The major conferences and BCS schools almost all now use the "economic" model. The money from student fees and institutional support is negligible, or that is the goal. These schools focus on increasing revenue from football and basketball and BCS/TV. When there is a deficit, this model does not look to an increase in student fees or institutional support. As was done at Cal, when an economic model school has a deficit, they look to alums or they cut the sports.
That is the future according to a former NCAA leader and university AD who is now a consultant to DI schools and athletic programs faced with the future funding/support for athletics.
For most of these schools, the $2,000 is not going to be much of an issue and the money won't come from student fees or the institution.
Those schools following the "academic" model, which the Knight Group seems to support, probably could be impacted.

Question - Do football and basketball make money while Atheltic Departments as a whole look iffy depending on whose information you look at?

It's hard for me to think that any of the big conference schools don't rake it in to the tune of millions per year that covers a big chunk or the total cost of the other sports. I haven't done the research to know though.

Well Matt,

I really don't have time nor am I feeling motivated to look at every school's balance sheet in your link. But I looked at a couple. BTW, this report is for 2004/5...profits have grown by a fair amount since then. I also notice that at least some private universities (Stanford, Notre Dame for example) aren't making their books public...I am quite confident both make a profit.

Lets start with Texas (football and basketball):
* Net revenue of over $65M. Within that revenue, over $1.5M of it from student fees.
* Net expenses of about $18M
* Net profit for those two sports - over $46M.
* Much of it 'invested' back in the athletic program as a whole...net profit for athletic program - over $7M.
* I don't have time to find the link, but I have read elsewhere that at least in the past few years, the athletic department has 'donated' back around $10M annually to the university's general fund. Tell me Matt, should the student athletes be demanding that the general student population get NONE of the profits they generated?

Without going over all of the details, I notice that tOSU made a football/basketball profit of over $33M in 2004/5. Alabama over $31M. Michigan over $40M. Illinois over $15M. Oregon over $10M. Washington over $15M. Your home state school, Minnesota, over $15M. I don't have time to look up others.

But I did decide to look up another school (University of Cincinnati) that I am very familiar with...not a BCS school at the time (2004-5), a much more 'average' university...football and basketball.
* Net revenues of almost $11M. That includes $0 from student fees...although they do get free admission to all athletic events including football and basketball...at this time, their basketball team was a perennial top-10 team.
* Net expenses of about $10.8M.
* Net profit of around $60K.

I also know this university received a major grant from a very wealthy man to build a new athletic office/training/classroom building. Its called the Lindner Center. The classrooms in that building, according to a very recent university report published in the Cincinnati Enquirer, are used by other academic departments at the university as part of the overall classroom structure of the school. In addition, the school's football, basketball, baseball, track, s****r and other facilities are used by the general student population for intramural sports as well as at their leisure.

Now the school does provide something like $5M in direct institutional support, but according to the report in the newspaper, the school also takes all of the profit from the sales of logo-branded shirts/caps/jackets/etc... Does that seem fair? All of the profits from the logo to the university as a whole? I don't know about you, but I buy the caps and t-shirts primarily to wear to the football games.

Is direct institutional support to athletic programs fair? I think so, unless you want to cut it off from student clubs, intramurals, programs for the arts and all the rest. Certainly you wouldn't advocate that - right?

In addition, this university puts ALL of the charges for the operations of the Lindner Center and ALL other athletic buildings and facilities, including classrooms used by other departments as well as the lighting, upkeep, etc... for intramural sports...ALL of it is charged to the athletic department. In other words, on paper, FREE use of all athletic facilities by the general student population whether by classroom, intramural sports or FREE admission to football, basketball, baseball games.

Lastly, it was reported that this university has made a decision that student athletes will not receive any university-based academic aid offered to other students in the general population. Whoa! Is that a lawsuit waiting to happen or what?

Accounting exercise? Maybe. But really Matt...shouldn't the football and basketball players be angry at those silly general students getting all of this stuff for free while the athletes are working so hard, day after day, to pay the bills to keep the lights on?

The truth, I believe, is that universities, big and small, make money off of athletes. Some of it is "soft" as in additional donations, some of it is abstract as in attracting better students because of enhanced campus life...but there is no doubt in my mind that universities, as a whole, see athletic programs as a very good thing.

So do I.

Pay the inner city kid his $2,000 to get to and from school and buy the meals he misses at the dorms due to extended/late practices. Its only fair.

quote:

The word erudition came into Middle English from Latin. A scholar is erudite (Latin eruditus) when instruction and reading followed by digestion and contemplation have effaced all rudeness (e- (ex-) + rudis), that is to say smoothed away all raw, untrained incivility. Common usage has blurred the distinction from "learned".

(Wikipedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erudition)

TB, you've always impressed me as an erudite guy. I'd say you've certainly demonstrated it in this thread!

quote:

At least 132 college football and basketball programs made a profit or broke even in 2009-2010.

As a CPA who's clients at one time included a couple of major public univerities I think people are wrong to assume the NCAA infomraion is complete and therefore helpful. Cost accounting done at the university level is more in the eye of the beholder then a precise science and I can only imagine where the NCAA gets its second hand info. Past NCAA reports I have looked at were missing some key costs associated with programs.

quote:

Originally posted by CollegeParentNoMore:
As a CPA who's clients at one time included a couple of major public univerities I think people are wrong to assume the NCAA infomraion is complete and therefore helpful. Cost accounting done at the university level is more in the eye of the beholder then a precise science and I can only imagine where the NCAA gets its second hand info. Past NCAA reports I have looked at were missing some key costs associated with programs.

