Recruiting Advantage - Cost of Attendance

[Knucklehank1]

While I don't like this "paying" of athletes, there is no doubt that UofL's commitment to be the best with benefit us in recruiting:

Andrea Adelson, College Football



There is a reason Boston College voted against implementing cost of attendance.

You can see it pretty plainly in a report from The Chronicle of Higher Education outlining what each Power 5 conference school is prepared to offer their players now that legislation has passed to cover the full cost of scholarships.

The figures vary widely from school to school. BC athletic director Brad Bates told me in an interview several months ago those disparities could ultimately give programs offering more money a recruiting advantage.

Surprise, surprise, The Chronicle reports seven SEC programs are in the Top 20. Its analysis "included a review of institutions' financial-aid websites and cost of attendance figures that the colleges report to the federal government."

In the Atlantic Division alone, BC is being put at an even bigger disadvantage. Louisville is prepared to offer more than $5,000 to cover the full cost of attendance, the only ACC school to crack the Top 20. The next two schools on the ACC list? Florida State and Clemson, at more than $3,500 each. BC is right around $1,400, though The Chronicle notes "Elite private institutions sometimes underestimate students' personal expenses in their published cost of attendance as a way of limiting the sticker shock that can accompany their tuition bills."

The Chronicle also reports "athletics officials from several programs told The Chronicle that they have had conversations with campus admissions and financial-aid officials about raising their institutions' cost-of-attendance figures."

Another surprise there.

Schools can start paying full cost of attendance in August. While these figures are subject to change, the numbers listed for Clemson, Virginia Tech and Florida State are the same ones their respective athletic directors have used when discussing what they would pay out.

Take a look:

Louisville: $5,202

FSU: $3,884

Clemson: $3,608

Pitt: $3,300

Miami: $2,780

Virginia Tech: $2,770

Virginia: $2,564

NC State: $2,430

Wake Forest: $2,400

UNC: $2,236

Duke: $2,206

Georgia Tech: $1,720

Syracuse: $1,632

Boston College: $1,400

 

[EasyCard]

This is a ticking time bomb that threatens all athletics at the Power 5 schools.

How is it so much more to attend Louisville than BC? Travel is more expensive in Boston than Louisville for example.

A student will be paid $19,000 cash more for attending UofL than BC?

That's some serious pocket money for a college student, more like a car payment. Less than 20 years later it is now legal to pay for Samaki Walker's Honda Accord.

 

[beantowncard]

This needs to be standardized so that no school gets a recruiting advantage. Cost of attendance is less at UL than BC, that I promise you!

 

[zipp]

Based on the way business operates... If you have a financial advantage, the surest way to further improve your position is to leverage it.

If we have the money to outspend other schools, we should always vote to spend it. Has little to do with fairness, sustainability, or anything else other than prevailing in the end, beating the other guys.

U of L only should be concerned about its rapport with fellow ACC schools. But you can tell from the list that the "football schools" will side with U of L.

Jurich wants to be no. 1 at everything. That includes writing checks. And he's starting off in a good position...

 

[PushupMan]

Originally posted by EasyCard:
This is a ticking time bomb that threatens all athletics at the Power 5 schools.

How is it so much more to attend Louisville than BC?

It's not. As Adelson explained in her article, BC and other private schools (like Miami and Duke) screwed themselves in this instance by hiding the true total cost of attendance from their students. They advertise a lower number so parents don't encourage their children to go to a school with a lower cost of attendance.

I consider this a very good thing for future college students, because Power5 schools will now feel pressure from their athletics departments to publish realistic total cost of attendance estimates, instead of hiding costs in order to make their total cost of attendance be a lower number.

 

[zipp]

Originally posted by PushupMan:
...I consider this a very good thing for future college students, because Power5 schools will now feel pressure from their athletics departments to publish realistic total cost of attendance estimates, instead of hiding costs in order to make their total cost of attendance be a lower number.
The way I read this is how much schools want to pay their student-athletes. It's supposed to be grounded in actual costs, but the number is largely what you want to make it. Kinda like a non-profit reporting "profit".

