If that's happening, it's because they grossly mis-budgeted the money they get, unless they play for a small school that can't afford to give them any money beyond education and books.gut;1484188 wrote:But that doesn't change the fact that the scholarship athlete is still forced to walk around broke
Sorry I don't know the number...How much do scholarship athletes get for spending money to do with as they wish?lhslep134;1484193 wrote:If that's happening, it's because they grossly mis-budgeted the money they get, unless they play for a small school that can't afford to give them anything money beyond education and books.
You know, athletes can take out loans for spending money too.
I edited my post because they can't get any additional Pell Grant money if they're received full cost of attendance athletic aid.gut;1484194 wrote:Sorry I don't know the number...How much do scholarship athletes get for spending money to do with as they wish?
WTF? Half of that is illegal.Manhattan Buckeye;1484195 wrote:"But that doesn't change the fact that the scholarship athlete is still forced to walk around broke."
Doesn't happen, at my university scholarship athletes had their own gym, cafeteria and personal tutors (I was one of them). Books and lab fees were free. If they chose to live on campus it was free. If they chose to live off campus they had a stipend. They also received a stipend for travel expenses (this I can see being increased for family). They also were guaranteed good Summer jobs.
Wait a second....If they live in the dorm and eat in the school cafeteria, they would have $0 left in their pocket. No? So they would either have to game the system some way or choose a lower standard of living off-campus to generate walking around money?lhslep134;1484196 wrote: To answer your question, it depends on the school and the athlete's choices. Those that receive full COA are given money equitable to the average amount. If they choose a lifestyle well above the average amount they've mis-budgeted and won't have any spending money.
I don't care - it's irrelevant to the central issue which is having walking around money. No student taking out a loan would agree to not having or being able to earn entertainment money.lhslep134;1484199 wrote:Gut, watch OTL today: Arizona's AD is one and he'll be (or maybe he already has) talking about the full amount of money spent towards each athlete.
But what about when the kid wants to go to a movie, order a pizza, or have a beer?Manhattan Buckeye;1484198 wrote:What half, or even quarter, is illegal? Almost all major universities have their own gyms and cafeterias for athletes.
Please use reading comprehension man. You posted a quote of me saying that choosing a luxurious lifestyle will result in $0. Then you post a scenario in which an athlete lives the most basic lifestyle possible, and say they'll have $0.gut;1484201 wrote:Wait a second....If they live in the dorm and eat in the school cafeteria, they would have $0 left in their pocket. No?
I never said choosing a luxurious lifestyle results in $0 - take your own advice and learn reading comprehension. They weren't given anything for discretionary living expenses. None. The scenario you presented is finding a way to live more cheaply off campus to milk the stipend. But if they chose the on-campus option they would have nothing left over.lhslep134;1484204 wrote:Please use reading comprehension man. You posted a quote of me saying that choosing a luxurious lifestyle will result in $0. Then you post a scenario in which an athlete lives the most basic lifestyle possible, and say they'll have $0. Clearly my post and yours are not compatible.
My football player friends had no problem with any of that. You get a stipend. You don't have to spend it on laundry, or food, or whatever. You can pocket it and go to the athletic center for all of your needs. There wasn't a single football player at my University hurting for money. They had plenty of it for pizza, beer and girls. Most of them drove better cars than the rich Frat boys. And to my earlier point, they were guaranteed jobs in the Summer - this might be antiquated now, but even at the programs that didn't cheat - these guys (and girls) have money.gut;1484203 wrote:But what about when the kid wants to go to a movie, order a pizza, or have a beer?
It's not about how much the university spends on these kids, it's the fact that conditions of the scholarship and eligibility prevent them from being able to earn money to enjoy the student life as other students do.
See, I don't think that was on the up-and-up. For like the 5th time...If that were the case, there would not have been a need for the NCAA to allow for a NEED-BASED stipend of up to $2000:Manhattan Buckeye;1484209 wrote:My football player friends had no problem with any of that. You get a stipend. You don't have to spend it on laundry, or food, or whatever. You can pocket it and go to the athletic center for all of your needs. There wasn't a single football player at my University hurting for money. They had plenty of it for pizza, beer and girls. Most of them drove better cars than the rich Frat boys. And to my earlier point, they were guaranteed jobs in the Summer - this might be antiquated now, but even at the programs that didn't cheat - these guys (and girls) have money.
Are you talking about my stipend scenario or you non-stipend scenario? Because you took my scenario and created a new one with 2 options:gut;1484207 wrote:The scenario you presented is finding a way to live more cheaply off campus to milk the stipend. But if they chose the on-campus option they would have nothing left over.
YupManhattan Buckeye;1484219 wrote:
That explains quite a bit - poor budgeting.
Prior to this year, there was no legal stipends given for entertainment expenses, otherwise the NCAA would not have had to pass the rule it did. Make sense?lhslep134;1484216 wrote:Are you talking about my stipend scenario or you non-stipend scenario? Because you took my scenario and created a new one with 2 options:
1) live off campus with a stipend
2) live on campus with no stipend
That scenario that you are using doesn't exist. So thank you, but my comprehension is quite fine.
Oh Christ. Stop with your imaginary budgets and read what I posted. The NCAA agreed with me. That is why they passed the rule they did.Manhattan Buckeye;1484219 wrote:""We got $1,100 a month,” Schofield said of his time at Wisconsin. “You pay rent at $650, you pay your cell phone bill and if you have a car up there you have to pay for parking. How do you pay for your bills and groceries?""
That explains quite a bit - poor budgeting. Rent in Madison shouldn't be $650, how much is the cell phone bill? They don't need to purchase food, and if they do they get a stipend.
I can only speak from my experience....but no one at my university was starved, the football guys lived liked kings and they had jobs in the Summer. I'd be surprised how anyone would put their name to being destitute at a I-A program.
Commander of Awesome;1484161 wrote:SMH no kidding. We had a nice thread/discussion going until F4F came in.
There still are no entertainment stipends. It doesn't sound like you know the NCAA rulebook.gut;1484227 wrote:Prior to this year, there was no legal stipends given for entertainment expenses, otherwise the NCAA would not have had to pass the rule it did. Make sense?
like_that;1484171 wrote:anyway this thread isn't about pwning c4f. Let's not derail your thread S&L and get back on topic before c4f derails it again.
Another unpopular opinion of mine: Skyline sucks ass.
My mistake. It still doesn't change a single thing I said, except to make me more correct because their "full scholarships" don't cover the full cost of attendance.lhslep134;1484231 wrote:There still are no entertainment stipends. It doesn't sound like you know the NCAA rulebook.
Except they do, so you're wrong. I direct you to NCAA bylaw 15.2.4 regarding cost of attendance.gut;1484236 wrote:except to make me more correct because their "full scholarships" don't cover the full cost of attendance.