$2000 for all full athletics scholarships.
They do not pay for clothing, expenses for athletes to travel home during the holidays or for necessary items such as toothpaste and razors. Selig estimates those additional costs add up to about $2,000 at ODU.
So now we have to pay to clothe athletes? ??? So they essentially just got two grand in beer money.
[quote=“X-49er, post:2, topic:28107”]
They do not pay for clothing, expenses for athletes to travel home during the holidays or for necessary items such as toothpaste and razors. Selig estimates those additional costs add up to about $2,000 at ODU.
So now we have to pay to clothe athletes? ??? So they essentially just got two grand in beer money.[/quote]We already pay to clothe the athletes I think. I never see any of the basketball team that they are not wearing Charlotte warmups/shorts/t-shirts/etc.
[quote=“Nugget, post:3, topic:28107”][quote=“X-49er, post:2, topic:28107”]
They do not pay for clothing, expenses for athletes to travel home during the holidays or for necessary items such as toothpaste and razors. Selig estimates those additional costs add up to about $2,000 at ODU.
So now we have to pay to clothe athletes? ??? So they essentially just got two grand in beer money.[/quote]We already pay to clothe the athletes I think. I never see any of the basketball team that they are not wearing Charlotte warmups/shorts/t-shirts/etc.[/quote]
We don’t buy them clothes to go out on the town. How did they get through high school without anyone to buy them clothes?
This seems like a statement of intent meant for the big five conferences to lay the groundwork for a split in D1 down the line. Or rather IN CASE there is a split.
Agreed, this is a big old “We’re ready to go with you” sign, or more accurately, “Don’t leave us behind”.
I don’t like that this would go to all athletes. Players of non-revenue generating teams should not receive any money. The only players that should be paid are players that bring in revenue (football, mens basketball), and they should receive a cut.
Title IX. They probably figure it’s easier to go ahead and pay everyone the stipend rather than fight the inevitable legal battle. It’s termed a stipend rather than a payment or profit sharing. That probably sounds better to the amateurism police.
So what you’re saying is you’re a fan of excessive litigation? Cause the lawsuits would pile up in the hundreds of thousands. You’re going to pay men’s basketball players and not women basketball players? Clear Title IX issue right there.
That’s a good point, but I think Title IX is wrong, as well.
What if LSU baseball generates more than basketball in a given year. Or, a achools football proagram has a
Net loss, as most do, but the soccer program has a net gain. How would you sort this out?
It does have many flaws.
What if LSU baseball generates more than basketball in a given year. Or, a achools football proagram has a
Net loss, as most do, but the soccer program has a net gain. How would you sort this out?[/quote]
Whatever sport brings in revenue gets a share. I listed football and mens basketball because they’re typically ones that do, but any that do should get a share. If football or basketball don’t bring in money, they get nothing as well.
Cap it at X amount ($2000 seems reasonable) to keep it a fair playing field across all colleges. I’m biased on this because I want to see Charlotte stay relevant, but deep down I think it should be profit sharing at a % of revenue with no cap.
I just don’t like the idea of sports that are a money-sink already to the university receiving $2,000 a player. What they receive now is enough.
Revenue sharing will be next to impossible. Do they get a share of student fees? Do they get a share of donations by alumni? All of that is part of the money that an AD brings in to keep afloat. It’s not like an AD has clear accounting with revenues and expenses that are relatively simple line a public corp.
With Title IX, it will almost have to be an across the board stipend, I don’t see how it can work any other way. If that is the cost to keep the power conferences from breaking away, I would think that will be money we’re glad to spend.
I don’t know all the financials, but it seems this will be money well spent if it allows us to play with the power conferences. The additional TV revenue alone should absorb the extra expenses of this plan.
[quote=“chidave, post:15, topic:28107”]With Title IX, it will almost have to be an across the board stipend, I don’t see how it can work any other way. If that is the cost to keep the power conferences from breaking away, I would think that will be money we’re glad to spend.[/quote]I have no clue how this will impact us financially, but we could drop several sports and as long as we did it equally we could still be Title IX compliant. Those student/athletes–generally real student/athletes–may not be able to go to college so their friends will have date money and a clothing allowance. I hope it doesn’t come to this.