NCAA President Calls For "Scholarships For Life"

[forgetful]

The scholarships for life model will just allow new ways for the Universities to exploit the system.  You'll have people taking flyers on students, with the idea of if it doesn't work out they just move them off athletic scholarship (which is limited in number) and onto regular scholarships, where they are no longer a part of the athletic program.

With the loss of the athletic program, they lose all access to the education resources (i.e. tutoring) that come along with athletics. 

They are then forced to transfer if they want to continue playing sports, or in some cases may not be able to complete their education due to lack of the education resources. 

This is a token gesture.  I agree with the scholarships for life idea, but they should have additional safeguards in place to assist the students.

[GGGG]

Good call.

Even so, do you think he'd return if he couldn't play basketball?

Soon?  Probably not.

But when he's 30, out of basketball, and realizing he needs a degree?  Possibly.

[mu03eng]

The scholarships for life model will just allow new ways for the Universities to exploit the system.  You'll have people taking flyers on students, with the idea of if it doesn't work out they just move them off athletic scholarship (which is limited in number) and onto regular scholarships, where they are no longer a part of the athletic program.

With the loss of the athletic program, they lose all access to the education resources (i.e. tutoring) that come along with athletics. 

They are then forced to transfer if they want to continue playing sports, or in some cases may not be able to complete their education due to lack of the education resources. 

This is a token gesture.  I agree with the scholarships for life idea, but they should have additional safeguards in place to assist the students.

Time out, what you have posited has nothing to do with actions by the university it is up to the student.  If they want to play, then transfer, no different than now.  If they want the education then earn it like every other student.  The educational resources athletes get are all about the amount of time they put into sports.  They don't have time to be a part time student let alone full time when they are in-season and that goes for all the sports not just the revenue sports.

They are getting a free education in this instance, I fail to see the malice or negativity in that type of opportunity.  If a student can't hack it as a regular student without the support services they've had a chance at more than they would have were they not an athlete.

[brandx]

Your comment is not really a rebuttal.  The point is that if labor is being taken advantage of, you can create your own company, treat them better, hire them away, and make these millions everyone is taking about.

If you are saying there is a barrier to entry, I would ask you what is the barrier to entry?  I would argue to you that it is fans aren't really there to watch the individual talent however there to support the school.  If you argue it is to watch the talent, what is stopping someone from creating a pro league that allows hiring eighteen year olds (unlike the NBA) and taking the talent away from the NCAA schools?

It was inane because you are suggesting a guy in his eighties should start this kind of a new endeavor.

As far as what is stopping someone from doing it, off the top of my head, I would say contracts that are already in place. To attract the top talent would require millions, which in turn requires attendance, which in turn requires large arenas.

Remember when Eddie Vedder tried to go out on his own to schedule concerts for Pearl Jam so he could sell cheaper tickets? Remember why it failed? Contracts with all large arenas were already in place.

[MarquetteDano]

It was inane because you are suggesting a guy in his eighties should start this kind of a new endeavor.

As far as what is stopping someone from doing it, off the top of my head, I would say contracts that are already in place. To attract the top talent would require millions, which in turn requires attendance, which in turn requires large arenas.

Remember when Eddie Vedder tried to go out on his own to schedule concerts for Pearl Jam so he could sell cheaper tickets? Remember why it failed? Contracts with all large arenas were already in place.

The NFL already had contracts in place but the USFL found a way to start a league.  That is not really a barrier to entry.

Strange that you say "attract top talent would require millions" as according to many like Bill Russell they are "slave labor" so you'd think paying these kids $50k a year would  easily lure them away from their awful conditions.

For those who frequent the board here who are economics majors know Marquette's award winning Professor Peter Toumanoff whose Econometric models say about this very topic.

[GGGG]

The NFL already had contracts in place but the USFL found a way to start a league.

That's probably not a very good example to use.

[MUMonster03]

In practice, what does this even mean?

You still only get 4 years of eligibility. So does it just mean you can go to school there for free, forever? Like a masters degree and so forth?

How many athletes will do this? Sure, some will, but probably a very small minority. Seems like more of a PR stunt than anything else.

