Ackerman discusses Big East paying Stipend

[otis]

In the below linked article Big East Commissioner discusses the Big East paying stipends to athletes.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-ba...ollege-basketball-ncaa-tournament-paying-2000

 

[beast of the east]

In the below linked article Big East Commissioner discusses the Big East paying stipends to athletes.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-ba...ollege-basketball-ncaa-tournament-paying-2000

I'm a big proponent of stipends. I do realize that a Kentucky would have a big advantage if they could offer bigger stipends, but perhaps it could be regulated and required by the NCAA based on tiers. In this way a lower level 1 school, that would never get a player that a top school would get, would only be able to offer a smaller stipend, but that all schools at a certain level are capped at an amount.

I hate the idea of players, many of whom have little interest in academics, fill large arenas and can complete four years with nothing of the millions that the school has raked in. I understand the flip side argument, but still.

 

[Marillac]

In the below linked article Big East Commissioner discusses the Big East paying stipends to athletes.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-ba...ollege-basketball-ncaa-tournament-paying-2000

I'm a big proponent of stipends. I do realize that a Kentucky would have a big advantage if they could offer bigger stipends, but perhaps it could be regulated and required by the NCAA based on tiers. In this way a lower level 1 school, that would never get a player that a top school would get, would only be able to offer a smaller stipend, but that all schools at a certain level are capped at an amount.

I hate the idea of players, many of whom have little interest in academics, fill large arenas and can complete four years with nothing of the millions that the school has raked in. I understand the flip side argument, but still.

It would have to be heavily regulated. If not, it would get out of control fast.

 

[MCNPA]

In the below linked article Big East Commissioner discusses the Big East paying stipends to athletes.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-ba...ollege-basketball-ncaa-tournament-paying-2000

I'm a big proponent of stipends. I do realize that a Kentucky would have a big advantage if they could offer bigger stipends, but perhaps it could be regulated and required by the NCAA based on tiers. In this way a lower level 1 school, that would never get a player that a top school would get, would only be able to offer a smaller stipend, but that all schools at a certain level are capped at an amount.

I hate the idea of players, many of whom have little interest in academics, fill large arenas and can complete four years with nothing of the millions that the school has raked in. I understand the flip side argument, but still.

Problem is that most schools aren't raking in millions for basketball, after coaches salaries etc. it would cause problems to tier it. A small stipend for expenses would be fine, but needs to be even across the board. At lots of schools, this idea would shut down lots of sports programs because of the overall cost. Stipends favor big schools with unlimited tax payer dollars at their disposal.

 

[plandome4]

Years from now we might look back a see how this was the single most game changing decision ever. Once the door is cracked open...it can never be closed. As it stands today acedemics for top tier schools are running on the medsoza line as far as "required attendance" and Passing grades. It is all about the win. Some of these kids have hit lotto with a free education at a school they could never get in to on grades alone. That is their "payment" plain and simple....not to mention the medical and school counseling they get to "get thru". There droves of kids who would love to attend some of these schools and have the grades to warrant it but get passed by . Now we will paying them to attend.....There isn't enough eyes in the network to police this.

 

[beast of the east]

In the below linked article Big East Commissioner discusses the Big East paying stipends to athletes.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-ba...ollege-basketball-ncaa-tournament-paying-2000

I'm a big proponent of stipends. I do realize that a Kentucky would have a big advantage if they could offer bigger stipends, but perhaps it could be regulated and required by the NCAA based on tiers. In this way a lower level 1 school, that would never get a player that a top school would get, would only be able to offer a smaller stipend, but that all schools at a certain level are capped at an amount.

I hate the idea of players, many of whom have little interest in academics, fill large arenas and can complete four years with nothing of the millions that the school has raked in. I understand the flip side argument, but still.

Problem is that most schools aren't raking in millions for basketball, after coaches salaries etc. it would cause problems to tier it. A small stipend for expenses would be fine, but needs to be even across the board. At lots of schools, this idea would shut down lots of sports programs because of the overall cost. Stipends favor big schools with unlimited tax payer dollars at their disposal.

I understand the opposition point (plandome4) above and it has merit. So does your comments about implementation. It just bothers me when I travel to MSG, the mecca of basketball, and watch college players - many from impoverished backgrounds - compete in a packed house, in front of a national audience, with millions of dollars at stake in revenue. These kids are generating those millions AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME. Most will never make the NBA, and very very few will ever sign a multi-million dollar contract.

To say that a college scholarship should be sufficient would be akin to taking a 22 year old Elton John, have him pack big arenas for 4 years, pay him nothing, and say, well it's a square deal - you got a college education. Whether or not someone may have earning power in the future doesn't change the fact that colleges make tens of millions of dollars through high level college basketball. Even an NBA caliber talent who is the marquee in a college program could get injured at any moment, never realizing a penny of the money he generated for his school.