Agree and actually part of my point. Matt can look at the numbers and conclude that the general student will get screwed...I can conclude from the numbers that at a number of universities the student athlete is already getting screwed. When I see universities investing huge $$ in athletic teams and facilities, it tells me they believe its a net plus...one way or another.

I once was at a seminar by a University of Virginia Economics professor. Somehow the subject of pro sports franchises came up and whether or not they make or lose money. He said that it was a very interesting question and one that many articles had and could be written about. He concluded by pointing out that nearly all pro sports franchises are highly desired (ownership wise) and that they are almost always worth a lot more over a short period of time and that ought to tell us something about whether or not they turned profits.

Additional comment: Sometimes costs (e.g. operation of facilities) are applied arbitrarily (see Cincinnati above) and revenues absorbed arbitrarily (see same example...logo sales) in places that can alter the bottom line in an artificial way. In that example some key costs were inflated and some key revenues were/are missing from the athletic department's balance sheet. I used that example to show that its not as simple as, 'scholarship costs go up by $2,000/athlete therefore tuition and fees will automatically go up to cover it all.' Its just not a highly defensible statement and may not be true at all in many/most(?) cases.

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
It is hard to tell why there is such a difference in views/results because Matt13 is so cryptic in providing information or facts for his views.

Whatever.

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
If Matt13 is going to be so antagonistic and demeaning, he might take the time and show respect to other members by providing the information, not a link and/or reference to the Knight Commission.

Again, whatever. I provided the information.

Matt13- I like you less every time you post here. I'm sure several here are in agreement with that statement. No one appreciates cynical patronizing, especially when you've been blatantly proven wrong by such outstanding citation that justbaseball has provided.

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
Matt13- I like you less every time you post here. I'm sure several here are in agreement with that statement.

That would explain why multiple people over the past two weeks have outright lied about what I have said. I have pretty good reason to be more than frustrated with the lack of respect that many show here. Funny thing is, when I call them out, I'm the antagonizing one.

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
No one appreciates cynical patronizing, especially when you've been blatantly proven wrong by such outstanding citation that justbaseball has provided.

You have got to be kidding me. He's not even talking the same thing I am. He keeps talking about football and basketball, and I'm talking about athletic departments as a whole.

quote:

You have got to be kidding me. He's not even talking the same thing I am. He keeps talking about football and basketball, and I'm talking about athletic departments as a whole.

So are you saying that the universities should not provide direct support to have an athletics program for women?

Because in all of the examples I looked at, the direct institutional support + the profits from the football and basketball programs supported non-revenue sports which includes nearly all (if not all) of the women's sports.

Are you an opponent of Title IX? That is a long and different debate. We might(?) agree on that...but I doubt it.

The exceptions....of course...are schools like Texas where the football and basketball profits are so large that they support all of the other sports AND donate scholarship monies back to the general student population. Are you against the Texas athletic department 'giving back' to the general student fund Matt since the general student population did not one single thing to generate that income/profit?

You are against all of that Matt?

Because if you are against all of that, you are most certainly against direct institutional support for all kinds of campus programs that do not pay for themselves...student activities clubs, intramural sports, theater programs in many cases, student government (no revenue there!), faculty senates, capital improvements of non-revenue (or non-balanced sheet) academic departments...and on and on and on....

Really?

Matt...I admire your initial philosophical view that I interpret as 'everything should, all on its own, pay for itself or forget it.' But that leads us down some slippery slopes that I doubt you are in agreement with. We can probably both agree on avoiding those slippery slopes cause you gotta either be a non-hypocritical purist...or not.

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:

quote:

You have got to be kidding me. He's not even talking the same thing I am. He keeps talking about football and basketball, and I'm talking about athletic departments as a whole.

So are you saying that the universities should not provide direct support to have an athletics program for women?

Because in all of the examples I looked at, the direct institutional support + the profits from the football and basketball programs supported non-revenue sports which includes nearly all (if not all) of the women's sports.

Are you an opponent of Title IX? That is a long and different debate. We might(?) agree on that...but I doubt it.

The exceptions....of course...are schools like Texas where the football and basketball profits are so large that they support all of the other sports AND donate scholarship monies back to the general student population. Are you against the Texas athletic department 'giving back' to the general student fund Matt since the general student population did not one single thing to generate that income/profit?

You are against all of that Matt?

Because if you are against all of that, you are most certainly against direct institutional support for all kinds of campus programs that do not pay for themselves...student activities clubs, intramural sports, theater programs in many cases, student government (no revenue there!), faculty senates, capital improvements of non-revenue (or non-balanced sheet) academic departments...and on and on and on....

Really?

Matt...I admire your initial philosophical view that I interpret as 'everything should, all on its own, pay for itself or forget it.' But that leads us down some slippery slopes that I doubt you are in agreement with. We can probably both agree on avoiding those slippery slopes cause you gotta either be a non-hypocritical purist...or not.

I love it when people put words in my mouth, especially when it is not my opinion. Thank you for proving my point about the level of respect on these boards.

Apparently this stipend is in jeopardy as 97 schools have signed on to an override measure, more than the 75 needed for the NCAA board to reconsider the stipend. This could be a problem because 1000 players signed an NLI last month and some were promised the $2000 stipend.

Article link

With 97+ schools attempting to overide this stipend, i would say it is all but a done deal. Unless the stipened was promised in writing when the NLI was sign, they may never see it.

As of today, the LSDBi database says 130 schools have requested the override.

NCAA Press Release updated Dec 15