ADVERTISEMENT

STIPENDS

loyolacat

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 21, 2006
2,373
1,781
113
I am moving on,,,AKron is behind me,,,,starting to trash talk my UM friends of how they are going to lose to a team that lost to Akron......So saw an SI article on stipends that are now paid to college athletes.....In the B10, believe it or not, Purdue offers the most $4,200 to its out of state athletes...Any one know what NU offers and if the new rule has a ceiling or will this become another space race ?
 
I am moving on,,,AKron is behind me,,,,starting to trash talk my UM friends of how they are going to lose to a team that lost to Akron......So saw an SI article on stipends that are now paid to college athletes.....In the B10, believe it or not, Purdue offers the most $4,200 to its out of state athletes...Any one know what NU offers and if the new rule has a ceiling or will this become another space race ?

Don’t know the amount of the stipend, but there are definitely ceilings.
 
I read on this board that NU's spends over $40,000/year per student athlete and I wanted to get my share retroactively. I just received a letter from NU stating that taking into account inflation and other economic factors , I actually owe them money and they have instituted collection activity
 
I do not belive NU offers Stipends due to its reasoning that the student is already getting a high price education.

NU isn't practical on this and misses the whole reason why the stipends came into place. Colter ignited the talk of unionization. It failed. But he also argued in front of the NCAA 'pay for play'. The argument mentioned all of the revenue that these schools gain by their football program.

Thus, because of the issues of justice, the NCAA considered, then granted stipends to be allowed. NU missed the boat on this one. And it is something recruits consider when picking a school. Sure, some academic families get the idea of a quality education, but many athletes come from a blue collar home or one parent home and place more value on stipends than more affluent families. Thus, a bright kid who has the grades really rally doesn't mind nabbing $6,000 a year instead of working that part time job.

NU is just cheap. Bigtime. Stipends isn't a fart in the wind compared to how much they pay Fitz and sink into facilities. For Gosh sake, give the kids some damn money. Sheesh, sometimes the geeks that are so disconnected just set us back like cavemen.
 
I do not belive NU offers Stipends due to its reasoning that the student is already getting a high price education.

NU isn't practical on this and misses the whole reason why the stipends came into place. Colter ignited the talk of unionization. It failed. But he also argued in front of the NCAA 'pay for play'. The argument mentioned all of the revenue that these schools gain by their football program.

Thus, because of the issues of justice, the NCAA considered, then granted stipends to be allowed. NU missed the boat on this one. And it is something recruits consider when picking a school. Sure, some academic families get the idea of a quality education, but many athletes come from a blue collar home or one parent home and place more value on stipends than more affluent families. Thus, a bright kid who has the grades really rally doesn't mind nabbing $6,000 a year instead of working that part time job.

NU is just cheap. Bigtime. Stipends isn't a fart in the wind compared to how much they pay Fitz and sink into facilities. For Gosh sake, give the kids some damn money. Sheesh, sometimes the geeks that are so disconnected just set us back like cavemen.
Not sure that is true. This was supposed amounts 4 years ago for BIG schools

http://btn.com/2015/03/03/stipend-figures-heres-a-look-at-potential-big-ten-numbers/

I think these were numbers they were allowed to give
 
I do not belive NU offers Stipends due to its reasoning that the student is already getting a high price education.

NU isn't practical on this and misses the whole reason why the stipends came into place. Colter ignited the talk of unionization. It failed. But he also argued in front of the NCAA 'pay for play'. The argument mentioned all of the revenue that these schools gain by their football program.

Thus, because of the issues of justice, the NCAA considered, then granted stipends to be allowed. NU missed the boat on this one. And it is something recruits consider when picking a school. Sure, some academic families get the idea of a quality education, but many athletes come from a blue collar home or one parent home and place more value on stipends than more affluent families. Thus, a bright kid who has the grades really rally doesn't mind nabbing $6,000 a year instead of working that part time job.

NU is just cheap. Bigtime. Stipends isn't a fart in the wind compared to how much they pay Fitz and sink into facilities. For Gosh sake, give the kids some damn money. Sheesh, sometimes the geeks that are so disconnected just set us back like cavemen.

Wrong. Very wrong.
 
I do not belive NU offers Stipends due to its reasoning that the student is already getting a high price education.

NU isn't practical on this and misses the whole reason why the stipends came into place. Colter ignited the talk of unionization. It failed. But he also argued in front of the NCAA 'pay for play'. The argument mentioned all of the revenue that these schools gain by their football program.

Thus, because of the issues of justice, the NCAA considered, then granted stipends to be allowed. NU missed the boat on this one. And it is something recruits consider when picking a school. Sure, some academic families get the idea of a quality education, but many athletes come from a blue collar home or one parent home and place more value on stipends than more affluent families. Thus, a bright kid who has the grades really rally doesn't mind nabbing $6,000 a year instead of working that part time job.

NU is just cheap. Bigtime. Stipends isn't a fart in the wind compared to how much they pay Fitz and sink into facilities. For Gosh sake, give the kids some damn money. Sheesh, sometimes the geeks that are so disconnected just set us back like cavemen.
Not sure that is true. This was supposed amounts 4 years ago for BIG schools

http://btn.com/2015/03/03/stipend-figures-heres-a-look-at-potential-big-ten-numbers/

I think these were numbers they were allowed to give
Thanks head, I was looking for this as I too recalled NU paid a stipend. Looks like it could be increased as cost of attendance has to be more at NU than many of the schools that provide a larger stipend.
 
