Sweaty Gary on Players Getting Paid

[slower]

http://ncaabasketball.fanhouse.com/2010/09/22/marylands-gary-williams-colleges-can-pay-players-and-should/?ncid=txtlnkusspor00000002

Saw this in SI Fanhouse.

[JasonEvans]

The figure Williams suggested was $200 a month -- based, he said, on the fact that when he played at Maryland in the mid-1960s, he and other athletes got $15 a month spending money as part of their scholarship. Even today, he added, regular students are allowed to receive living expenses and spending money as part of financial aid, but athletes on scholarship are not -- even though, he said, "they say that they want student-athletes to be treated just like everybody else.

"These guys don't receive anything except room, board, books, tuition and fees, which doesn't put any cash in their pockets,'' Williams said. "And some of these guys are pretty poor coming here, and a lot of college students have some money -- you feel out of place, you don't feel competitive academically sometimes, and I think it could do a lot of good.

"Plus, hopefully, it would keep away some of the unscrupulous people that do hang around the great athletes, where an athlete wouldn't befriend a guy just because a guy gave him 100 bucks or something like that.''

I have long advocated for this too. Scholarship athletes are not even allowed to have work-study jobs, like working in the library, to earn extra cash. It really is unfair.

I think a good solution would be to treat sports as if they are "jobs" at the university. The same way the school needs students to work in the library and pays them something like $7/hour to do so, it needs students to field a competitive basketball/football/swimming/track team and should pay the players on those teams the same $7/hour for practices and games. It would come to only about $100/week and would only apply when the sport was in season.

--Jason "Why would anyone think this is a bad idea?" Evans

[uh_no]

I have long advocated for this too. Scholarship athletes are not even allowed to have work-study jobs, like working in the library, to earn extra cash. It really is unfair.

I think a good solution would be to treat sports as if they are "jobs" at the university. The same way the school needs students to work in the library and pays them something like $7/hour to do so, it needs students to field a competitive basketball/football/swimming/track team and should pay the players on those teams the same $7/hour for practices and games. It would come to only about $100/week and would only apply when the sport was in season.

--Jason "Why would anyone think this is a bad idea?" Evans

I can see that getting WAYYY abused....perhaps with a limit....but i agree its ridiculous an athlete can't get a work study job....are you guys sure that's a rule? are athletes restricted from having any job?

[PADukeMom]

I really am on the fence on this issue. Honestly I wouldn't have a problem allowing players to receive a small salary for work/study.
The problem I forsee with this certain coaches (cough..Cal) might go to the extreme in the pay ranges. Who is going to set & monitor the standards...the NCAA??? We all know how "proactive" they are.

[JasonEvans]

The problem I forsee with this certain coaches (cough..Cal) might go to the extreme in the pay ranges.

What "pay ranges"? Both Gary's proposal as well as mine would establish fixed amounts to pay players (practice time is limited by the NCAA in every sport, so that would be the limit on paying for practice time). If a school breaks the rule, they get penalized. That is how it works with every rule by the NCAA.


Who is going to set & monitor the standards...the NCAA??? We all know how "proactive" they are.

Umm, are you suggesting that someone other than the NCAA govern this situation? The NCAA is far from perfect and I am certainly no fan of many of their rules and how they enforce them, but they are the governing body currently in charge here. To suggest that we not implement something simple like this because we don't think the NCAA is going to be able to enforce it makes no sense to me. I see no evidence that this would be more problematic than keeping kids and schools honest in the classroom or keeping coaches from violating recruiting rules or keeping agents away from players. If anything, this would be easier to enforce because it would discourage underground payments by making paying players legal and out in the open.

--Jason "I think giving kids a couple hundred bucks a month might actually fight off the street agents a bit too" Evans

[shf9]

if you think a couple of hundred bucks every month is going to ward off the underground payments, you're delusional. it's a pittance compared to the amount of money that these players generate for the universities. pay them real money or don't even bother.

[CameronBornAndBred]

if you think a couple of hundred bucks every month is going to ward off the underground payments, you're delusional. it's a pittance compared to the amount of money that these players generate for the universities. pay them real money or don't even bother.
The plan would have to include all athletes, not just basketball and football players. Only those two sports are actual revenue sports, and for most schools even those two don't turn a profit.