I guarantee you if a credible minor league popped up where college aged players were paid to compete, colleges would ante up quickly if it were a threat to their sports empire.

 

[Pleasedontbanmeagain]

If players start making money (which in principle they do deserve), say bye bye to any great recruits. It will just turn into baseball where the Red Sox, Yankees, Rangers, Dodgers, etc. have all the money while everyone else twiddles their thumbs. Do we really want Kentucky, UCLA, UNC, Duke, Cuse, etc. getting even more powerful? Even if regulated rest assured the schools will find ways to get more money to their players to get an edge recruiting wise. If it becomes a money thing, then we will not do well at all. That's where being private sucks.

 

[newsman13]

two thousand dollars in a multi billion dollar industry doesn't sound like much to me.

if the ionas and fordhams of the world don't want to pay it, they should form a 1A tier in college hoops and play there.

there's no way top teams can compete against others who hand out stipends.

btw, i like the idea moose mentioned not long ago. football and basketball should go the hockey route. pro teams draft players as early as high school...and keep their rights whether or not they're signed. that would allow players who aren't ready for top level pro ball to remain in college until they graduate if that's what they choose. the stipends could be payed by teams that chose them.

 

[MCNPA]

two thousand dollars in a multi billion dollar industry doesn't sound like much to me.

if the ionas and fordhams of the world don't want to pay it, they should form a 1A tier in college hoops and play there.

there's no way top teams can compete against others who hand out stipends.

btw, i like the idea moose mentioned not long ago. football and basketball should go the hockey route. pro teams draft players as early as high school...and keep their rights whether or not they're signed. that would allow players who aren't ready for top level pro ball to remain in college until they graduate if that's what they choose. the stipends could be payed by teams that chose them.

Newsie. Two thousand dollars per year, per player, in every sport a college has. Won't be able to treat "revenue sports" differently because it would be discriminatory against female sports and a massive law suit. Add that up and see if most schools can afford it? SJU can certainly afford 2K per year for 13 basketball players. We certainly can't do it for every scholarship sport, male and female and it wouldn't be fair to offer stipends for only basketball athletes. Where do we go from there?

Small stipend across the board is nice in theory, but implementing it would be very difficult.

 

[MCNPA]

In the below linked article Big East Commissioner discusses the Big East paying stipends to athletes.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-ba...ollege-basketball-ncaa-tournament-paying-2000

I'm a big proponent of stipends. I do realize that a Kentucky would have a big advantage if they could offer bigger stipends, but perhaps it could be regulated and required by the NCAA based on tiers. In this way a lower level 1 school, that would never get a player that a top school would get, would only be able to offer a smaller stipend, but that all schools at a certain level are capped at an amount.

I hate the idea of players, many of whom have little interest in academics, fill large arenas and can complete four years with nothing of the millions that the school has raked in. I understand the flip side argument, but still.

Problem is that most schools aren't raking in millions for basketball, after coaches salaries etc. it would cause problems to tier it. A small stipend for expenses would be fine, but needs to be even across the board. At lots of schools, this idea would shut down lots of sports programs because of the overall cost. Stipends favor big schools with unlimited tax payer dollars at their disposal.

I understand the opposition point (plandome4) above and it has merit. So does your comments about implementation. It just bothers me when I travel to MSG, the mecca of basketball, and watch college players - many from impoverished backgrounds - compete in a packed house, in front of a national audience, with millions of dollars at stake in revenue. These kids are generating those millions AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME. Most will never make the NBA, and very very few will ever sign a multi-million dollar contract.

To say that a college scholarship should be sufficient would be akin to taking a 22 year old Elton John, have him pack big arenas for 4 years, pay him nothing, and say, well it's a square deal - you got a college education. Whether or not someone may have earning power in the future doesn't change the fact that colleges make tens of millions of dollars through high level college basketball. Even an NBA caliber talent who is the marquee in a college program could get injured at any moment, never realizing a penny of the money he generated for his school.

I guarantee you if a credible minor league popped up where college aged players were paid to compete, colleges would ante up quickly if it were a threat to their sports empire.

How many John Lennon's are there at SJU that are bringing in massive crowds? IMO, athletes are extremely privileged to be awarded several hundred thousand dollars worth of free University education. Something people kill for in other countries, and it is all just to play a sport. Who'd have thought we'd see a day that giving a free college education and all the trimmings isn't enough? Some of us are still paying for our educations and would have loved to play a sport just because we love to play that sport. Any kid has a right to skip college and go to the NBDL and try to make it or Europe should they want to ply their trade.

