Cutting scholarships out of the equation?

[MplsBison]

A while ago I read an article about a group who was interesting in getting rid of scholarships for all schools in the NCAA. All scholarships, all sports.


What do your guys think about this? It could potentially save many schools a large amount of money.

[jstate83]

A while ago I read an article about a group who was interesting in getting rid of scholarships for all schools in the NCAA. All scholarships, all sports.


What do your guys think about this? It could potentially save many schools a large amount of money.

It sure would.

Because the day after this go into affect.................................That "Play for Pay" SUPER CONFERENCE/LEAGUE that you here about every so often would be up and running the next day.xlolx :nod: xlolx

[X-Factor]

Alot of atheletes wouldn't even bother or couldn't afford going to college if they didn't get a scholarship. What would happen to these athletes? I would imagine the NFL woudln't be to happy about this either.

[MplsBison]

Why do schools actually deal in scholarships? IE, actually dealing in giving athletes dollars.

If they simply waived the fees (tuition, student fees, program fees, class fees, food, board, etc.) for athletes, wouldn't that be the same thing without the cost?

[ngineer]

A while ago I read an article about a group who was interesting in getting rid of scholarships for all schools in the NCAA. All scholarships, all sports.


What do your guys think about this? It could potentially save many schools a large amount of money.

Are you suggesting doing away with grants based on family income or just scholarships based on athletic merit? I think offering all students grants in aid based on family ability to pay still has merit.

[EKU05]

These athletes, especially the ones in highly visible sports like football and basketball are genuinly providing a service of sorts for the University. They deserve to be compensated for that especially considering that the amount of time devoted to said sport usually makes it impossible to hold a job of any kind and also go to school.

Yes, I know that some programs get by on only need based aid. Also...consider this. If we eliminate scholarships then a team could effectively stockpile as many players as they want...which will favor the powerhouse schools (which is the reason they went to scholarship limits in the first place). Mid-major schools (like most of 1AA) would be at probably double the competative disadvantage that they already are.

This rule would also favor state schools over private ones. Take a powerhouse like Furman...they would stand 0 chance in the SoCon without scholarships. I don't know the exact amount, but I know Furman isn't cheap. I wonder what % of their football team could afford to go to school there without a scholarship?

[MplsBison]

If you limit the number of players a football (or any sport) team can have on its roster (and a practice squad if you want), there can't be any stockpiling, scholarships or not.


As far as poor South Carolina boys not being able to afford to go to a school like Furman (or Wofford, for that matter) did you consider what I said about simply waiving the fees of the school, rather than actually giving the student money in the amount of those fees?

IE, a poor SC kid comes to play football at Furman. 20k for tuition, 10k for room, board, books, and fees. Just waive all those fees. Total cost to the student: 0.

If this student decided to live off campus, well then they're going to have to pay for that sort of arangement by themselves. But as long as they live on campus, school would be free.


Why isn't a system like this in place?


You could even keep the divisions by saying that a school can only waive a total of 85 players, 63, 36, 24, etc.

[colgate13]

Why do schools actually deal in scholarships? IE, actually dealing in giving athletes dollars.

If they simply waived the fees (tuition, student fees, program fees, class fees, food, board, etc.) for athletes, wouldn't that be the same thing without the cost?
Can I ask what you think the difference is? :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

Giving a student a 'scholarship' means paying some or all of their tuition, fees, room, board and books. How is paying different than waiving, when the cost associated with tuition, fees, room, board and books is still there? Paying/waiving - it's really just the same thing. It's not like a school cuts a check for a few (or $30K) thousand dollars and says "here's some money for your tuition". It all is handled internally. An athlete would only receive cash back if they were not being billed by the university for room or board or if their room and board option were less than the 'normal' amount. And even then, a player's got to eat and sleep somewhere.

[colgate13]

As far as poor South Carolina boys not being able to afford to go to a school like Furman (or Wofford, for that matter) did you consider what I said about simply waiving the fees of the school, rather than actually giving the student money in the amount of those fees?.

