Fiu, Cirminiello, Mitchell on TV - Campus Insiders | Buy College Football Tickets

Bloggers - An Bigger Stipend?

CollegeFootballNews.com
Posted Aug 21, 2011


From the CFN bloggers, here are their thoughts on all the important topics going into the 2011 college football season.


State of the Game - Bloggers

A Bigger Stipend?


2011 CFN State of the Game Topics  
- Should The Death Penalty Be On The Table? 
- What One Thing Can Stop The Cheating? | Bloggers Analysis
- How To Fix The NCAA | Bloggers Analysis
- Is There Institutional Control? | Bloggers Analysis
- The Cam Newton Situation | Bloggers Analysis
Was Stanley McClover Telling The Truth? | Bloggers Analysis
Should Players Get a Bigger Stipend? | Bloggers Analysis
- Should a one-loss SEC team play for it all? | Bloggers Analysis
- Why isn't there a playoff? | Bloggers Analysis
- The Programs About To Blow Up | Bloggers Analysis
- Does The Longhorn Network Matter? | Bloggers Analysis
- What'll Happen In Ten Years? | Bloggers Analysis
- When Should Players Turn Pro? | Bloggers Analysis
- What's Your Beef? The Biggest Complaints | Bloggers Analysis

LIMITED TIME ONLY: CLICK HERE for a Free Week of Top-Rated Selections

- Suggestions or something we missed? Let us know
- Follow us ... http://twitter.com/ColFootballNews

Question No. 6: Do you like the idea of players getting an extra stipend? 

By Justine Hendricks
Yes - a lot of the players come from low-income backgrounds, and they’re the ones who are most at risk of falling prey to unscrupulous boosters or agents. If student-athletes aren’t struggling to make ends meet, possibly to support their parents, siblings, or children, they’ll have fewer reasons to cheat. Obviously whatever the universities could offer probably pales in comparison to what top of the line players could make from other “friends” of the program, but combined with increased vigilance when it comes to compliance, it could be part of a solution to a very widespread problem.

By Matthew Peaslee
Tune into any NCAA sporting event and the “Just about all of us will go pro in something other than sports” commercial will be aired. It’s a true fact. In any sport, not just football, athletes spend so much time and effort on the field that the classroom work comes secondary. Research done by normal students outside of the classroom also keeps them busy, beyond their due earning credit hours. The easiest way to compare a college athlete to that of a non-athlete is to say they are glorified graduate assistants. GA’s, as they’re lovingly referred to, are paid a considerable stipend on top of their scholarships. Athletes not only receive a scholarship, but official school gear, more often than not, books and living expenses. An extra spending stipend would be a fine addition to their package. If athletes were ever to be paid, this is the only acceptable way to do it.

By Gabe Harris
I think players deserve money above the cost of tuition and books including a cost of living stipend. Players usually live off-campus and with that comes extra expenses. TV revenue is growing with every new conference contract and the players are the reasons why. It won’t stop all under the table dealings but it might keep players in school longer which will improve the on the field product and subsequently their NFL prospects.
 
By Terry Johnson
Whether people agree with it or not, college football is a business. In addition to his studies, a player will practice twenty hours per week. At a bare minimum, college football players should receive a stipend equivalent to a part-time job.

By Jon Berke
Yes, within reason. I don’t think it will prevent any sort of extra benefits attempts. Whether a player receives $5k a semester or not, sums like $200,000 or $350,000 – the Newton or Bush alleged amounts – will still influence plenty of kids. However, it’s undeniable that these players put in an extraordinary amount of work and are worth great amounts of money to their respective institutions. They deserve a bigger piece of the pie in some way.

By Phil Harrison
No because where would it stop? Do you pay all of your athletes in other sports? What about Title IX? It all sounds great in theory, but where would the money come from? The majority of athletic programs are already losing money without subtracting even more from the bottom line. In addition to that, if it is instituted to try and curb the cash gifts, then this simply doesn’t work in a common sense world. If someone approaches a star athlete on the street and offers a wad of cash in exchange for a favor, do you think he turns it down because he is getting a stipend. No way, no how.

By Bart Doan
Yes, but only if it’s sanctioned and worked for. I like the idea of them taking monitored, campus jobs for what other students make, so they’re not getting $100 hand shakes swiping meal cards at the mess hall. You find out right quickly who wants money and is willing to work for it, and who wants money because free money is fun. Students on academic scholarship can work 50 hours a week, so long as they keep their grades up. But athletes can’t? It’s bunk. Only difference is, 90K aren’t paying to watch Neil study Chemistry in the library on Saturday afternoon. The presidents that met in Indy last week are exploring the idea of paying a “reasonable” amount over the scholarship to cover the extra needs of students. That doesn’t sound like a terrible idea. If a stipend doesn’t happen in some way, soon, college football will be total, unmitigated chaos here soon.

By Nico Roesler
I think the players do deserve an extra stipend so that their daily lives can be more like that of normal college students. I am talking about a stipend totaling around $600 per month so that student-athletes can haves spending money to go to the movies and out to dinner on certain nights. Other college students must work in order to afford those types of luxuries. Is playing football a total of at-least 5 hours a day of football not like having a job? The players deserve a more secure sense for their day to day lives. Maybe that would decrease the numbers of athletes hunting for illegal payments on the side in order to survive the year.
 