 

[beast of the east]

In the below linked article Big East Commissioner discusses the Big East paying stipends to athletes.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-ba...ollege-basketball-ncaa-tournament-paying-2000

I'm a big proponent of stipends. I do realize that a Kentucky would have a big advantage if they could offer bigger stipends, but perhaps it could be regulated and required by the NCAA based on tiers. In this way a lower level 1 school, that would never get a player that a top school would get, would only be able to offer a smaller stipend, but that all schools at a certain level are capped at an amount.

I hate the idea of players, many of whom have little interest in academics, fill large arenas and can complete four years with nothing of the millions that the school has raked in. I understand the flip side argument, but still.

Problem is that most schools aren't raking in millions for basketball, after coaches salaries etc. it would cause problems to tier it. A small stipend for expenses would be fine, but needs to be even across the board. At lots of schools, this idea would shut down lots of sports programs because of the overall cost. Stipends favor big schools with unlimited tax payer dollars at their disposal.

I understand the opposition point (plandome4) above and it has merit. So does your comments about implementation. It just bothers me when I travel to MSG, the mecca of basketball, and watch college players - many from impoverished backgrounds - compete in a packed house, in front of a national audience, with millions of dollars at stake in revenue. These kids are generating those millions AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME. Most will never make the NBA, and very very few will ever sign a multi-million dollar contract.

To say that a college scholarship should be sufficient would be akin to taking a 22 year old Elton John, have him pack big arenas for 4 years, pay him nothing, and say, well it's a square deal - you got a college education. Whether or not someone may have earning power in the future doesn't change the fact that colleges make tens of millions of dollars through high level college basketball. Even an NBA caliber talent who is the marquee in a college program could get injured at any moment, never realizing a penny of the money he generated for his school.

I guarantee you if a credible minor league popped up where college aged players were paid to compete, colleges would ante up quickly if it were a threat to their sports empire.

How many John Lennon's are there at SJU that are bringing in massive crowds? IMO, athletes are extremely privileged to be awarded several hundred thousand dollars worth of free University education. Something people kill for in other countries, and it is all just to play a sport. Who'd have thought we'd see a day that giving a free college education and all the trimmings isn't enough? Some of us are still paying for our educations and would have loved to play a sport just because we love to play that sport. Any kid has a right to skip college and go to the NBDL and try to make it or Europe should they want to ply their trade.

Everything you say is reasonable. A university education IS of value, but not so much for sub-par students who play a demanding sport from October through March, where there is extensive travel, formal practice almost every day, and individual skills practice constantly. I'd feel better about that offer if it were extended, with room and board, for X number of years past your eligibility. The reality is, most D1 basketball players care far more about the basketball opportunity than the academic opportunity. Beyond room and board, it costs the school virtually nothing to place athletes in a classroom. My Elton John comparison wasn't great because that's a superstar individual - think more like a great choir that could fill Madison Square Garden, but only every once in a while could a member earn a living doing it post college. The school makes millions directly from the sport, millions more in apparel, and even more in school branding and identity that attracts students to enroll there.

Let's be honest about this. At the highest levels, D1 sports are para-professional. The student athletes often interact very little with other students, and are never fully engaged in student life the way most students are. They are elite on campus, but not as students, only as stars of the sports program. In effect they are hired hands to fill arenas and bring in revenue, only they aren't paid.

I do understand all of your contrasting viewpoints, and even agree with much of it. Thanks for the civil dialogue.

 

[panther2]

I believe that players deserve stipend, but there will be many problems. First is the stipend the same for every D1 school. Second, is every athlete entitled to the same stipend. Third, if women's sports do not receive the same benefits, you open yourself up to a suit under Title IX.
The whole system is messed up, Coach K made 8 million dollars last year. I know he is a great coach, but his salary is ridiculous. If the coaches were real in their concern for student athletes, they would give some of their salary in the form of $2,000.00 stipends to the players. In Coach K's case let's say 13 players x 2,000 is only 26,000. Urban Meyer at Ohio St. makes over 4 million. if he has 90 players, that makes it $180,000.00 that he has to contribute.
Now some of you will ask, why should coaches do this? The answer is simple, because the players make the team. Without them, coaches ain't s__t!!!! Louisville does not win a National Championship because Rick Pitino is the coach, they win because Pitino is coaching Siva, Smith, Hancock and the rest.
The reality of the situation is some players families do not have the money to support them through four years of college. If the coaches who sit in their living room and tell them and their parents how much he wants them to attend his school so that they can win and he can make even more money, what is wrong with him accepting some of the financial responsibility for his players.