[SCMatt33]

I can see that getting WAYYY abused....perhaps with a limit....but i agree its ridiculous an athlete can't get a work study job....are you guys sure that's a rule? are athletes restricted from having any job?

I thought that the "no job" rule was changed within the past few years. I thought that they were allowed to work, but were limited to earning $2000 or less (can't remember if that's per semester or per school year) and have a limited number of hours which they can work, considering practice time, and class work. I'm not exactly sure on the numbers, but I'm pretty sure that they are allowed some kind of work now.

[Bluedog]

These guys don't receive anything except room, board, books, tuition and fees

Anything except?!?! That sure sounds like a lot to me! I wish Duke gave me all that (although I did get some of that through financial aid). At Duke, that's like $50,000+ a year.


I really am on the fence on this issue. Honestly I wouldn't have a problem allowing players to receive a small salary for work/study.

Again, how is $50,000/year a small salary? That's FAR FAR more than anybody can make doing some work/study. Free education and a degree is a pretty good thing to have. At Duke, in addition, the basketball skill was the key to getting in (not saying it shouldn't be this way; but not only money, but guaranteed admission essentially).

Having said all that, I think it varies GREATLY from individual to individual. While $50,000/yr scholarship (also at Duke, athletes have an INSANE number of food points that can't possibly be used, which can be used to order off campus food, so living expenses are greatly reduced) and gaining admission to one of the best institutions in the nation sounds like reasonable compensation to me, some of these guys would be getting that through financial aid anyways.

Someone like Gerald Henderson, Nolan Smith or Austin Rivers is getting more than enough at $50,000/yr. However, somebody like Dockery would be getting that anyways. Maybe this sets a bad precedence, but schools do it for "normal" students all the time, so why can't the living stipend be dependent on financial need? They fill out FAFSA/CSS Profile just like all normal students. If it comes to EFC of $50,000 and Duke would give a normal student $0, then they "just" get a full ride. If the EFC comes to $0, and the normal student would get a full-ride (note that this scholarship amount ASSUMES the student is doing work-study; at least, that's how it was on my awards; so, a normal student isn't getting extra money either, just fulfilling their work-study amount that is already included as part of the financial package), then the student-athlete gets a little spending money. Which is more money than ANY other normal student can get since it's full ride + spending money.

Obviously, there are serious issues with this approach and it gets hazy. For one, not all schools have nearly the same financial aid policies, so you could argue schools like Stanford and Duke have a greater advantage than others since there would be more applicants to have a small EFC. But, so what? For "normal" students, schools that have more generous financial aid programs are at an advantage too. At Harvard, essentially all the basketball players are on a full-ride anyways (their financial aid is insane though; no contribution if parents make less than $80,000; only 10% contribution a year from about $80,000 - $180,000/yr salary).

In large part, though, I don't feel bad for athletes getting a full ride. That seems like payment enough and FAR more than a normal student would get with some side job. And much easier admission standards. However, I do understand that some of these students would be getting a full ride anyways at schools like Duke (public schools, not so much), so perhaps a bit of spending money to help out would make sense. (But again, normal students getting work-study jobs is PART of the financial aid package; not in addition to.)

I can understand both perspectives, I guess.

[Bob Green]

The plan would have to include all athletes, not just basketball and football players.

I believe student-athletes should be paid a small stipend, the $200 Gary Williams suggest sounds fair to me, and CB&B is correct the plan must include all student-athletes. Taking into account the big money associated with college sports, the student-athletes should be entitled to walking around money.

[GrayHare]

It seems to me that I remember some athletes having had work/study positions in Perkins.

Judging from the 2010-2011 NCAA Division I Manual (http://www.ncaapublications.com/DownloadPublication.aspx?download=D111.pdf) (PDF), the issue seems to center on "cost of attendance" and whether the institution considers that to include "miscellaneous personal expenses":

12.4 EMPLOYMENT
12.4.1 Criteria Governing Compensation to Student-Athletes. Compensation may be paid to a student-athlete: (Revised: 11/22/04)

(a) Only for work actually performed; and
(b) At a rate commensurate with the going rate in that locality for similar services.

