PDA

View Full Version : NCAA approves "Pay for Play" plan: Will this hurt womens hockey?



D2D
10-28-2011, 01:12 AM
NCAA hopes reforms can refocus college sports

I am very concerned about the adverse impact these new "reforms" could have on non-revenue sports, and womens hockey in particular. Athletic department budgets are already strained at most schools, and now having to fund these new outlays (in order to remain competitive in the "major" sports) will put additional strain on these budgets. I fear that if sufficient revenues cannot be raised schools will have no choice but to cut expenses, and womens hockey (especially at smaller schools) could very well suffer.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/132715018.html

WIrinkrat
10-28-2011, 01:52 AM
NCAA hopes reforms can refocus college sports

I am very concerned about the adverse impact these new "reforms" could have on non-revenue sports, and womens hockey in particular. Athletic department budgets are already strained at most schools, and now having to fund these new outlays (in order to remain competitive in the "major" sports) will put additional strain on these budgets. I fear that if sufficient revenues cannot be raised schools will have no choice but to cut expenses, and womens hockey (especially at smaller schools) could very well suffer.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/132715018.html

They don't have to fund these new outlays. They have a choice to say no. The schools that do fund them would only do so in the big money sports like football or basketball that would be able to absorb the costs, I would have to imagine. They are not going to fund it for women's hockey or tennis or swimming. Schools that choose not to fund these initiatives likely aren't competing for that super elite recruit anyway so the fact that they aren't going to give said recruit an extra $150 a month in their scholarship really isn't going to tip the scales against them IMO.

brookyone
10-28-2011, 01:56 AM
NCAA hopes reforms can refocus college sports

I am very concerned about the adverse impact these new "reforms" could have on non-revenue sports, and womens hockey in particular. Athletic department budgets are already strained at most schools, and now having to fund these new outlays (in order to remain competitive in the "major" sports) will put additional strain on these budgets. I fear that if sufficient revenues cannot be raised schools will have no choice but to cut expenses, and womens hockey (especially at smaller schools) could very well suffer.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/132715018.html
Was reading about this a couple days ago...maybe I'm misunderstanding something. I thought I read this started with some student athletes on the big revenue sports teams (football & hoops mainly) at a few big schools were ah...grumbling about getting a piece of the pie (big TV revenue) to help with tuition expenses.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7148175/ncaa-student-athletes-ask-cut-television-revenue-cover-school-costs

So I was under the impression that's where the money would come from. The thing that concerned me was whether or not student athletes on non revenue sports would also get the "stipend" as it were. Haven't read any of the articles thoroughly but haven't seen that stated specifically. I think...or hope they're planning on including all student athletes and not just the football and basketball teams.

ARM
10-28-2011, 02:06 AM
From the news reports I've seen, it is just full-scholarship athletes for a small number of sports. At $2K per athlete per year, it won't solve the abuses in those sports, where football and basketball players are susceptible to those who know they have multi-million dollar paydays in their future. Maybe the problem is that the cart has been before the horse for far too long. The education is supposed to be the main consideration, and the athletic competition is an extracurricular activity, meant to be a fun diversion. Once it evolved so that school was a necessary evil so that an athlete could play a sport, problems were bound to surface.

brookyone
10-28-2011, 09:01 AM
http://www.twincities.com/ci_19206925?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com#.Tqqj2O8oY6E.email

Too flawed as is IMO, and could be a bigger benefit to those of greater need with some simple tweaks. I'm not naive enough to believe that'll happen or is even an objective. It smacks of purely a small bonus for the blue chipper on the grid iron or the court. Many of whom would be those of the least need.

I would hope the current administration won't be including anyone signing a large $$$ pro sports contract in this tuition loan / debt forgiveness program.

ManBehindTheCurtain
10-28-2011, 09:15 AM
Anyone who hasn't yet read The Shame of College Sports (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/) in the Atlantic Monthly can now find the article on line.

