In a previous post a PG article mentioned Pitt was paying athletes $3300 which was about $2000 less tan Louisville and a grand less than PSU. This strikes me as odd because Tuition is higher at Pitt compared to those two examples and I am certain Housing costs more. I would actually think Pitt costs to attend are in the highest 10% of any Public School. I guess I just don't understand our low amount compared to these schools or FSU. Is Tallahassee that expensive?
Can someone explain why Pitt's payment to athletes is so much lower than others.
- Thread starter mdpitt
- Start date
There is a built in discrepancy in how these figures are determined because there is no universal standard to designate this total. There is some kind of basic designation for how it developed, but each university already has its own formula for coming up with it.
Until such time as the NCAA or P5 conferences establish a universal formula, I can't fathom how you won't have schools working these formula's to get a the totals they want, which will be one upping one another.
I am mostly supportive of the athletes being compensated beyond their scholarships, but boy is a BIG can of worms.
I believe it is based upon the difference of "total cost of attendance" minus the items covered in the athletic scholarship.
I read an example where someone said if one school provides a $1,000 laptop to the athlete as part of their athletic scholarship and the other school doesn't then all else being equal, the school that provides the laptop would offer $1,000 less in payment...
Sounds simple, but the lack of a clear formula makes it difficult to fully understand. Further, I think it is messed up since so many athletes with little or no money might be focused on the different money "in hand," not the real opportunities of each school.
LATE-
I read an example where someone said if one school provides a $1,000 laptop to the athlete as part of their athletic scholarship and the other school doesn't then all else being equal, the school that provides the laptop would offer $1,000 less in payment...
Sounds simple, but the lack of a clear formula makes it difficult to fully understand. Further, I think it is messed up since so many athletes with little or no money might be focused on the different money "in hand," not the real opportunities of each school.
LATE-
Just for the record, Pitt's total is actually not all that low. It's something like fourth highest in the ACC. Louisville is the highest, so yeah, we look kinda low compared to them. When compared to most others we actually look pretty good. Assuming you think that it costing a lot of money to attend a certain school is a good thing.
pitt is 4th in the ACC at 3300
it goes
Louisville $5202
FSU $3884
Clemson $3608
Pitt $3300
So Louisville is head and shoulders above the rest of the ACC and Pitt isn't that far off from being in a tie for 2nd.
it goes
Louisville $5202
FSU $3884
Clemson $3608
Pitt $3300
So Louisville is head and shoulders above the rest of the ACC and Pitt isn't that far off from being in a tie for 2nd.
This is going to be used in recruiting, without a doubt. "Go to my school because we play XXXXX more." I dont know how many kids are really going to base a 4 year decision on a couple thousand per year, but it will be part of the things they consider along with coaching staff, location, playing time, etc.
And this is only for P5 schools. A P5 school should never lose a player to G5 schools anymore since they're not paying COA. Not that that will have any great impact as there are no heavy-hitting G5 recruiting schools but it should make Florida recruiting a little bit easier for the kids that the Big 3 down there dont take because USF and UCF arent paying COA.
In the coming years, I'm sure you will see the lower paying COA schools, all of a sudden, factor in a higher COA. WVU, for example is one of the lower paying schools. Shortly, they'll be paying more. As will Pitt even though we're middle of the road. Coaches arent going to like recruiting against this.
FWIW, this incoming freshman class will also be the first student-athletes to receive the $5,000 per year payment for the use of their name, image, and likeness. A student who is on scholarship for 5 years will receive a check for $25,000 upon graduation.
And this is only for P5 schools. A P5 school should never lose a player to G5 schools anymore since they're not paying COA. Not that that will have any great impact as there are no heavy-hitting G5 recruiting schools but it should make Florida recruiting a little bit easier for the kids that the Big 3 down there dont take because USF and UCF arent paying COA.
In the coming years, I'm sure you will see the lower paying COA schools, all of a sudden, factor in a higher COA. WVU, for example is one of the lower paying schools. Shortly, they'll be paying more. As will Pitt even though we're middle of the road. Coaches arent going to like recruiting against this.
FWIW, this incoming freshman class will also be the first student-athletes to receive the $5,000 per year payment for the use of their name, image, and likeness. A student who is on scholarship for 5 years will receive a check for $25,000 upon graduation.
"FWIW, this incoming freshman class will also be the first student-athletes to receive the $5,000 per year payment for the use of their name, image, and likeness. A student who is on scholarship for 5 years will receive a check for $25,000 upon graduation."
Huh??????
Huh??????
The COA issue is much more complex that just changing a number for athletes. That number is used as the basis for a whole range of scholarships. Increasing that number by say, $2000 per year will cost a school a heck of a lot more money than simply multiplying $2000 times the number of scholarship athletes. Most schools are NOT going to inflate that number just to make football recruiting slightly easier.
The result of different schools providing different payment levels will prove similar, I suspect, to what happened to NYC in the 1960s (?) when the federal courts ruled NYC could not require a 6-month waiting period for new arrivals to receive welfare payments. Poor people from elsewhere were attracted by NYC's higher welfare payments even though they only reflected the higher NYC cost of living and generally did not actually provide higher buying power or a higher standard of living for welfare recipients than elsewhere.
Similarly the higher payment number schools will appear more attractive to the kids being recruited (especially the lower income ones) than they really are--aside from whether a particular school may be "gaming" the system or not.