15.02.2 Cost of Attendance. The “cost of attendance” is an amount calculated by an institutional financial aid office, using federal regulations, that includes the total cost of tuition and fees, room and board, books and supplies, transportation, and other expenses related to attendance at the institution. (Adopted: 1/11/94)

15.02.2.1 Calculation of Cost of Attendance. An institution must calculate the cost of attendance for student-athletes in accordance with the cost-of-attendance policies and procedures that are used for students in general. Accordingly, if an institution’s policy allows for students’ direct and indirect costs (e.g., tuition, fees, room and board, books, supplies, transportation, child care, cost related to a disability and miscellaneous personal expenses) to be adjusted on an individual basis from the institution’s standard cost figure, it is permissible to make the same adjustment for student-athletes, provided the adjustment is documented and is available on an equitable basis to all students with similar circumstances who request an adjustment. (Adopted: 1/11/94)

15.1 MAXIMUM LIMIT ON FINANCIAL AID—INDIVIDUAL
A student-athlete shall not be eligible to participate in intercollegiate athletics if he or she receives financial aid that exceeds the value of the cost of attendance as defined in Bylaw 15.02.2...

[uh_no]

I thought that the "no job" rule was changed within the past few years. I thought that they were allowed to work, but were limited to earning $2000 or less (can't remember if that's per semester or per school year) and have a limited number of hours which they can work, considering practice time, and class work. I'm not exactly sure on the numbers, but I'm pretty sure that they are allowed some kind of work now.

That makes sense....its difficult to make much more than that $ anyway.

[sagegrouse]

That makes sense....its difficult to make much more than that $ anyway.

Well, not really. But it was somewhat refreshing when a heavyweight boxer at LSU back in the early 50s had a job as an elevator operator on campus -- in a building that had only stairs. Crowe Peel was the name.

sagegrouse
'Actually, I had a brush with celebrity in the boxing ring, but several generations removed. The Citadel boxing coach when I was a kid in the 40s and 50s was one Matty Mathews, father of NFLer Clay Mathews, grandfather of NFLers Clay and Bruce Mathews, and great-grandfather of current Green Bay Packer, Clay Mathews. Matty was a neighbor and also taught boxing classes for all the kids in town at the gym of old St. Michael's Church in Charleston.'

[RoyalBlue08]

I completely agree with Coach Williams on this one. A small stipend to cover living/entertainment expenses is not too much to ask for athletes that make millions of dollars for their coaches and schools. Back in college, I got financial aid over what my tuition needs were so that I could have extra money during the school year for "living". Denying that for basketball players just makes the temptations to do the wrong things even more difficult for these kids.

[noyac]

I played college baseball and when we were on road trips we got a stipend to pay for meals. I believe it was $10 for breakfast and lunch and $15 dollars for dinner per day. I remember everyone ordering off the dollar menu at Mcdonalds and Wendys and pocketing the extra cash for weekend "studying" money. We easily could end up with more than $100 dollars a month if you spent your meal money frugally.

[BD80]

I have long advocated for this too. Scholarship athletes are not even allowed to have work-study jobs, like working in the library, to earn extra cash. It really is unfair.

I think a good solution would be to treat sports as if they are "jobs" at the university. ... It would come to only about $100/week and would only apply when the sport was in season.

--Jason "Why would anyone think this is a bad idea?" Evans

Because it makes sense, not cents.

How many scholarship athletes are at each school? 500?

If you pay each athlete just $400/month over 5 months, that's $1,000,000. Many smaller schools might have a problem budgeting for that - or may have to cut a couple of scholarships.

In theory it is a great idea, it would work well for all of the BCS conference schools. But schools that couldn't do it would be at a great disadvantage.

You also know that lawsuits will follow if there is ANY scholarship athlete that doesn't get treated equally.

So your football team costs the school 80 scholarships for football players, plus 80 scholarships for women's sports, and now $320,000 in walking around money?

Although there is unprecedented money flowing into the university athletic departments via tv for basketball and football, budgets are still tight.