And it looks like U of L wants to pay their student-athletes more money. Or the most! As far as recruiting is concerned and as long as you can afford it, it's good to be at the top of that ranking too...

 

[NoKyCard]

I'm still at a loss as to what is inckuded in COA.

Tuition is apparently not a cost of attendance, just covered by the athletic scholarship..

Books? Isn't this included in current athletic scholarships?
Lodging? See above.
Food? Aren't 3 nutritious, balanced, high protein meals per day included in current athletic scholarships?
Tutors? Aren't private tutors provided in current athletic scholarships?
Student fees? See above.
Sport supplies? Aren't uniforms, balls, bats, pool fees, courts and courses included in current athletic scholarships?
Training facilities and trainers? See above.
Medical facilities?. See above.

What is left? Vending machine snacks? Weekend entertainment expenses? Local transportation expenses? Spiffy duds? Laundry? Haircuts? Condoms?

These are nothing more than daily living expenses, that would exist whether they "attended" college or not. Why should these expenses be covered?

Flying Mom and Dad into town once or twice a year? OK, buy them a ticket and hotel room. No cash need be involved.

So exactly what "cost of attendance" expenses actually exist that are related specifically to attendance, and not just costs that would exist if the poor fellow/gal didn't "attend"?

This post was edited on 4/11 1:54 AM by NoKyCard

 

[Knucklehank1]

Originally posted by zipp:

Originally posted by PushupMan:
...I consider this a very good thing for future college students, because Power5 schools will now feel pressure from their athletics departments to publish realistic total cost of attendance estimates, instead of hiding costs in order to make their total cost of attendance be a lower number.


The way I read this is how much schools want to pay their student-athletes. It's supposed to be grounded in actual costs, but the number is largely what you want to make it. Kinda like a non-profit reporting "profit".

And it looks like U of L wants to pay their student-athletes more money. Or the most! As far as recruiting is concerned and as long as you can afford it, it's good to be at the top of that ranking too...

Kind of scary but I actually agree with old zipp. I think this is the classic case of the school deciding what they want the answer to be and then filling in the equation to reach the desired outcome. It is no coincidence that SEC schools are heavily represented in the highest COA list. Basically this is another example of UofL saying "we are here to play big boy sports".

 

[SpotHogCard]

Re: I'm still at a loss as to what is inckuded in COA.

Originally posted by NoKyCard:
Tuition is apparently not a cost of attendance, just covered by the athletic scholarship..

Books? Isn't this included in current athletic scholarships?
Lodging? See above.
Food? Aren't 3 nutritious, balanced, high protein meals per day included in current athletic scholarships?
Tutors? Aren't private tutors provided in current athletic scholarships?
Student fees? See above.
Sport supplies? Aren't uniforms, balls, bats, pool fees, courts and courses included in current athletic scholarships?
Training facilities and trainers? See above.
Medical facilities?. See above.

What is left? Vending machine snacks? Weekend entertainment expenses? Local transportation expenses? Spiffy duds? Laundry? Haircuts? Condoms?

These are nothing more than daily living expenses, that would exist whether they "attended" college or not. Why should these expenses be covered?

Flying Mom and Dad into town once or twice a year? OK, buy them a ticket and hotel room. No cash need be involved.

So exactly what "cost of attendance" expenses actually exist that are related specifically to attendance, and not just costs that would exist if the poor fellow/gal didn't "attend"?

This post was edited on 4/11 1:54 AM by NoKyCard

Totally agree with you. I have to take issue with this entire idea. What about the traditional college students? Do they get the same? If this actually happens. I do not want to ever hear crap about a STUDENT athlete again. They are payed semi-pro athletes. End of story.

 

[PushupMan]

Re: I'm still at a loss as to what is inckuded in COA.

Originally posted by NoKyCard:
Tuition is apparently not a cost of attendance, just covered by the athletic scholarship..

It is included in the total cost of attendance, but it is also covered by the athletic scholarship.

