Emmert "Championing" The $2K Stipend

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/42261/ncaa-pres-mark-emmert

Overall, Emmert's conversation on ESPN today was pretty content-free. But the following question did come up:


Arno Akobyan (Los Angeles, CA)

President Emmert, while I understand that there may be factors in consideration that I'm not aware of-- but something as measly as an extra $2,000 dollars for NCAA Athletes to help cover living expenses is not too much to ask. Why is the NCAA dragging it's feet on this issue? Furthermore-- why isn't the NCAA doing a better job of keeping agents off campus, eliminating the potential for temptation that ultimately gets these kids into trouble. Thank you for all your hard work. GO BEARS! (UC-Berkeley, '09)

Mark Emmert (4:18 PM): I'm supportive of that proposal as well. I've been championing it. The delay has been implementing it with Title IX and the partial scholarships in some sports. How to make sure it's put in place fairly and effectively. That discussion will take place at the next board meeting and I hope the board passes and implements that policy.


That's BS. The delay hasn't been Title IX - what's to debate? If you pay $2000 for a stipend for male athletes, you also have to pay them for women - it's been the mutiny among the schools who refuse to support the legislation.

But also fascinating is the reference to "partial scholarships in some sports," which affects all of FCS. Unlike FBS, FCS schools can (and do) split their scholarships. It shows that something they're probably discussing is how that would work in this environment.

[DFW HOYA]

The related issue is keeping up with the Joneses--if Lehigh offers the $2K, five other PL schools will be forced to.

[aceinthehole]

Here's the view from Connecticut universities:


UConn and Fairfield are for it.

Central Connecticut, Sacred Heart, Yale and Quinnipiac objected.

And although Hartford did not join those four in voting for an override, school President Walt Harrison, one of the NCAA's respected voices, called it "one of the weakest pieces of legislation I've seen."

Ladies, gentlemen, purists, progressives and scamps, that is our state's Division I scoreboard on the much-argued stipend plan approved as part of the sweeping reform by the NCAA Division I Board of Directors in October.

And those four dissenting state voices were among 125 needed by NCAA law to foil — at least temporarily — the legislation to give students with full athletic scholarships up to an additional $2,000 in spending money beyond tuition, room and board, books and fees.

At least 75 schools also asked for an override on the plan to replace one-year renewable athletic scholarships with multiyear scholarships. That was the minimum number needed for reconsideration.

http://articles.courant.com/2012-01-07/sports/hc-jacobs-column-0107-20120107_1_stipend-ncaa-law-scholarships

[Lehigh Football Nation]

That is one great article - covering the mutiny extremely well, and I learned a few things, like the votes "for" the stipend were basically all the BCS schools... and Fairfield. xrolleyesx

So when you hear Emmert "championing" the stipend, you know whose water he's carrying. (Hint: not the water of Fairfield's AD.)

[BucBisonAtLarge]

Emmert's 'Constitutional Convention' approach to amending Division I really looks like a big overplay, a BCS squeeze on the 'bloat' in Division I membership. $2000/Student is a much much smaller percentage of total scholarship cost in private schools, but represents a huge percentage increase at many public institutions, many ill-prepared to raise it, I suspect, as it is real money for books and food, not a seat in a lecture hall a few times a week.

Does the PL flag snap to every puff of wind from Bethlehem? Hmmmm... Is that why merit aid in football is a decade behind other sports? I thought it was a fuss which began.... in Worcester, over hoops.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

..as it is real money for books and food, not a seat in a lecture hall a few times a week...

Don't be so sure about that. Read the Courant article. There's no rules on what the money is to be spent on: food, books, or iPods.

[RichH2]

Get real, if ruleltd the $2000 to books and school related expenses, one might consider it fair. It is not. One more pay for play from BCS

[aceinthehole]

LFN - I think he meant it would be a cash expenditure for the university, not just an accounting cost for tuition or the like.

I think the supporters of the stipend are obviously the FBS programs, but I also think it will be a few schools that think of themselves as "high-mid-majors" that don't have football, such as Xavier, St. Louis, Gonzaga, St. Marys, Creigton, Wichata State, etc. So schools like Fairfield and Siena, which only care about hoops and don't have football to worry about, might want to be able to compete with the the big boys in the A-10, WCC, CAA, MVC, etc.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I think the supporters of the stipend are obviously the FBS programs, but I also think it will be a few schools that think of themselves as "high-mid-majors" that don't have football, such as Xavier, St. Louis, Gonzaga, St. Marys, Creigton, Wichata State, etc. So schools like Fairfield and Siena, which only care about hoops and don't have football to worry about, might want to be able to compete with the the big boys in the A-10, WCC, CAA, MVC, etc.

If the "high-mid-major" basketball schools are for it, then they are fools, for there is no way they are going to be able to keep up with the BCS schools in terms of money.

Fairfield's total expenditure on athletics was $15 million, which is probably a fraction of the amount Ohio State got for Big Ten football broadcasts last year alone. With the stipend, they'll have to (conservatively) pay an extra $1 million per year for the same athletes. And that's just next year - in future years, it will go up, and up, and up.

To pay off the difference, they'll probably have to pull the plug on more "non-revenue" equivalency sports to make up the shortfall. Of course, Fairfield has plenty of experience in that area. Due to unspecified "Title IX considerations", Fairfield pulled their non-scholarship football program years ago.

If these schools think not having football will shield them from these forces, they're fools.

[BucBisonAtLarge]

Thanks, ace, for the catch-- you captured my concern well. Jeff Jacobs is a great sports writer and it was refreshing to see a more comprehensive, less Husky-oriented college piece in the Courant.

[danefan]

LFN - I think he meant it would be a cash expenditure for the university, not just an accounting cost for tuition or the like.

I think the supporters of the stipend are obviously the FBS programs, but I also think it will be a few schools that think of themselves as "high-mid-majors" that don't have football, such as Xavier, St. Louis, Gonzaga, St. Marys, Creigton, Wichata State, etc. So schools like Fairfield and Siena, which only care about hoops and don't have football to worry about, might want to be able to compete with the the big boys in the A-10, WCC, CAA, MVC, etc.

That's exactly the reason. The MAAC actually required its basketball schools to provide it immediately after the initial proposal passed.

[MplsBison]

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/42261/ncaa-pres-mark-emmert

Overall, Emmert's conversation on ESPN today was pretty content-free. But the following question did come up:



That's BS. The delay hasn't been Title IX - what's to debate? If you pay $2000 for a stipend for male athletes, you also have to pay them for women - it's been the mutiny among the schools who refuse to support the legislation.

But also fascinating is the reference to "partial scholarships in some sports," which affects all of FCS. Unlike FBS, FCS schools can (and do) split their scholarships. It shows that something they're probably discussing is how that would work in this environment.

If a school has a 50/50 split in male/female enrollment and can prove that its athletic programs also have a 50/50 split in male/female participation -- it can win a title IX lawsuit, per the language of the law.