By Randall Gyorko
I’ve had this conversation many times over the past decade. I have intimate knowledge on what these guys are doing with their scholarship money. I firmly believe that if a player is wise with his money he’s given, he will have plenty to enjoy his collegiate experience. I realize playing college football is the equivalent to a full time job (anyone saying it isn’t is wrong). However, these guys get money to pay for rent and food, and the amount they get is enough. If they choose to spend it wisely. Don’t go out and rent an apartment that handcuffs your ability to take in a movie, or to go out and eat every now and then. Don’t run out and buy some Dr. Dre Beats Headphones or the newest retro Air Jordan’s as soon as you get $250. The players have to be smart about their money, and it’s the university’s responsibility to educate these guys on their budgets. If done so, they won’t need an extra stipend to survive. Plus, you can’t just pay football players. You have to pay all student athletes, and this would cause even more schools to operate in the red. It’s not worth it.

By Bradlee Simoneaux
I do not believe players should get an extra monthly stipend. I think they should have full tuition, room and board, and books paid by the school, but there is no need to give them any additional funds to live on or use for miscellaneous purposes. They are already getting a free education, and most of them will end up using that education to earn their living, and not what they learn on the football field. Academics need to be stressed much more by the schools and coaches because the facts are that most of their student-athletes will rely on that background for the rest of their life, and getting a free college experience is worth much more than just the yearly tuition costs.
 
By Brian Harbach
If all Student athletes are going to get a stipend of 100 bucks a week or 500 bucks a month that makes a lot of sense and is something the NCAA should consider. The problem is the people arguing for a stipend or paying players are media members who cover professional sports and union lockouts more than they do the college games.

They see the BCS and March Madness, maybe even the College Baseball World Series but they aren’t discussing women’s field hockey, tennis or wrestling. They are talking about the revenue driving sports that are used so schools can afford to run all the other sports in their athletic department no one pay attention to.

If this discussion is about all Student Athletes it is a valid one to have but if you don’t think that Cameron Newton and Victoria Dunlap should get the same amount of money there is no discussion. They are student athletes, not professional ones. There is nothing wrong with helping them out but it has to be even across all sports.
By Brian Harbach 

The National Champion will always be the winner of the BCS Championship game, it doesn’t matter we are talking about Auburn in 2004 or Utah in 2009. The system everyone agreed to is the BCS and while it may not be perfect it still gives us the best championship game match-up of any American sport.

The good news about this scenario is that with the SEC’s recent success we have some assumptions. The assumption is that if a one-loss SEC team is left out that there are two or more BCS conference teams that are unbeaten. After five straight National Championships there is no unbiased voter in the country that would rank an SEC one-loss team behind any other one-loss team in the last poll.

It isn’t enough just to be in one conference, you have to win all your games. An undefeated BCS team should always get the benefit of the doubt over any team that has lost a game…even if that one-loss team is from the SEC. SEC fans judge the SEC Championship game as the most important game of the year because they can actually have control over who plays in it and who wins it. The BCS is sometimes a popularity contest and bowls are a reward, not a right. The SEC Champion does not automatically belong in the BCS Championship game, they can get invited but that involves luck as much as it does skill.

By David Sweigart
I like the idea of giving players a little extra money on the surface but the idea has many holes. Big time college football is a full year commitment so the possibility of actually working a job on the side is close to impossible and the idea itself should not be immediately dismissed. However, how do you go about enacting this? Who is coming up with the $136,000 ($100wk x 16semester weeks x 85 scholarship players) it costs to provide the football players an extra stipend per semester? What about the other spots at the school or is it just college football? The women’s basketball team probably feels like they deserve an extra stipend too and there is this little issue called Title IX sitting in the corner. Football and men’s basketball are the only revenue producing sports at most universities and the revenue from these two sports fund the rest of the institutions athletic programs. Steve Spurrier suggested the coaches pay the players out of their own pockets but can the women’s softball coach who isn’t making over $2million a year really do that for her girls? The answer is no. Are high school prospects going to choose a school based on whether the university can provide them with a stipend and not how good the academic program is? How do you know Johnny Smith was cut a check for $100 this week but didn’t also get an extra $200 cash stipend that is untraceable? This is a major change that is highly susceptible to the likelihood for abuse of the system. The university is making money by selling the players’ jersey and marketing the players on billboards for season tickets. EA Sports is making money by putting the players in their video game (without their name which is later downloaded) and head coaches are receiving record contracts every year. While all of this is going on, the players have not received a bump in their benefits (tuition, room & board) however with the growing cost of a college scholarship topping over $100,000 at most state schools – there is the opportunity for these young athletes to leave college with a degree and no student loan debt. That alone means they are ahead of a curve when they graduate….After all, that is the ultimate goal, right?

2011 CFN State of the Game Topics  
- Should The Death Penalty Be On The Table? 
- What One Thing Can Stop The Cheating? | Bloggers Analysis
- How To Fix The NCAA | Bloggers Analysis
- Is There Institutional Control? | Bloggers Analysis
- The Cam Newton Situation | Bloggers Analysis
Was Stanley McClover Telling The Truth? | Bloggers Analysis
Should Players Get a Bigger Stipend? | Bloggers Analysis
- Should a one-loss SEC team play for it all? | Bloggers Analysis
- Why isn't there a playoff? | Bloggers Analysis
- The Programs About To Blow Up | Bloggers Analysis
- Does The Longhorn Network Matter? | Bloggers Analysis
- What'll Happen In Ten Years? | Bloggers Analysis
- When Should Players Turn Pro? | Bloggers Analysis
- What's Your Beef? The Biggest Complaints | Bloggers Analysis

LIMITED TIME ONLY: CLICK HERE for a Free Week of Top-Rated Selections

- Suggestions or something we missed? Let us know
- Follow us ... http://twitter.com/ColFootballNews