[Jarhead]

I have long advocated for this too. Scholarship athletes are not even allowed to have work-study jobs, like working in the library, to earn extra cash. It really is unfair.

I think a good solution would be to treat sports as if they are "jobs" at the university. The same way the school needs students to work in the library and pays them something like $7/hour to do so, it needs students to field a competitive basketball/football/swimming/track team and should pay the players on those teams the same $7/hour for practices and games. It would come to only about $100/week and would only apply when the sport was in season.

--Jason "Why would anyone think this is a bad idea?" Evans


The plan would have to include all athletes, not just basketball and football players. Only those two sports are actual revenue sports, and for most schools even those two don't turn a profit.

I'm with both of you guys on this. I can see some problems arising from a stipend, but there are problems now. Whatever the situation, it is usually better to do something than to do nothing. Care should be taken that this not become a problem in the recruiting process. As CB&B says, it should cover all sports.

[4decadedukie]

I believe student-athletes should be paid a small stipend, the $200 Gary Williams suggest sounds fair to me, and CB&B is correct the plan must include all student-athletes. Taking into account the big money associated with college sports, the student-athletes should be entitled to walking around money.

I strongly agree. I also believe the NCAA should establish and administer some sort of emergency assistance fund (EAF) for the families of student-athletes who are unexpectedly confronted with dire circumstances. By running the fund, making the decisions, disbursing the checks, providing oversight and management, and so forth, individual universities and (certainly) "friendly agents" would be effectively removed from the EAF, which would likely preclude a good deal of potential mischief. A student-athlete (all divisions, all sports) simply should never have the stark choice of remaining in school or seeing his family's fundamental needs addressed -- not when billions of dollars annually are generated by intercollegiate sports.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I'm actually not a fan of the athletes being paid by the school, but I do think they should be allowed to work. The problem with this is that some big time athlete is going to get a "job" where they don't have to do anything other than show up and draw in customers. So since that will open a huge can of worms that nobody wants to touch, the only option left is for the school to hand out a stipend. Whatever the solution is, it has to be better than living with no money.

[RoyalBlue08]

Because it makes sense, not cents.

How many scholarship athletes are at each school? 500?

If you pay each athlete just $400/month over 5 months, that's $1,000,000. Many smaller schools might have a problem budgeting for that - or may have to cut a couple of scholarships.

In theory it is a great idea, it would work well for all of the BCS conference schools. But schools that couldn't do it would be at a great disadvantage.

You also know that lawsuits will follow if there is ANY scholarship athlete that doesn't get treated equally.

So your football team costs the school 80 scholarships for football players, plus 80 scholarships for women's sports, and now $320,000 in walking around money?

Although there is unprecedented money flowing into the university athletic departments via tv for basketball and football, budgets are still tight.

Why does it have to be all scholarship athletes? Some sort of general "fairness" argument? How about just revenue sports? I reject the fairness argument here without much hesitation at all. We are already giving non revenue sport athletes full scholarships. That is already unfair in my opinion. (Let me explain.) So someone who is good at math pays to go to school. Someone who is good at golf gets to go to school for free. So why not someone who is good at basketball gets to go to school for free plus gets $200/month so they aren't so poor. And it doesn't have to be mandatory, it can be optional so each school can decide if they want to pay the players and in what sports. That way if it is going to break the budget of some small school, they don't have to participate if they don't want to. Again you are going to say "Not Fair!" and I am going to say it is perfectly fair. The elite basketball schools are completely open access. Everyone is given an opportunity to try out, by playing basketball as a youth, and the best are selected. The best receiving a little extra benefit may not be fair, but it is how the world works.

Here is another analogy. Some students get stipends and have their tuition paid for them to complete advance degrees, some have to pay tuition and receive nothing. Is this fair, maybe not. But it depends on what the degree you are trying to obtain is, and what you have to do (and what value that is to taxpayers) to get that degree. I see no reason why scholarship athletes need all be treated equally either, when clearly some are much more valuable to their universities than others are.

And to be clear, I am not in any way advocating the death of amateur intercollegiate athletics. I think it is extremely important that the athletes in the revenue sports are actual students that take classes, earn degrees, and are basically amateurs in their sports. But I see nothing wrong at all with giving stipends to those athletes that make a ton of money for their universities.

[uh_no]

But I see nothing wrong at all with giving stipends to those athletes that make a ton of money for their universities.

Because the athletics departments don't have the spare cash to pay them. The Duke athletic department takes like 2 million (?) from the school each year.....imagine our AD saying...yeah....can you spare another mil?

meanwhile we're cutting arts and sciences professors.....

[RoyalBlue08]

Because the athletics departments don't have the spare cash to pay them. The Duke athletic department takes like 2 million (?) from the school each year.....imagine our AD saying...yeah....can you spare another mil?

meanwhile we're cutting arts and sciences professors.....

Where is this million coming from? $200/month. 8 months. $1600/ year per student. Maybe 90 players from revenue sports (10 men's basketball, 80 football, depending on how many scholarships are used in a given year) So $144,000/year. If they school doesn't want to pay, take it out of the coach's salary. Or ask the boosters for the money. Seems like this could be raised pretty easily.

[4decadedukie]

Why does it have to be all scholarship athletes? Some sort of general "fairness" argument? How about just revenue sports? I reject the fairness argument here without much hesitation at all. We are already giving non revenue sport athletes full scholarships. That is already unfair in my opinion.

Royal -

We all remember the classic line from Orwell's Animal Farm re "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." My concern with your approach is the de facto establishment second-class student-athletes, when all intercollegiate players at a university should be essentially treated equally (who is to say that AMATEUR tennis or lacrosse are less – or more – important than basketball or hockey?). Further, I would wager that a concept similar to yours would violate Title IX, since a far greater number of males student-athletes would be included than females. Finally, this could have a disastrous impact on charitable donations and fund-raising, when students, alumni, parents, etc. who are affiliated with the now second-class sport quickly become alienated from the university.

[RoyalBlue08]

Royal -

We all remember the classic line from Orwell's Animal Farm re "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." My concern with your approach is the de facto establishment second-class student-athletes, when all intercollegiate players at a university should be essentially treated equally (who is to say that AMATEUR tennis or lacrosse are less – or more – important than basketball or hockey?). Further, I would wager that a concept similar to yours would violate Title IX, since a far greater number of males student-athletes would be included than females. Finally, this could have a disastrous impact on charitable donations and fund-raising, when students, alumni, parents, etc. who are affiliated with the now second-class sport quickly become alienated from the university.

I have no problem with creating second-class student athletes. When tennis and lacrosse start generating millions of dollars in revenue, they can get stipends too. This gets to the heart of why we given scholarships to athletes in the first place. I would argue a major reason it makes sense, is that is generally increases the exposure of the university, which in turn allows the university to compete for better students. I don't really see why tennis players should get to go to college for free and scientists should have to pay. I would rather my school have mediocre tennis players and the very best scientists personally, but I guess that is just my opinion.

As far as Title IX goes, don't get me started....

[4decadedukie]

1) Only approximately a dozen universities, from a set that exceeds a thousand institutions, operate "revenue positive" athletic programs (where general university funds are not required to augment the athletic department and to balance the intercollegiate sports programs' books). I would speculate that in some recent years Duke Football might have had greater expenses (for "openers," scholarships for, what, 60+ student-athletes) than income. Therefore, I find your argument re income generation somewhat specious, since you fail to address the concomitant costs, as well as the potential revenues generated.

2) In addition, your statement re “As far as Title IX goes, don't get me started....” simply does not make this issue evaporate. You can bet your last dollar that lawsuits would instantaneously be filed if any university adopted your proposal (by individuals and by the Justice Department).

3) Finally, you ignore the very real question of diminished donations from those who would believe such a policy is an affront.

[RoyalBlue08]

1) Only approximately a dozen universities, from a set that exceeds a thousand institutions, operate "revenue positive" athletic programs. I would speculate that in some recent years Duke Football might have had greater expenses (for "openers," scholarships for, what, 60+ student-athletes) than income. Therefore, I find your argument re income generation somewhat specious, since you fail to address the concomitant costs, as well as the potential revenues generated.