Originally posted by NoKyCard:
Books? Isn't this included in current athletic scholarships?

Yes, required textbooks are covered and included in the total cost of attendance estimate. Optional textbooks are not covered and an estimate for optional texts are sometimes included in the total cost of attendance.

Originally posted by NoKyCard:
Tutors? Aren't private tutors provided in current athletic scholarships?

The athletic department provides tutors free of charge, as the school does for regular students.

Originally posted by NoKyCard:
Food? Aren't 3 nutritious, balanced, high protein meals per day included in current athletic scholarships?

The last I had heard is that the athletic scholarship provides one buffet style meal per day. Other meal expenses must be covered by the student. Schools offer a variety of meal plans, at different costs. This year, I chose to get my son (a freshman in college, not a student-athlete) a $2700 per semester meal plan, which provides 14 meals per week in his dorm's dining hall. Next year, he wants to do something different (maybe one meal or even no meals on the meal plan).

This area, plus the money needed to buy supplies like pens, pencils, notebooks, cleaning supplies, laundry detergent, locks, etc. are where I would expect most of the out of pocket costs come in. Also, a good notebook computer with antivirus and Office software is needed by most students who want to maximize their study time by being able to work on assignments in their dorm room. My son really likes having a bicycle to get around his campus quickly, so that's another possible expense.

Originally posted by NoKyCard:
Student fees? See above.

Some fees are covered. Others, such as ... parking permits, Student ID card, Course fees (for example, art classes charge more for extra equipment), Library fines, and Graduation fees ... are not covered.

Originally posted by NoKyCard:
Sport supplies? Aren't uniforms, balls, bats, pool fees, courts and courses included in current athletic scholarships?
Training facilities and trainers? See above.
Medical facilities?. See above.

All covered, to an extent. This is somewhat off topic, but I highly recommend that you watch the HBO Real Sports Special focused on the financial aspects of being a student-athlete under the NCAA. One recent graduate (former student athlete) who was interviewed is paying $10,000 PER YEAR in out of pocket medical expenses for injuries incurred while participating in intercollegiate sports - even though he has medical insurance.

....

Finally, the cost to travel to and from school for both parents and students is not covered by the scholarship.

In most cases, parents make up the difference between what's covered by the scholarship and what's not covered. But in cases of poor parents, the student-athletes either do without (usually meals and supplies, as was described a couple of years ago by UConn guard Shabazz Napier), or the parents take out a Parent Plus loan at about 8% interest, which can cover an amount up to the school's Total Cost of Attendance minus all of the financial aid received.

The idea here is for student athletes at these Power5 schools to leave school with no debt - the parents would have no Parent Plus Loans to pay for, and the student-athletes would have no student loans to pay. I actually think this is a very good thing and long overdue.
This post was edited on 4/13 3:47 PM by PushupMan

 

[PushupMan]

Re: I'm still at a loss as to what is inckuded in COA.

Also, it's important to remember that student-athletes cannot hold part-time jobs while in school, so they don't even get the opportunity to cover any of their out-of-pocket expenses that way, like regular students can.

 

[PushupMan]

Originally posted by zipp:

Originally posted by PushupMan:
...I consider this a very good thing for future college students, because Power5 schools will now feel pressure from their athletics departments to publish realistic total cost of attendance estimates, instead of hiding costs in order to make their total cost of attendance be a lower number.


The way I read this is how much schools want to pay their student-athletes. It's supposed to be grounded in actual costs, but the number is largely what you want to make it. Kinda like a non-profit reporting "profit".

And it looks like U of L wants to pay their student-athletes more money. Or the most! As far as recruiting is concerned and as long as you can afford it, it's good to be at the top of that ranking too...

Just to be clear ... "total cost of attendance" actually comes from the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) process. It wasn't created to pay student-athletes - it was created as a way to determine how much financial aid (primarily grants and loans) a student (or his parents) would be allowed to receive to attend a particular school each year.

Total cost of attendance existed before the Power5 decided to use it as the most equitable way to provide additional money to cover the additional expenses not covered by an athletics scholarship.

 

[zipp]

Originally posted by PushupMan:
Just to be clear ... "total cost of attendance" actually comes from the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) process. It wasn't created to pay student-athletes - it was created as a way to determine how much financial aid (primarily grants and loans) a student (or his parents) would be allowed to receive to attend a particular school each year.

Total cost of attendance existed before the Power5 decided to use it as the most equitable way to provide additional money to cover the additional expenses not covered by an athletics scholarship.So, how do you explain where schools rank relative to one another on that list?

 

[NoKyCard]

Thx for details, but that is not the point.

The only thing that amounts to any significant cost that you have on your list is the two meals per day that you say are not included in the athletic scholarship. I have no direct knowledge, but I'd be surprised, even shocked, if athletes weren't provided multiple meals per day. Isn't this the origin of the term "training table"? Even if not, if the athlete can't afford to feed himself on his own, sign him up for the school meal plan. No cash need change hands.

By the way, if the athlete didn't "attend", would he still not need to feed himself? Granted, Momma's meals might be less expensive to the family than he would have to spend feeding himself away from home, but the "cost of attendance" would at most be the DIFFERENCE IN COST between meals at home and meals away from home, NOT THE TOTAL COST OF MEALS WHILE AWAY FROM HOME when "attending" college.

I might concede that a computer might be considered a cost of attendance. If so, let the school provide a laptop. Again, no cash need change hands.

Insurance? OK, I'm sure the schools could negotiate a quite reasonable group rate much better than any single athlete could get with whatever cash the school might provide in his COA allotment. So again,a better deal for all, and no cash need change hands.

"This area, plus the money needed to buy supplies like
pens, pencils, notebooks, cleaning supplies, laundry detergent, locks,
etc. are where I would expect most of the out of pocket costs come
in. Also, a good notebook computer with antivirus and Office software is
needed by most students who want to maximize their study time by being
able to work on assignments in their dorm room. My son really likes
having a bicycle to get around his campus quickly, so that's another
possible expense."

Really? Pens, pencils and notebooks? $6000 worth? And laundry? I was being facetious. Don't forget the
vending machine snacks, weekend movies, local transportation expenses (or does a bicyle cover this?), spiffy duds, haircuts, and condoms.

I already conceded travel for parents, and I'm OK with throwing in 2 round trips for the athlete. No cash involved.

 

[PushupMan]

Zipp, the difference comes from the fact that there are (currently) no rules for what must be included in the total cost of attendance besides the obvious of tuition, room and board, and textbooks. Schools can include in their total cost of attendance whatever they think is reasonable, and because of the FAFSA process, schools usually like to keep their total cost of attendance as low as possible.

In case it's not obvious, schools want to keep their total cost of attendance low because for regular students (the vast majority of people using the TCofA) the difference between the total cost of attendance and the scholarships and grants received by the student is the debt the student (and his parents) end up paying.

NoKyCard: the total cost of attendance was used in this case because it already exists. The Power5 schools didn't have to sit down and figure out what the right number of parent visits or pens, pencils, meals, etc. were. That amount should be reflected in the school's TCoA, assuming they were realistic when they calculated it in the first place. If they weren't realistic for 2014-15, it's my expectation that they will be more realistic next year.

 

[zipp]

Originally posted by PushupMan:
Zipp, the difference comes from the fact that there are (currently) no rules for what must be included in the total cost of attendance besides the obvious of tuition, room and board, and textbooks. Schools can include in their total cost of attendance whatever they think is reasonable...Yeah, I can grasp how you get from point A to B. What I'm questioning is your remark that it's based on an unrelated system that "wasn't created to pay student-athletes". And how the schools at the top of that list tend to be (1) SEC schools, (2) schools otherwise focused on football, and/or (3) schools from southern, rather low cost-of-living areas.

How do you explain that those schools have a liberal interpretation of what's included in the total cost of attendance that has nothing to do with wanting to pay student-athletes and that, presumably, has been their policy for quite awhile? Kinda strains belief, don't you think? Unless you have a good explanation...