WIrinkrat
10-28-2011, 11:48 AM
I don't really know what they think this is going to solve...Whether you give these guys $20 or $20,000 there is still going to be someone whispering in their ear that they can get them a little more. Instead of needing that $20 to eat at McDonalds they are gonna need $200 so they can eat at Nobu. Instead of needing money to pay for their Honda Civic it's going to pay for their Escalade.

I realize that in SOME sports schools are able to make money off these athletes...but how is that different than any other business? No matter what you do for work, someone is getting rich off you, and it's usually the grunts doing some of the hardest work that are getting the smallest piece of the pie. Not that these guys are always getting a small piece of the pie either. In some sports the players are getting more in scholarship and benefits than the actual coach is making in salary. Nevermind that it's an education they will use for the rest of their lives to make a living (and money) but for those lucky enough to go on to a professional career, it is often times the tutelage that they received over their time in college that has helped them reach that level at all. For those with enough talent to get their anyway, they have still made benefit off the coaching and practice/game time that will allow them to be more prepared to go off to the next level and be more marketable and able to command a higher salary or signing bonus.

taz91
10-28-2011, 11:57 AM
If they are going to gear this towards the big revenue sports, I foresee a Title 9 feeding frenzy. Considering the big revenue sports are men's basketball and football, there doesn't seem to be a women's sport. I have no issue with giving the athletes some money, especially at the D-1 level when they can't get part-time jobs because of schedules and the potential of violations for working for a booster. I do agree with ARM that the NCAA isn't really trying to stop what is happening. Do they really think guys like Cam Newton and Reggie Bush wouldn't take booster money if they were getting an extra 2k on top of their scholarship? I highly doubt it when they are looking at multi-million dollar paydays when they leave school.

pgb-ohio
10-28-2011, 12:54 PM
The concerns expressed thus far are legitimate, but I have a different take. IMHO, the plan gives those who honestly want to play by the rules an avenue to do so.

$2,000 per year is a reasonable amount of spending money for a student. Obviously students from middle class backgrounds and above can get that money from their parents. But if they're producing milliions of dollars of revenue for their schools, should they have to? And of course the real issue is students from poor backgrounds, who may not have an "above board" source of such funds.

In either case, the lack of spending money makes the athletes vulnerable to small temptations. Reputations and seasons are badly damaged over tattoos:( or few bills folded up inside a baseball cap.:(

I'll grant immediately that the plan does absolutely nothing to deter the family that demands 100k for Quarterbacking services. That said, I truly think that the kid who's just a few hundred bucks short of a normal student budget might stay out of trouble if they have the pocket money.

Personal experience from long ago may be coloring my view. As a Masters student, I went through school on an Assistantship. Working as a TA/RA, I made just enough $$ to cover tuition, books, on-campus housing, board plan and have a precious bit of spending money. Getting my monthly statement from the University was pretty amusing. Line 1 was my pay, then the deductions generally brought the balance down to almost zero.:o Still, it felt good to be breaking even. It would have felt pretty bad to take out a small loan to cover the occasional pizza or sweatshirt. For this reason, I've long been sympathetic to the idea that scholarships should include a small amount of spending money.

I haven't seen the exact text of the proposal, but I presume that the extra funds would have to comply with Title IX requirements. Otherwise, I believe each school would be free to spend or not spend as they deem fit. I presume that the large majority of the $$ would go to sports where the revenue, the student need and the temptations are greatest -- meaning football and hoops. It is conceivable to me that Men's Hockey at some schools would be included. If so, that might mean that Women's Hockey at those schools might catch a break and be along for the ride. So in that limited sense, the proposal might actually help Women's Hockey.

It's not a perfect plan. Will it increase the gap between the haves and havenots, including in Women's Hockey? Quite possibly so; and if so, that's a problem. But if it can cut down on the number of "minor" rules violations, maybe it's worth it.

Please understand I'm not excusing rulebreakers. Whatever the rules are, violators must accept the consequences. But so many innocent people are hurt when NCAA rules are broken. For major violations, that injury is a necessary evil, period. And I'm not naive; I understand that violations both large and small will continue to occur. But if a good chunk of the small stuff can be nipped in the bud, everyone benefits.

