What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

God knows what the Ivies will do with all of this, although as non scholarship schools, I believe they have experience in performing the "end around" to support athletes.
 
LTsatch said:
I did not know Oliver IV had a son, most likely a recruit Harvard has stolen from Yale ;)
Click to expand...

I got my numbers screwed up. IV went to Harvard in the late 60's. Let's say he got remarried in the late 70's after the fling with Candace Bergan and had a kid soon after.

V would have been at Harvard around the turn of the century. That would make VI about 10-15 years away.

But he's going to Bowdoin.
 
Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

COA stipends are just not good for college hockey, IMO. Rationale copied from the Northeastern thread:

I have found myself really torn about this whole COA stipend issue. But really, this is nothing less than another power grab by Power-5 football and hoops powerhouses that let the athletic tail wag the institutional dog. Basically, it's a scam that lets them legally give their players, most of whom don't attend class, will never graduate, and have poor career prospects, some "walking around" money (something most of them have been doing under the table for years anyway). All this does is expand the D1 financial arms race beyond football and hoops to other sports. If you have boxcar-loads of money coming in from your own league TV network (hi there, B1G) and/or lucrative deals with commercial networks (hello, ND) then it's no big deal. The only certainty I see coming out of this is that the uber-rich will get richer and those that can't keep up and/or won't let athletics run the institution will become perennial bottom feeders in their respective leagues. I found it interesting that BC was the only P5 school to vote against stipends, even though they're going to pay them. At least they're smart enough to know they won't be able to keep up forever.

I've been a vocal critic since student days of Northeastern's reluctance burnish its image as a world-class university by applying the same standard of excellence to its marquee sports programs (hockey and hoops--maybe even soccer) as it does to other endeavors, and, in the process, create a proud and energized fan base of both alumni and "subway alumni," some of whom, because of pride induced by successful intercollegiate sports programs, might be more inclined to contribute to various capital campaigns going forward. But player stipends, I think, is where I have to draw the line.

For one thing, the whole concept seems to denigrate the already stupendous monetary value of a Northeastern athletic scholarship. There are kids in school now who struggle to keep up financially and otherwise successful alums out there who will be carrying a significant student debt burden around for years. And with no significant television money coming in, the cost of stipends, if we ever award them, will inevitably be paid from increases in tuition and fees that, IMO, are already obscenely high. This, in turn, is likely to drive an unhealthy wedge between mainstream students and at least some student-athletes. (It's already happening in parts of P5-land.)

So, somewhat surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with the no-stipend policy. Much as I salivate for a Beanpot and want our marquee programs to to be perennial championship contenders, I don't want that to come at the price of institutional integrity and certainly don't want to financially burden current and future undergrads any more than they are already.
 
Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

Split-N said:
COA stipends are just not good for college hockey, IMO. Rationale copied from the Northeastern thread:

I have found myself really torn about this whole COA stipend issue. But really, this is nothing less than another power grab by Power-5 football and hoops powerhouses that let the athletic tail wag the institutional dog. Basically, it's a scam that lets them legally give their players, most of whom don't attend class, will never graduate, and have poor career prospects, some "walking around" money (something most of them have been doing under the table for years anyway). All this does is expand the D1 financial arms race beyond football and hoops to other sports. If you have boxcar-loads of money coming in from your own league TV network (hi there, B1G) and/or lucrative deals with commercial networks (hello, ND) then it's no big deal. The only certainty I see coming out of this is that the uber-rich will get richer and those that can't keep up and/or won't let athletics run the institution will become perennial bottom feeders in their respective leagues. I found it interesting that BC was the only P5 school to vote against stipends, even though they're going to pay them. At least they're smart enough to know they won't be able to keep up forever.

I've been a vocal critic since student days of Northeastern's reluctance burnish its image as a world-class university by applying the same standard of excellence to its marquee sports programs (hockey and hoops--maybe even soccer) as it does to other endeavors, and, in the process, create a proud and energized fan base of both alumni and "subway alumni," some of whom, because of pride induced by successful intercollegiate sports programs, might be more inclined to contribute to various capital campaigns going forward. But player stipends, I think, is where I have to draw the line.

For one thing, the whole concept seems to denigrate the already stupendous monetary value of a Northeastern athletic scholarship. There are kids in school now who struggle to keep up financially and otherwise successful alums out there who will be carrying a significant student debt burden around for years. And with no significant television money coming in, the cost of stipends, if we ever award them, will inevitably be paid from increases in tuition and fees that, IMO, are already obscenely high. This, in turn, is likely to drive an unhealthy wedge between mainstream students and at least some student-athletes. (It's already happening in parts of P5-land.)