 

[PushupMan]

The explanation is in the fact that the schools in those conferences are very popular among potential students and have comparatively low tuition, room and board, and textbook costs. Because of those factors, they can afford to be more liberal with their "incidental expenses" calculation without quoting a TCofA so high as to scare off a lot of potential students.

Louisville fits that profile pretty well, because it has one of the lowest tuition rates of any member of the Power5.

 

[SpotHogCard]

What about people on scholarships OTHER than sports? Are THEY eligible for this? There are other scholarships that do not allow you to work as well.

Non of this passes the smell test. This is pay for play plain and simple. ESPECIALLY if it is set by the school and not mandated.

 

[EasyCard]

How can UK have a TCofA of $2,284, while UofL is over $5,000?

Both are state of KY schools with tuition,housing,dining costs almost identical.

 

[Sultan__of__Swine]

Full Cost of Attendance Spells Bad News for UK Football

Lexington's low prices could hurt UK athletics
Tim Sullivan, @TimSullivan714 6:22 a.m. EDT April 14, 2015
If the University of Kentucky is to remain competitive in recruiting athletes, it may need the merchants of Lexington to raise their prices.
Otherwise, NCAA legislation that allows schools to augment their scholarship packages with a "full cost of attendance" adjustment could create a dollar-based disadvantage in attracting blue-chip prospects to Big Blue Nation.
According to a survey published last week in The Chronicle of Higher Education, the difference between what's already covered and what it actually cost to attend UK last year ($2,284) was by far the lowest figure among Southeastern Conference schools. And while that's welcome news for your average impoverished student, it could be worrisome for coaches obliged to compete for talent with schools able to award larger stipends.
Kentucky athletics spokesman Tony Neely said Monday that the school's most recent calculations would have provided $3,278 in additional aid for in-state athletes on full scholarship in 2014-15; $3,606 for out-of-state athletes -- substantially more than the Chronicle's calculations. Even at that, though, UK's pot-sweetening potential is far outdistanced in the SEC by Tennessee ($5,666) and Auburn ($5,586) and within the state by rival Louisville ($5,202).
Though these numbers are sure to fluctuate before schools can start cutting checks in August, it's hard to keep up with the Joneses when they are in a position to put more cash in a prospect's pocket.
"For anybody to think this won't be a factor in the (recruiting) process next year is being really naïve," Penn State coach James Franklin told USA Today.
It might not make much difference for John Calipari, for Kentucky's basketball brand resonates nationally, but the discrepancy in dollars is bound to create concerns in other programs. Oscar Combs, founder of the UK-centric 'Cats Pause publication, described it Monday as "just a bigger dagger in Kentucky's football heart."

At Louisville, meanwhile, the dagger is pointed at opponents. At $5,202, U of L's cost-of-living adjustment is the highest in the Atlantic Coast Conference and more than twice that of nine league members.
When the NCAA's power conferences gained widespread autonomy in their financial affairs last summer, high priority was assigned to providing additional benefits to athletes. As the highest-revenue programs began conducting business free of the constraints often imposed by the low-budget majority, they showed sensitivity to the perception that they were exploiting labor to enrich management.
Yet in rerouting revenue from ever-more lavish facilities to athletes' bank accounts, a new class system has emerged. Traditional football powers such as Alabama, Ohio State and Southern California have fallen behind conference rivals at the financial aid office, where the "full cost of attendance" is calculated on each campus based on a federal formula.
Though it's easy to imagine Nick Saban and Urban Meyer fuming about getting out-spent for a prize recruit, it's tough to see schools changing calculations they must submit to the federal government simply to mollify some football coaches. Though financial aid officers have some latitude to adjust students' cost of attendance on a case-by-case basis, any variance from the norm must be documented for the U.S. Department of Education.
Hard to see a lot of that happening. Harder to see how the size of stipends won't have a big bearing on recruiting. On that score, it's probably worth noting that Boston College, the only Power 5 conference school to oppose the cost-of-attendance stipend, showed the smallest gap in the Chronicle's survey: $1,400.
Clearly, stipends are not the only consideration in choosing a college. Listed alphabetically, an athlete's critical factors might include academics, career opportunities, coaches, facilities, food, geography and girls.
Still, all other things being equal, there's a lot to be said for cash. And there will be a lot more said about it once the money starts changing hands.
Tim Sullivan can be reached at (502) 582-4650, tsullivan@courier-journal.com or @TimSullivan714.

School, Old Scholarship/New Scholarship (Difference)
ACC
Boston College, $61,622/$63,022 ($1,400)
Clemson, $23,304/$29,164 ($3,608)
Duke, $61,793/$63,999 ($2,206)
Florida State, $17,800/$21,684 ($3,884)
Georgia Tech, $23,028/$24,748 ($1,720)
Louisville, $19,142/$24,344 ($5,202)
Miami, $59,162/$61,942 ($2,780)
North Carolina, $21,884/$24,120 ($2,236)
North Carolina State, $19,938/$22,368 ($2,430)
Notre Dame, $62,825/$64,775 ($1,950)
Pittsburgh, $29,024/$32,324 ($3,300)
Syracuse, $59,610/$61,242 ($1,632)
Virginia, $24,528/$27,092 ($2,564)
Virginia Tech, $20,960/$23,730 ($2,770)
Wake Forest, $62,140/$64,540 ($2,400)

SEC
Alabama, $24,542/$27,434 ($2,892)
Arkansas, $19,064/$23,066 ($4,002)
Auburn, $23,578/$29,164 ($5,586)
Florida, $17,230/$20,550 ($3,320)
Georgia, $20,082/$22,680 ($2,598)
Kentucky, $21,464/$23,748 ($2,284)
LSU, $24,192/$27,288 ($3,096)
Mississippi, $18,204/$22,704 ($4,500)
Mississippi State, $17,294/$22,420 ($5,126)
Missouri, $21,040/$24,704 ($3,664)
South Carolina, $21,414/$25,565 ($4,151)
Texas A&M, $19,764/$22,470 ($2,706)
Tennessee, $23,710/$29,376 ($5,666)
Vanderbilt, $61,470/$64,250 ($2,780)
Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/tim-sullivan/2015/04/13/cost-attendance-prove-costly-uk/25748011/

 

[ajgcardman]

Originally posted by EasyCard:
How can UK have a TCofA of $2,284, while UofL is over $5,000?

Both are state of KY schools with tuition,housing,dining costs almost identical.

Because at UofL, everybody gets a Pony allowance. CD is just too damn close to campus.

 

[NoKyCard]

Keeneland anyone?

.

 

[Sultan__of__Swine]

Re: Keeneland anyone?

This was my favorite line of the Tim Sullivan story above:


Oscar Combs, founder of the UK-centric 'Cats Pause publication, described it Monday as "just a bigger dagger in Kentucky's football heart."[/B]

 

[zipp]

Originally posted by EasyCard:
How can UK have a TCofA of $2,284, while UofL is over $5,000?
Both are state of KY schools with tuition,housing,dining costs almost identical.I'm not a firm believer in coincidences, and I think there's more to the numbers than meets the eye. From high to low in the ACC, here's how the conference teams rank...

Louisville
Florida State
Clemson
Pitt
Miami
Virginia Tech
Virginia
NC State
Wake Forest
UNC
Duke
Notre Dame
Georgia Tech
Syracuse
Boston College

By my estimates, the total ante for U of L is around $3.5 million annually. That's a lot of money each year for schools not breaking even on their athletics.

IMO, the schools paying the most are not coincidentally placing a high emphasis on football AND feel they need to keep up with the top payers. And they can afford it. No question the top three on that list meet those criteria. A school like Notre Dame probably doesn't feel they need to pay the money to attract top-flight talent. Nor do the bluest of the football blue bloods like USC, Michigan, and Ohio State.

Other schools like LPT and Duke feel the same way about their basketball programs and don't wanna give much more than lip service to football. For still others like Boston College, it's probably just a question of affordability. It's going to end up being an arms race, and they don't have that much extra money each year.