 

[beast of the east]

I believe that players deserve stipend, but there will be many problems. First is the stipend the same for every D1 school. Second, is every athlete entitled to the same stipend. Third, if women's sports do not receive the same benefits, you open yourself up to a suit under Title IX.
The whole system is messed up, Coach K made 8 million dollars last year. I know he is a great coach, but his salary is ridiculous. If the coaches were real in their concern for student athletes, they would give some of their salary in the form of $2,000.00 stipends to the players. In Coach K's case let's say 13 players x 2,000 is only 26,000. Urban Meyer at Ohio St. makes over 4 million. if he has 90 players, that makes it $180,000.00 that he has to contribute.
Now some of you will ask, why should coaches do this? The answer is simple, because the players make the team. Without them, coaches ain't s__t!!!! Louisville does not win a National Championship because Rick Pitino is the coach, they win because Pitino is coaching Siva, Smith, Hancock and the rest.
The reality of the situation is some players families do not have the money to support them through four years of college. If the coaches who sit in their living room and tell them and their parents how much he wants them to attend his school so that they can win and he can make even more money, what is wrong with him accepting some of the financial responsibility for his players.

It's an interesting concept to tie a stipend to the coach's compensation. But I guess that would only serve to draw more players to the higher paid coaches. On the other hand that happens anyway.

 

[Amaseinyourface]

I believe that players deserve stipend, but there will be many problems. First is the stipend the same for every D1 school. Second, is every athlete entitled to the same stipend. Third, if women's sports do not receive the same benefits, you open yourself up to a suit under Title IX.
The whole system is messed up, Coach K made 8 million dollars last year. I know he is a great coach, but his salary is ridiculous. If the coaches were real in their concern for student athletes, they would give some of their salary in the form of $2,000.00 stipends to the players. In Coach K's case let's say 13 players x 2,000 is only 26,000. Urban Meyer at Ohio St. makes over 4 million. if he has 90 players, that makes it $180,000.00 that he has to contribute.
Now some of you will ask, why should coaches do this? The answer is simple, because the players make the team. Without them, coaches ain't s__t!!!! Louisville does not win a National Championship because Rick Pitino is the coach, they win because Pitino is coaching Siva, Smith, Hancock and the rest.
The reality of the situation is some players families do not have the money to support them through four years of college. If the coaches who sit in their living room and tell them and their parents how much he wants them to attend his school so that they can win and he can make even more money, what is wrong with him accepting some of the financial responsibility for his players.

Coach K makes 8 mill a year?

 

[newsman13]

two thousand dollars in a multi billion dollar industry doesn't sound like much to me.

if the ionas and fordhams of the world don't want to pay it, they should form a 1A tier in college hoops and play there.

there's no way top teams can compete against others who hand out stipends.

btw, i like the idea moose mentioned not long ago. football and basketball should go the hockey route. pro teams draft players as early as high school...and keep their rights whether or not they're signed. that would allow players who aren't ready for top level pro ball to remain in college until they graduate if that's what they choose. the stipends could be payed by teams that chose them.

Newsie. Two thousand dollars per year, per player, in every sport a college has. Won't be able to treat "revenue sports" differently because it would be discriminatory against female sports and a massive law suit. Add that up and see if most schools can afford it? SJU can certainly afford 2K per year for 13 basketball players. We certainly can't do it for every scholarship sport, male and female and it wouldn't be fair to offer stipends for only basketball athletes. Where do we go from there?

Small stipend across the board is nice in theory, but implementing it would be very difficult.

it shouldn't be every sport...only the money makers. basketball would be for men and women to satisfy title IX. football schools would have to make up their stipends by contributing to women's sports. only the big five football conferences would agree and they can well afford it.

 

[beast of the east]

two thousand dollars in a multi billion dollar industry doesn't sound like much to me.

if the ionas and fordhams of the world don't want to pay it, they should form a 1A tier in college hoops and play there.

there's no way top teams can compete against others who hand out stipends.

btw, i like the idea moose mentioned not long ago. football and basketball should go the hockey route. pro teams draft players as early as high school...and keep their rights whether or not they're signed. that would allow players who aren't ready for top level pro ball to remain in college until they graduate if that's what they choose. the stipends could be payed by teams that chose them.

Newsie. Two thousand dollars per year, per player, in every sport a college has. Won't be able to treat "revenue sports" differently because it would be discriminatory against female sports and a massive law suit. Add that up and see if most schools can afford it? SJU can certainly afford 2K per year for 13 basketball players. We certainly can't do it for every scholarship sport, male and female and it wouldn't be fair to offer stipends for only basketball athletes. Where do we go from there?

Small stipend across the board is nice in theory, but implementing it would be very difficult.

it shouldn't be every sport...only the money makers. basketball would be for men and women to satisfy title IX. football schools would have to make up their stipends by contributing to women's sports. only the big five football conferences would agree and they can well afford it.

What if the NCAA carved up the TV dollars form the tournament and gave it to all athletes from all D1 programs, instead of the schools?

 

[newsman13]

you mean the ncaa should dig into its own pockets? their arms are short like t-rex's. not happening.