I think you have a misconception of what goes on in regards to scholarships. :read:

[MplsBison]

Can I ask what you think the difference is? :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

Giving a student a 'scholarship' means paying some or all of their tuition, fees, room, board and books. How is paying different than waiving, when the cost associated with tuition, fees, room, board and books is still there? Paying/waiving - it's really just the same thing. It's not like a school cuts a check for a few (or $30K) thousand dollars and says "here's some money for your tuition". It all is handled internally. An athlete would only receive cash back if they were not being billed by the university for room or board or if their room and board option were less than the 'normal' amount. And even then, a player's got to eat and sleep somewhere.

The main difference would be room and board. If the athlete wants to live on campus and eat on campus, the fees would simply be waived. If they want to live/eat off campus, obviously those fees can't be waived. Where as, if the school simply cuts the student a check, they're free to (irresponsibly) spend the money as they see fit.


As far as tuition and fees go (lumping books in with fees here), it's still different, mainly in title IX purposes. Instead of the athletic department having scholarship money to deal with on its budget, the school can just waive the fees and not have to deal with scholarship dollars.


The whole process seems much easier to me this way.

[colgate13]

The main difference would be room and board. If the athlete wants to live on campus and eat on campus, the fees would simply be waived. If they want to live/eat off campus, obviously those fees can't be waived. Where as, if the school simply cuts the student a check, they're free to (irresponsibly) spend the money as they see fit.

I think you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. It still costs money to live and eat on campus. Waiving fees isn't any different than giving them money to live and eat.


As far as tuition and fees go (lumping books in with fees here), it's still different, mainly in title IX purposes. Instead of the athletic department having scholarship money to deal with on its budget, the school can just waive the fees and not have to deal with scholarship dollars.

The whole process seems much easier to me this way.

Not different at all. The waiving of fees has a dollar amount attached to it. The student receiving this benefit is only receiving it because of athletics. This is not an end around Title IX.

And a school can't just "waive fees" and not deal with it. There is still an accounting and management of a process. It's just dealing with the same dollar amounts in different ways.

[blukeys]

The main difference would be room and board. If the athlete wants to live on campus and eat on campus, the fees would simply be waived. If they want to live/eat off campus, obviously those fees can't be waived. Where as, if the school simply cuts the student a check, they're free to (irresponsibly) spend the money as they see fit.


As far as tuition and fees go (lumping books in with fees here), it's still different, mainly in title IX purposes. Instead of the athletic department having scholarship money to deal with on its budget, the school can just waive the fees and not have to deal with scholarship dollars.


The whole process seems much easier to me this way.


I'm sorry but do you actually think about your posts before you write????

The cost of housing a student on campus and feeding him is paid for (or in your words "waived") by the scholarship. Neither the cost of education, room or boarding the student anywhere approaches the out of POCKET expense that the college or University actually incurs. This has been discussed ad nauseum on this board.

It is obvious you have never taken a single accounting course as you would already know all of this bean counting is required by GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) as well as Title IX.

While your intuitive insight is impressive it ignores the fact that your waiver system is just scholarships with another name.

The "cost" of a scholarship must be accounted for under GAAP and Title IX despite the fact that the true expenditure of the school is well below the "cost" that is listed. :nod: :nod: :nod:

[walliver]

The scholarship issue has always been a bit problematic. The bottom line is that many schools feel that a successful competitive athletic program enhances the college experience. People try to rationalize it with the old excuse of "Well that poor guy couldn't go to college without an athletic scholarship." The problem with that issue is explaining why a young man who can throw a football well is more deserving of a scholarship than an excellent musician, singer, chess player, poet, gardener, painter, bull rider, or any other talent.

The bottom line is that schools competing in D-I or D-II have decided that a competitive athletic progam is worth paying for.

[skinny_uncle]

The scholarship issue has always been a bit problematic. The bottom line is that many schools feel that a successful competitive athletic program enhances the college experience. People try to rationalize it with the old excuse of "Well that poor guy couldn't go to college without an athletic scholarship." The problem with that issue is explaining why a young man who can throw a football well is more deserving of a scholarship than an excellent musician, singer, chess player, poet, gardener, painter, bull rider, or any other talent.