D2D
10-28-2011, 01:52 PM
pgb-ohio, so I guess what you're saying is $2,000/yr will pay for a lot of tatoos? ;)

(sorry, couldn't resist)

D2D
10-28-2011, 02:24 PM
Here's my prediction as it pertains to the WCHA: North Dakota will be the first school to give the stipends to their womens hockey players. Hockey is the school's No. 1 sport, and they're rather fanatical about it on the mens side (if you've ever been to the Ralph you understand this to be true). They'll find the needed funding from wealthy alumni, some of whom are getting very rich from the oil boom in the western part of the state. And when the school decides to give the money to the men, they'll have to include the women, for gender equity reasons. Meanwhile, schools like Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio State will start out with football and basketball, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them face a recruiting disadvantage when it comes to hockey, at least temporarily. Granted, $2,000 isn't much compared to the cost of tuition, room and board these days, but for a high school junior being recruited an extra $2,000 in "spending money" might sound pretty attractive.

Also, I wonder if the Ivy League schools (with no athletic scholarships) will adopt the new ruling to help their athletes?

NUProf
10-28-2011, 09:58 PM
I think decisions on these enhancements are to be made on a conference by conference basis, not at the decision of the individual school unless it is an independent. There are title IX implications. I don't know where single sport conferences fit into that part of the picture either.

pgb-ohio
10-29-2011, 01:11 AM
pgb-ohio, so I guess what you're saying is $2,000/yr will pay for a lot of tattoos? ;) Gotta admit, I remain baffled by "tattoo gate." Even with unlimited spending money, tattoos would be of no interest to me. And even if they did appeal, I certainly wouldn't trade momentos of a D-1 sports career for one.

Still, students are entitled to a few small "excesses of youth." The fact that tattoos aren't my style isn't really relevant. As long as it's lawful, students should be able to have a little bit of fun without it becoming everybody else's business. If the stipends could move things a bit in that direction, that would be a good thing, IMHO.

pgb-ohio
10-29-2011, 01:29 AM
I think decisions on these enhancements are to be made on a conference by conference basis, not at the decision of the individual school unless it is an independent. There are title IX implications. I don't know where single sport conferences fit into that part of the picture either.Certainly confereces can impose limitations beyond those required nationally. An obvious example is the fact that the ivies, as a group, don't give athletic scholarships even though they would otherwise be entitled to do so. But saying that the conferences are able to take such action falls short of saying that only the conferences have such power. No doubt someone has more authoritative information on this. If so, please post!

D2D
10-29-2011, 11:05 AM
I think decisions on these enhancements are to be made on a conference by conference basis, not at the decision of the individual school unless it is an independent. There are title IX implications.

If it does turn out to be a conference-by-conference decision, Title IX could very well introduce additional complications because many schools will be playing in different conferences for mens and womens hockey. Starting in 2013 many western mens teams will be playing in the new National Collegiate Hockey Conference - or the Big Ten Conference - but their womens' teams will remain in the WCHA. A few examples: UMD, North Dakota and St. Cloud State mens' teams will play in the NCHC; and Minnesota, Wisconsin and Ohio State will be in the Big Ten, but the womens teams for all 6 teams will remain in the WCHA. Bemidji State, on the other hand, will have both teams playing in the WCHA. So it's not too hard to see the complications if it is a conference-by-conference decision, and Title IX becomes a major consideration in determining which schools hand out the $2,000 to female hockey players.

I wonder if this has been thought through when they voted for it?

taz91
10-29-2011, 12:47 PM
I wonder if this has been thought through when they voted for it? Is this a rhetorical question? Does the NCAA ever think anything through? To go along with your thought on the new conferences, St Cloud, Minnesota State, Bemidji and UMD are also D-2 schools in all sports except hockey. I am assuming the $2000 allowence would be for D-1 only.