I cannot stress this enough: this is a GOOD thing for college athletics and student athletes. It basically achieves the "paying players" concern using figures not determined by the NCAA or the Athletic Departments.

For years it has been personally frustrating watching talking heads and pundits in sports journalism debate how much a player should be paid, if a football player should get more than a field hockey player, etc. Cost of Attendance (COA) is a universal figure that applies to all undergrads at a particular school. It is the foundation upon which financial aid packages at each school are formulated. Nick Saban doesn't get to say that COA for Alabama players is $500,000 per year and therefore his players get an extra $450,000 stipend...it doesn't work that way. If a school wants to engineer a higher COA to enable it's athletes get a higher stipend, that number gets published everywhere and to everyone - including students/families who are considering COA in deciding where to go to college.

(Sadly, I realize there are probably some schools that would consider inflating the number across the university just to benefit athletes).

The biggest victory here is for student athletes coming from lower income families, who despite a scholarship award that covers tuition/room/board/books/fees...the parents may still not have the means to just give them an extra $500 per month in spending money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FightNorthwestern
I do not belive NU offers Stipends due to its reasoning that the student is already getting a high price education.

NU isn't practical on this and misses the whole reason why the stipends came into place. Colter ignited the talk of unionization. It failed. But he also argued in front of the NCAA 'pay for play'. The argument mentioned all of the revenue that these schools gain by their football program.

Thus, because of the issues of justice, the NCAA considered, then granted stipends to be allowed. NU missed the boat on this one. And it is something recruits consider when picking a school. Sure, some academic families get the idea of a quality education, but many athletes come from a blue collar home or one parent home and place more value on stipends than more affluent families. Thus, a bright kid who has the grades really rally doesn't mind nabbing $6,000 a year instead of working that part time job.

NU is just cheap. Bigtime. Stipends isn't a fart in the wind compared to how much they pay Fitz and sink into facilities. For Gosh sake, give the kids some damn money. Sheesh, sometimes the geeks that are so disconnected just set us back like cavemen.

Typical Turk bullshit. Not the case at all. They receive a stipend. Why do you make stuff up out of thin air? Oh, it's the Problem of Turk - deciphering reality.
 
I cannot stress this enough: this is a GOOD thing for college athletics and student athletes. It basically achieves the "paying players" concern using figures not determined by the NCAA or the Athletic Departments.

For years it has been personally frustrating watching talking heads and pundits in sports journalism debate how much a player should be paid, if a football player should get more than a field hockey player, etc. Cost of Attendance (COA) is a universal figure that applies to all undergrads at a particular school. It is the foundation upon which financial aid packages at each school are formulated. Nick Saban doesn't get to say that COA for Alabama players is $500,000 per year and therefore his players get an extra $450,000 stipend...it doesn't work that way. If a school wants to engineer a higher COA to enable it's athletes get a higher stipend, that number gets published everywhere and to everyone - including students/families who are considering COA in deciding where to go to college.

(Sadly, I realize there are probably some schools that would consider inflating the number across the university just to benefit athletes).

The biggest victory here is for student athletes coming from lower income families, who despite a scholarship award that covers tuition/room/board/books/fees...the parents may still not have the means to just give them an extra $500 per month in spending money.
Theoretically, wouldn’t this potentially be an advantage for NU over Alabama. Much smaller enrollment, must larger endowment? If they wanted to raise the COA it should have less of an overall impact on financial aid budget.

I am going to look for an article I saw a few years back which summarized how the COA was calculated at schools.
 
Theoretically, wouldn’t this potentially be an advantage for NU over Alabama. Much smaller enrollment, must larger endowment? If they wanted to raise the COA it should have less of an overall impact on financial aid budget.

I am going to look for an article I saw a few years back which summarized how the COA was calculated at schools.

At the risk of getting into a very "Northwestern" kind of debate on the football message board...in short, not really. Since NU would still accept forms of Federal Aid, any significant manipulation of the official COA beyond a couple thousand bucks (I would imagine) would probably draw the ire of the Department of Education, and put NU (or any school) at risk of losing its eligibility to accept Federal money.

The one thing that NU has going for it in this arena is the cost of living in an expensive suburb of an expensive city. A pizza, a movie ticket, and a bottle of shampoo all cost more in Evanston than in Tuscaloosa. So if NU cared enough to manipulate the numbers to benefit student athletes...maybe a little but probably not enough to move the needle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FightNorthwestern
I cannot stress this enough: this is a GOOD thing for college athletics and student athletes. It basically achieves the "paying players" concern using figures not determined by the NCAA or the Athletic Departments.

For years it has been personally frustrating watching talking heads and pundits in sports journalism debate how much a player should be paid, if a football player should get more than a field hockey player, etc. Cost of Attendance (COA) is a universal figure that applies to all undergrads at a particular school. It is the foundation upon which financial aid packages at each school are formulated. Nick Saban doesn't get to say that COA for Alabama players is $500,000 per year and therefore his players get an extra $450,000 stipend...it doesn't work that way. If a school wants to engineer a higher COA to enable it's athletes get a higher stipend, that number gets published everywhere and to everyone - including students/families who are considering COA in deciding where to go to college.

(Sadly, I realize there are probably some schools that would consider inflating the number across the university just to benefit athletes).

The biggest victory here is for student athletes coming from lower income families, who despite a scholarship award that covers tuition/room/board/books/fees...the parents may still not have the means to just give them an extra $500 per month in spending money.
I'm going to find out if my wife will give me $500 a month spending money

Edit

No
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT