On Player Stipends
- Thread starter CatQ
- Start date
It gives new meaning to the words. "It's a business decision" Actually, even at the high end, it's not a whole lot of money if you are supposed to fly home or buy your books or any of a number of things that don't translate to pizza, beer and tats. Actually, from the looks of things during bowl season, some guys must be spending that on tattoos alone.
It gives new meaning to the words. "It's a business decision" Actually, even at the high end, it's not a whole lot of money if you are supposed to fly home or buy your books or any of a number of things that don't translate to pizza, beer and tats. Actually, from the looks of things during bowl season, some guys must be spending that on tattoos alone.
Two thoughts on this:
1. I think it's funny that Dienhart implies Urban Meyer and Gene Smith are going to somehow get Ohio State to increase the published cost of attendance so that 85 scholarship football players can be officially eligible for an extra couple thousand bucks. This is the number upon which all need-based financial aid is based for every student at the university, and is inversely marketable in the way it is to attract college football players vs. general undergrads. In this respect, I actually think it is absolutely the most fair figure to use when awarding stipends (rather than using a flat rate, which screams "pay for play.")
2. I am honestly stunned that Northwestern isn't #1 on this list - expensive private university that actually takes a certain measure of pride in being super expensive - national (and international) student body where the vast majority is not regional in a suburb of one of the most expensive cities in America...and not even half of what Penn State thinks it cost to be a student in f'ing State College?
1. I think it's funny that Dienhart implies Urban Meyer and Gene Smith are going to somehow get Ohio State to increase the published cost of attendance so that 85 scholarship football players can be officially eligible for an extra couple thousand bucks. This is the number upon which all need-based financial aid is based for every student at the university, and is inversely marketable in the way it is to attract college football players vs. general undergrads. In this respect, I actually think it is absolutely the most fair figure to use when awarding stipends (rather than using a flat rate, which screams "pay for play.")
2. I am honestly stunned that Northwestern isn't #1 on this list - expensive private university that actually takes a certain measure of pride in being super expensive - national (and international) student body where the vast majority is not regional in a suburb of one of the most expensive cities in America...and not even half of what Penn State thinks it cost to be a student in f'ing State College?
Are only Cartel 5 schools allowed to offer stipends? I could very easily see BYU, for example, having the means and desire to offer its football players a stipend. Are conferences (or independents like BYU) allowed to "opt in" to the stipend racket at a later date to remain competitive with the Cartel 5?
we need to be #1
Since our facilities are less than anyone else, we need to pay the max per player. Thats a small thing if we arent going to upgrade buildings. Money taljs. We can compete with stipends.
Since our facilities are less than anyone else, we need to pay the max per player. Thats a small thing if we arent going to upgrade buildings. Money taljs. We can compete with stipends.
What is the formula used to establish the stipend? I don't see how those figures develop any parity through recruitment.
Similar threads