So, somewhat surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with the no-stipend policy. Much as I salivate for a Beanpot and want our marquee programs to to be perennial championship contenders, I don't want that to come at the price of institutional integrity and certainly don't want to financially burden current and future undergrads any more than they are already.
Click to expand...

Split-N
You have it right.
I'm not a political animal in any way shape or form, but this sounds like a plan designed by the Republican party. It rewards the "haves" while ignoring the "have nots". As I understand it, the stipends will be pro-rated so that, for example, a "student" athlete with a 50% scholarship will get a half stipend. A full scholarship athlete will get the full stipend. To my way of thinking, this plan is perfectly "bass ackwards" .

The full scholarship athlete has been rewarded with an education that would cost an average student as much as $250,000 over 4-5 years. Isn't that enough??? For 98%+ of them, this is the most they will ever earn from their sport. It's not easy to make a living as a pro swimmer, field hockey player or (real) wrestler.

Except for several major sports like FB and Basketball, rosters are filled with athletes on partial scholarships or with no meaningful aid at all. Why not reverse the pro-ration schedule and give the full stipend to the athlete who has nothing and give nothing to the athlete who already has a full ride? If someone has no scholarship, but has financial aid from his college, that aid should be accounted for as though it was a scholarship to determine his stipend. A bit of thoughtful planning will go a long way to plug potential loopholes/abuses in whatever system is adopted.

I don't want to get started on the methodology used by each school to determine the size of their stipend. When I'm older and wiser, I hope I'll understand why it costs so much to attend Tennessee and so little to attend Boston College.

I don't agree with our AD on many (almost any) things, but I'm glad that he's trying to avoid participating is this charade.
 
Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

HHound said:
The full scholarship athlete has been rewarded with an education that would cost an average student as much as $250,000 over 4-5 years. Isn't that enough???
Click to expand...

Because their earning power is substantially limited by collusion and price fixing I would argue it is likely not enough, as a free market would give many of them more.

It isn't up to us to determine what is "enough" for a lawyer, orthodontist, or janitor, they are simply allowed to ask what they want of their employer. Maybe they reach an agreement, maybe they don't, but if they don't all the other employers around the nation haven't already reached an agreement to only offer them at most the same (below market value) amount.

Why should the revenue generating individuals at our colleges be treated this way by our schools and the NCAA? Granted CoA doesn't come close to solving this larger problem, but it moves them closer to market value for their worth. If some schools want to offer them just a scholarship that is fine, but if other schools want to offer substantially more they should be allowed to, for the benefit of the athletes the system is rigged against.
 
Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

Agganis said:
Because their earning power is substantially limited by collusion and price fixing I would argue it is likely not enough, as a free market would give many of them more.

It isn't up to us to determine what is "enough" for a lawyer, orthodontist, or janitor, they are simply allowed to ask what they want of their employer. Maybe they reach an agreement, maybe they don't, but if they don't all the other employers around the nation haven't already reached an agreement to only offer them at most the same (below market value) amount.

Why should the revenue generating individuals at our colleges be treated this way by our schools and the NCAA? Granted CoA doesn't come close to solving this larger problem, but it moves them closer to market value for their worth. If some schools want to offer them just a scholarship that is fine, but if other schools want to offer substantially more they should be allowed to, for the benefit of the athletes the system is rigged against.
Click to expand...

Brilliant analysis, except for one minor thing: these are not employees. They are student-athletes. They pay (in theory) the universities to provide a service, namely educating them in their chosen fields and training them in their chosen sports. They are customers, not employees.


Powers &8^]
 
Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

Agganis said:
Why should the revenue generating individuals at our colleges be treated this way by our schools and the NCAA?
Click to expand...

can't speak for your university...but at mine and many others, there are no "revenue-generating" student-athletes, god bless 'em. not one, in any sport. their college athletic experience is heavily subsidized.
 
Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

LtPowers said:
Brilliant analysis, except for one minor thing: these are not employees. They are student-athletes. They pay (in theory) the universities to provide a service, namely educating them in their chosen fields and training them in their chosen sports. They are customers, not employees.
Click to expand...

They are not employees solely because the system is rigged against them, like I said. They meet all of the 4 legal criteria to be deemed an employee in this country (I can explain further if you want, but it's a bit dry.) but the NCAA states they are not employees because they are students, and this has yet to be successfully challenged in court, although current cases moving through the system may change this.