On that last point, look for these payouts at the top to increase far faster than the rate of inflation, even academic inflation. If I'm right, schools like U of L and Auburn will be racing each year to remain at the top. And as fans, our costs will increase proportionately. I think very little of this has to do with actual costs from school to school, and everything to do with a desire to win...

 

[PushupMan]

Originally posted by SpotHogCard:
What about people on scholarships OTHER than sports? Are THEY eligible for this? There are other scholarships that do not allow you to work as well.

There is no doubt that a few rare students (not student athletes) are so sought after by multiple schools that at least one of the schools trying to recruit them will agree to pay all of their expenses. So the answer to your question in that respect is "yes" - super-elite students can be given a deal that is comparable to what the Power5 has agreed to do for student athletes.

Originally posted by SpotHogCard:
Non of this passes the smell test. This is pay for play plain and simple. ESPECIALLY if it is set by the school and not mandated.

This policy is mandated by the Power5 schools. Like all things that are new, there will be an evaluation period where the members of the Power5 decide what worked well and what didn't. One of the things that I expect they will decide doesn't work well is the differing amounts each school will give using this formula. I expect that will be fixed by the schools in very short order.

 

[zipp]

Originally posted by PushupMan:
...One of the things that I expect they will decide doesn't work well is the differing amounts each school will give using this formula. I expect that will be fixed by the schools in very short order.
Not too sure about that. That smells like price fixing of a sort, where the person harmed is the student-athlete...not a really good punching bag at this point in time.

Irrespective of the "professionalization" issue, students being reimbursed different amounts of money will have the appearance of a free market setting the price. Won't sit well with the schools at the bottom of that payer list, but no one else is gonna be unhappy esp. not the students...

 

[Cardinals4Ever]

Awesome. Now if you want a new big screen tv for the dorm, with an xbox one, ps4, gaming pc, beats headphones, it's going to be bought and paid for by the University. Cell phone bill to the University. Late night Crab legs party on the University. Brand New tattoos, On the University. New Car (rental/loaner) or a flight to Vegas for the weekend, since transportation is provided, On the University. A trip to the 2 Chainz concert, on the University. 2 Fat Gold Chains and a Rolex Watch, on the University.

Misc. Charges is a big loop hole to buy these kids whatever their hearts desire. Everything is bought and paid for by the University, The best years of their Lives truly now will be Their College Years. Sky is the limit.

No more selling Memorabilia, drugs, and stealing. Our kids are going to be rich before they ever make the pros.








This post was edited on 4/15 8:41 PM by Cardinals4Ever

 

[PushupMan]

Originally posted by Cardinals4Ever:
Awesome. Now if you want a new big screen tv for the dorm, with an xbox one, ps4, gaming pc, beats headphones, it's going to be bought and paid for by the University. Cell phone bill to the University. Late night Crab legs party on the University. Brand New tattoos, On the University. New Car (rental/loaner) or a flight to Vegas for the weekend, since transportation is provided, On the University. A trip to the 2 Chainz concert, on the University. 2 Fat Gold Chains and a Rolex Watch, on the University.

Misc. Charges is a big loop hole to buy these kids whatever their hearts desire. Everything is bought and paid for by the University, The best years of their Lives truly now will be Their College Years. Sky is the limit.

No more selling Memorabilia, drugs, and stealing. Our kids are going to be rich before they ever make the pros.

Not sure where you're getting some of this from. Yes, the student-athlete could choose to spend his $5K per year on just about anything, including a big screen tv, an xbox one, ps4, gaming pc, beats head phones, crab legs, a cell phone, tattoos, a new car, a flight to vegas, concert tickets, ... etc.

But none of those bills are going to be sent to the University. At the start of the semester, UofL is going to cut each student athlete a check for $2.5K (or maybe a smaller portion once per month or once every two weeks). It's up to the student athlete to spend their money on the stuff it's actually intended for - food, clothing, and school supplies.