2) In addition, your statement re “As far as Title IX goes, don't get me started....” simply does not make this issue evaporate. You can bet your last dollar that lawsuits would instantaneously be filed if any university adopted your proposal (by individuals and by the Justice Department).

3) Finally, you ignore the very real question of diminished donations from those who would believe such a policy is an affront.

OK, fair enough on all points. But you haven't changed my mind. As far as #1 goes, the reason why most athletic programs aren't profitable, is because you have to pay for all the non-revenue producing sports. If there are a few bottom tier football programs that don't make money, then those schools are free to not offer stipends.

As far as Title IX goes, I understand your point. Paying male athletes stipends is almost certainly against the law unless you pay females as well. It's also against NCAA rules to pay any athletes stipends. I am talking about how I think the system should be run. So in my little world here, we need to change the NCAA rules and change Title IX. Admittedly, that make my little world much less likely to ever become reality.

As far as your third point about diminished donations, I ignored it on purpose because I disagree that it would make much of an effect at all. I think that the number of alumni or parents that were upset enough that basketball players got stipends and tennis players didn't that it would change the amount of money given to the university is very small. And I think it could be easily offset by those who would be willing to donate for the expressed purpose of funding the stipends. But that being said, we are really both just speculating here and thus I don't think it is really worth arguing about.

[sagegrouse]

Royal -

We all remember the classic line from Orwell's Animal Farm re "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." My concern with your approach is the de facto establishment second-class student-athletes, when all intercollegiate players at a university should be essentially treated equally (who is to say that AMATEUR tennis or lacrosse are less – or more – important than basketball or hockey?). Further, I would wager that a concept similar to yours would violate Title IX, since a far greater number of males student-athletes would be included than females. Finally, this could have a disastrous impact on charitable donations and fund-raising, when students, alumni, parents, etc. who are affiliated with the now second-class sport quickly become alienated from the university.

The non-revenue sports subsist on partial scholarships.

Remember that the NCAA sets maximum amounts of aid that can be given and, for each sport, a max number of full scholarships and equivalents. In sports other than football and basketball, partial scholarships are often the norm. In any event, nothing, except competition for athletes, would compel a school to give the maximum benefits or the max number of scholarships. The same would apply to any approved stipend.

Here are selected NCAA limits, as reported by berecruited.com:

Men:

Baseball 11.7
X-Country-Track 12.6
Golf 4.5
LAX 12.6
Soccer 9.9
Swim/Dive 9.9
Tennis 4.5
Wrestling 9.9

Women:
X-Country/Track 18.0
Field Hockey 12.0
Golf 6.0
LAX 12.0
Soccer 14.0
Swim/Dive 14.0
Tennis 8.0




Interestingly, limits for women are most frequently higher than for men. Some equity adjustment, no doubt, due to the huge number of football scholarships permitted (85).
Even basketball is higher for women (15) than for men (13).

sagegrouse

[4decadedukie]

OK, fair enough on all points. But you haven't changed my mind. As far as #1 goes, the reason why most athletic programs aren't profitable, is because you have to pay for all the non-revenue producing sports. If there are a few bottom tier football programs that don't make money, then those schools are free to not offer stipends.

As far as Title IX goes, I understand your point. Paying male athletes stipends is almost certainly against the law unless you pay females as well. It's also against NCAA rules to pay any athletes stipends. I am talking about how I think the system should be run. So in my little world here, we need to change the NCAA rules and change Title IX. Admittedly, that make my little world much less likely to ever become reality.

As far as your third point about diminished donations, I ignored it on purpose because I disagree that it would make much of an effect at all. I think that the number of alumni or parents that were upset enough that basketball players got stipends and tennis players didn't that it would change the amount of money given to the university is very small. And I think it could be easily offset by those who would be willing to donate for the expressed purpose of funding the stipends. But that being said, we are really both just speculating here and thus I don't think it is really worth arguing about.


Re #1: Fundamentally, apparently, you believe the overriding purposes of intercollegiate athletics are increased university visibility and enhanced revenue generation, whereas historically the objectives have been to provide student-athletes with highly valuable experiences in self-discipline, in teamwork, in character education, in tenaciousness, in leadership, in selflessness, in lifetime physical fitness, etc. Therefore, you would have little problem eliminating “secondary” sports, notwithstanding the fact that so many more student-athletes are engaged in them than in football and basketball. Those overwhelming numbers mean a LOT of male and female intercollegiate athletes will no longer gain the enduring benefits of athletics, of team dynamics, of competition, and so forth.