The bottom line is that schools competing in D-I or D-II have decided that a competitive athletic progam is worth paying for.
Quick toughts:
1. You don't sell a lot of tickets for a chess match or poetry reading.
2. Money is a factor.
3. Good sports programs generate a lot of PR for schools which leads to donors opening up their wallets.
4. A lot of poor kids have gotten an education due to athletic scholarships. (I see this as a good thing.)

[MplsBison]

The point of the thread is not that waiving is some sort of magic trick that makes the cost to the university disappear. Nor is it a way for the student athletes themselves to not have to pay out of pocket.


The point is that a scholarship can and does end up putting actual dollars in the hands of student athletes for them to spend however they see fit (buying ipods and nikes instead of paying the rent).

[colgate13]

The point is that a scholarship can and does end up putting actual dollars in the hands of student athletes for them to spend however they see fit (buying ipods and nikes instead of paying the rent).

And the problem with that is? Besides the fact that they are adults who can make their own decisions and can deal with those consequences, an athlete still has to live and eat somehow. If he can scrape by somehow with less than the amount given in the scholarship, good for him/her. He managed to work the system for a few hundred bucks. There are bigger fish to fry than that. :twocents:

[MplsBison]

Nope.

You'll never sell me on nonsense like that.


That's too much control being taken away from the school.

You're right, they do have to have somewhere to sleep and eat. And on campus is the place for that. Stay in the dorms and eat at the dining halls.

[WMTribe90]

Agree with 13 on this one. If a student athlete can live and eat cheaper arranging for him/herself off-campus and pocket the difference in on-campus room and board more power to them. Remember some of the athletes are poor and can't afford stuff like laundry, the occasion date, car maintenance, gas, ordering a pizza, etc because they aren't allowed to work in season (not that they would have the time anyway). I played with a few guys at WM that fell into this category. Pocketig an extra hundred or so a month on their housing alotment allowed them to live a more "normal" college experience.

Blukeys,

While I also agree with you, I'm not sure why you felt the need to ridicule MplsBison. This board is all-about bouncing ideas and asking questions. People should be able to pose any question, even ones that seem redundant or "no-brainers" without being chastised. :twocents:

[MplsBison]

If you live on campus there is no need for a car and then no need for gas.

I would think laundry is free on campus as well.


You'll never convince me that actual dollars should be transfered into an account with a student athlete's name on it. You just won't.

Waive the fees.

[colgate13]

If you live on campus there is no need for a car and then no need for gas.

Student-athlete X gets too and from school...how?


I would think laundry is free on campus as well.

What school did you go to?


You'll never convince me that actual dollars should be transfered into an account with a student athlete's name on it. You just won't.

Well if you're convinced, why discuss it? :p

In all seriousness, this happens for non-student athletes getting a substantial amount of financial aid - yes, from the college itself too. So student-athlete should have some additional hurdle to it?

Let me go one step further for you. A full athletic scholarship can only pay for tuition, fees, room, board and books. Personal expenses and travel are not allowed per the NCAA. There is no such limit for the 'regular' student, so the 'cost of attendance' used to determine financial need of a student applying for need-based aid can and does include allowances for personal expenses and travel. That means athletes are at a disadvantage when it comes to getting help paying for personal expenses and travel.


Waive the fees.

As I alluded to above, there are no fees associated with personal expenses and travel. And they are real expenses. If an athlete, who is at a disadvantage because of the NCAA's scholarship definition, can find a way to pocket some $$$ because of cheaper room/board options than the university charges and use that money to live, right on. :thumbsup:

[colgate13]

That's too much control being taken away from the school.

Student-athletes are some of the most 'controlled' students on the campus. If a college wanted to mandate living in dorms, eating on meal plans as a condition of the scholarship, they can. It's more hassle than it is worth.

AND, if a school thought a player was using their scholarship inappropriately, they don't have to renew it next year. The scholarship is for one year only. :twocents:

[Pard4Life]

I am guessing this no scholarship idea was put forth by the Ivy League, just about the ONLY conference who would benefit from such a policy. They are the best academic schools and we certainly have their pick of players. There are plenty of smart football players who recieve scholarships and could go Ivy. That's about the only way you will see Harvard or Columbia in the Rose Bowl again.