For your reference graduate students who receive free tuition in exchange for TAing undergraduate classes are considered employees and they, as you put it, "pay (in theory) the universities to provide a service, namely educating them in their chosen fields... They are customers, not employees." Which goes back to the fact that athletes could easily be considered employees tomorrow if the NCAA chose to change that line of their rules, but they don't want to because the schools would rather keep as much of the profits for themselves as possible.

blackswampboy said:
can't speak for your university...but at mine and many others, there are no "revenue-generating" student-athletes, god bless 'em. not one, in any sport. their college athletic experience is heavily subsidized.
Click to expand...

A couple things: I think you confused revenue with profits, and I think you are too trusting of the publicly available data as far as the profits of athletic departments. Finally, like I said I would not want to require schools to offer compensation above the value of the scholarship to athletes (just like schools now are not required to give out scholarships by the NCAA), I would just want to remove the price fixing that does not allow any school to go above the current -artificially low- compensation limit.
 
Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

Agganis said:
A couple things: I think you confused revenue with profits, and I think you are too trusting of the publicly available data as far as the profits of athletic departments. Finally, like I said I would not want to require schools to offer compensation above the value of the scholarship to athletes (just like schools now are not required to give out scholarships by the NCAA), I would just want to remove the price fixing that does not allow any school to go above the current -artificially low- compensation limit.
Click to expand...

you're right, I left out "net" (my chief concern). my son--whose athletics participation was limited to the ultimate frisbee team--also generates revenue for his uni, but he isn't entitled to an ever-increasing slice of the student general fees.
if you have reputable data on the profitability of athletic depts. @ Ohio's public universities, please direct. otherwise...this has gone down the rabbit hole.
 
Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

Agganis said:
They are not employees solely because the system is rigged against them, like I said. They meet all of the 4 legal criteria to be deemed an employee in this country (I can explain further if you want, but it's a bit dry.) but the NCAA states they are not employees because they are students, and this has yet to be successfully challenged in court, although current cases moving through the system may change this.
Click to expand...

No, no, go ahead. I'm curious if these 4 criteria extend to student-athletes paying full tuition at community colleges (or to high school athletes) as much as to Division I student-athletes with full rides.


Powers &8^]
 
Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

LtPowers said:
No, no, go ahead. I'm curious if these 4 criteria extend to student-athletes paying full tuition at community colleges (or to high school athletes) as much as to Division I student-athletes with full rides.
Click to expand...

Performing work for another person or entity (1. The sport, practices, and team activities.) under a contract of hire (2. The National Letter of Intent signed prior to enrolling) who is under that entity's control (3. The NCAA's codes of athlete conduct), in return for payment or other compensation (4. the scholarship).

So neither of the additional examples you provided above would meet all 4, but a D1 hockey player on a full ride would.

blackswampboy said:
you're right, I left out "net" (my chief concern). my son--whose athletics participation was limited to the ultimate frisbee team--also generates revenue for his uni, but he isn't entitled to an ever-increasing slice of the student general fees.
if you have reputable data on the profitability of athletic depts. @ Ohio's public universities, please direct. otherwise...this has gone down the rabbit hole.
Click to expand...

Agreed, getting into the accounting of athletic departments at the same time as additional compensation for athletes is too much going on at once, my mistake. My main point at this time would stay as: I would not want to require schools to offer compensation above the value of the scholarship to athletes, I would just want to remove the price fixing that does not allow any school to go above the current -artificially low- compensation limit.
 
Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

Agganis said:
Performing work for another person or entity (1. The sport, practices, and team activities.) under a contract of hire (2. The National Letter of Intent signed prior to enrolling) who is under that entity's control (3. The NCAA's codes of athlete conduct), in return for payment or other compensation (4. the scholarship).

So neither of the additional examples you provided above would meet all 4, but a D1 hockey player on a full ride would.
Click to expand...

But neither would a student-athlete at RIT. (No NLIs and no athletic scholarships.) Nor any walk-on at any school. Any definition that is so easily abrogated by normal variations in otherwise-equivalent scenarios is immediately suspect.


Powers &8^]
 
Re: Cost of Attendance, 2015-2016 season

LtPowers said:
But neither would a student-athlete at RIT. (No NLIs and no athletic scholarships.) Nor any walk-on at any school. Any definition that is so easily abrogated by normal variations in otherwise-equivalent scenarios is immediately suspect.


Powers &8^]
Click to expand...

So we are in agreement that the hundreds (thousands?) of college athletes on scholarship meet every criteria of being an employee, but are refused the ability to attempt to get market value, while NCAA schools generate billions of dollars in athletic revenue?

And I fail to see how similar, but different, other individuals not on scholarship is more relevant to their status as an employee than it is to any employee whose office also has unpaid interns, yet their status is not questioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top