Re #3: Further, based on my experiences serving on Duke’s Annual Fund Executive Committee and on Duke’s Alumni Association Executive Committee, I respectfully suggest that you are wrong when you state: “I think that the number of alumni or parents that were upset enough that basketball players got stipends and tennis players didn't that it would change the amount of money given to the university is very small. And I think it could be easily offset by those who would be willing to donate for the expressed purpose of funding the stipends.” Athletes, their parents, alumni-athletes, and other donors who have strong athletic interests, are a very large and powerful group in universities’ overall charitable donations. For example, their substantial influence and their significant financial impact to Duke in the Lacrosse Hoax’s aftermath is extremely well documented (I will go no further here, due to DBR’s policies concerning apoliticalness, but if you want some details you may PM me).

[4decadedukie]

The non-revenue sports subsist on partial scholarships.

Remember that the NCAA sets maximum amounts of aid that can be given and, for each sport, a max number of full scholarships and equivalents. In sports other than football and basketball, partial scholarships are often the norm. In any event, nothing, except competition for athletes, would compel a school to give the maximum benefits or the max number of scholarships. The same would apply to any approved stipend.

Here are selected NCAA limits, as reported by berecruited.com:

Men:

Baseball 11.7
X-Country-Track 12.6
Golf 4.5
LAX 12.6
Soccer 9.9
Swim/Dive 9.9
Tennis 4.5
Wrestling 9.9

Women:
X-Country/Track 18.0
Field Hockey 12.0
Golf 6.0
LAX 12.0
Soccer 14.0
Swim/Dive 14.0
Tennis 8.0




Interestingly, limits for women are most frequently higher than for men. Some equity adjustment, no doubt, due to the huge number of football scholarships permitted (85).
Even basketball is higher for women (15) than for men (13).

sagegrouse


Sage -

I do understand all that, and I believe it makes my overall point even stronger. Specifically, the individual "secondary" sports cost relatively little (largely due to partial scholarships, as you highlight), but they offer the benefits of intercollegiate competition (etc.) to so many students. Conversely, the "primary" sports (i.e., football and basketball) have increased revenue potential, but they also have much greater concomitant expenses. Therefore, on a cost/benefit per student-athlete basis, I respectfully suggest the "secondary" sports are a real bargain.

Warm regards.

[RoyalBlue08]

Re #1: Fundamentally, apparently, you believe the overriding purposes of intercollegiate athletics are increased university visibility and enhanced revenue generation, whereas historically the objectives have been to provide student-athletes with highly valuable experiences in self-discipline, in teamwork, in character education, in tenaciousness, in leadership, in selflessness, in lifetime physical fitness, etc. Therefore, you would have little problem eliminating “secondary” sports, notwithstanding the fact that so many more student-athletes are engaged in them than in football and basketball. Those overwhelming numbers mean a LOT of male and female intercollegiate athletes will no longer gain the enduring benefits of athletics, of team dynamics, of competition, and so forth.




I never said anything about eliminating any sports. I do think that giving athletes scholarships to attend your university when they play sports that generate little outside interest makes little sense. I'm all for having as many sports teams as a university can. And it would be great if a higher percentage of the student body could actually participate in them. But I don't understand why universities have to give out scholarships to people just because they happen to be really good at a particular sport, unless it is one that large percentages of the student body and alumni support, like basketball and football. Having an elite basketball team is clearly in Duke's best interest as a University. I know many undergraduate and graduate students that chose Duke over Ivy league schools because the experiences they could have following the basketball team was enough of a factor to influence a very difficult decision. Having an elite lacrosse team is nice, but if Duke's lacrosse team was 100th in the nation instead of first, I'm not sure that would effect the quality of the education or experience at Duke very much. I'm sure you don't agree. That's fine with me. I actually respect your opinion, but I'm not sure you are coming very close to convincing me to abandon mine.