How I have interpreted the scholarship for life is that if it gets pulled or you get injured and can't play anymore its not just "Sorry nice to know you." The kid can continue on and get their degree. I believe it is also there to protect those that get bad information, give up their eligibility, and enter the draft but then are busts or undrafted and can come back and complete their degree if they hadn't done so already.

You also have players who don't complete their degree get injured and then have nothing to show for it even if the injury problem began in college. This allows them to go back and complete their degree so they have some skills to get by on.

[forgetful]

Time out, what you have posited has nothing to do with actions by the university it is up to the student.  If they want to play, then transfer, no different than now.  If they want the education then earn it like every other student.  The educational resources athletes get are all about the amount of time they put into sports.  They don't have time to be a part time student let alone full time when they are in-season and that goes for all the sports not just the revenue sports.

They are getting a free education in this instance, I fail to see the malice or negativity in that type of opportunity.  If a student can't hack it as a regular student without the support services they've had a chance at more than they would have were they not an athlete.

I always find this argument BS.  I knew athletes, both DI football and DI basketball.  I spent about 40 hours a week in various different employment opportunities.  Worked out daily with the athletes and did fine without "the educational resources."  They had far more free-time than I and many of my peers that worked to pay for an education.  We all did fine as full-time students.

The difference is we were prepared adequately for college.  Many of the athletes have not been, nor would they make it to college without sports.  My complaint with the new scenario is it can lead to greater exploitation of players. 

When they are playing the are often told to worry about education last, "you'll get help don't worry about it".  They get limped along because of association with sports.  That puts them even further behind than when they started.  If you pull their support by removing them from the team (but still get a scholarship), it is really pulling the rug out from these kids.  They are being put in a situation where many of them cannot succeed, after being promised the educational support they need to catch up and succeed.

[russelllambertham]

Giving the basketball players "lifetime" scholarships to complete their Bachelor's is such a no-brainer, I can't believe anyone could argue against it. The only cost is room and board. And to avoid it from becoming some kind of an entitlement, I would make it tuition-only after 6 years. We owe these kids a complete education, along with all of the resources necessary for them to get their degrees. Marquette should lead the way, and begin offering this benefit now, without waiting for the stooges of the NCAA to make a move. It would be a great display of the Jesuit mission of Cura Personalis (Care for the Whole Person, for those who skipped Latin), it would be a great PR move and it would cost us almost nothing.

[Coleman]

Giving the basketball players "lifetime" scholarships to complete their Bachelor's is such a no-brainer, I can't believe anyone could argue against it. The only cost is room and board. And to avoid it from becoming some kind of an entitlement, I would make it tuition-only after 6 years. We owe these kids a complete education, along with all of the resources necessary for them to get their degrees. Marquette should lead the way, and begin offering this benefit now, without waiting for the stooges of the NCAA to make a move. It would be a great display of the Jesuit mission of Cura Personalis (Care for the Whole Person, for those who skipped Latin), it would be a great PR move and it would cost us almost nothing.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but scholarships cost more than just room and board, and its certainly not "almost nothing."

They need to be paid for. Scholarships are a massive part of our athletic budget.

[brandx]

Giving the basketball players "lifetime" scholarships to complete their Bachelor's is such a no-brainer, I can't believe anyone could argue against it.

You obviously haven't been on this board before

[russelllambertham]

You're thinking like an administrator. It's another seat in a lecture hall. It's the cost of adding another chair to a classroom. The fixed cost of the class (professor) hasn't changed.

[russelllambertham]

You obviously haven't been on this board before

Thanks for that laugh!

[GGGG]

You're thinking like an administrator. It's another seat in a lecture hall. It's the cost of adding another chair to a classroom. The fixed cost of the class (professor) hasn't changed.

I agree with your larger point, but we aren't just talking about one person here.  Arguably you could be talking about dozens...which does add to the cost more than just a little bit.

But as I said, your larger point is one I agree with.

[forgetful]

You're thinking like an administrator. It's another seat in a lecture hall. It's the cost of adding another chair to a classroom. The fixed cost of the class (professor) hasn't changed.

You're neglecting the fact that there are a certain number of students they can accommodate each year.  And if dozens of those seats go to athletes, then that leads to fewer students paying tuition.

Although it doesn't cost anything per se, it does decrease revenue by an amount about 30% less than the printed tuition.