Interesting article on PSU's stipend for athletes

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

No....relax. This isn't another one of those Penn State hating zealot posts that too often cloud up this board. But something relevant showing the disparity of the "cost of attendance": stipends that has been agreed upon by P5 conferences. And the disparity within conferences, and not just with the traditional haves and have nots. PSU is paying kids significantly more than foes OSU, Michigan and Michigan State.

No doubt orchestrated by Franklin I am guessing as another recruiting advantage. I can't imagine this sitting well in Columbus or Ann Arbor.

PSU will pay almost $3000 more per player than OSU

 

[Pitt-Chains]

p$u

 

[wbrpanther]

I commented on this the other day. Do you think this may have played into the late flips by Bowers and Givens? I do. Nothing illegal but the final push could have been Franklin saying " we can give you a far bigger stipend than Pitt can".

No question in my mind these kids should get these stipends but the NCAA absolutely has to make them equal.

 

[Pitt-Chains]

The field has to be level.... This will have an upward spiral...

 

[PittMan 72]

Originally posted by Pitt-Chains:
The field has to be level.... This will have an upward spiral...

So a program can't (legally per the rules) give a recruit a meal or a ride (unless it's on an OV) or have a booster talk to him to give him advice; but a program can now offer that same recruit thousands more in CA$H. They just have to label that particular enticement a payment for "full cost of attendance".

That sure makes a lot of sense, doesn't it

 

[Taft's Baby Hook]

Does anyone know how much ours is?

 

[NTOP]

Don't forget....Pitt & psu are the most expensive public schools

in the country (In-state tuition). Could that impact Pitt's amount?? And they fund more scholies than we do.

 

[LeftCoastPanther]

This better end up where no one school can offer more than others. It needs to be split equally. Not sure if this still needs to be voted on or not.

Everything seems to favor the bigger schools. We can't even change the clock rules to make it a more level playing field. Meyer gets the best players to tOSU and is allowed to run more plays due to the damn clock stopping after every first down. His goal of wanting to run 85 plays a game would never happen if college mirrored how the pro refs are always swinging that arm to keep the clock moving.

 

[spud358]

Originally posted by recruitsreadtheseboards:



No doubt orchestrated by Franklin I am guessing as another recruiting advantage.

PSU's COA was at very similar levels well before Franklin even interviewed for the job.... It has been over $4,000 since since at least 2012.

 

[spud358]

Originally posted by Taft's Baby Hook:
Does anyone know how much ours is?

Pitt's is pretty high too. I think $3,300, which would be 4th in the Bigten.

 

[Taft's Baby Hook]

Thanks, Spud.

 

[PITTLAW]

Reply

I presume there must be some verifiable formula for how it is calculated? If not, this will be ripe for abuse. Does not surprise me there is trouble brewing already...paying college athletes money is just not going to be a good thing for the sport. Hail to Pitt!

 

[spud358]

Originally posted by LeftCoastPanther:


This better end up where no one school can offer more than others. It needs to be split equally. Not sure if this still needs to be voted on or not.

Everything seems to favor the bigger schools. We can't even change the clock rules to make it a more level playing field. Meyer gets the best players to tOSU and is allowed to run more plays due to the damn clock stopping after every first down. His goal of wanting to run 85 plays a game would never happen if college mirrored how the pro refs are always swinging that arm to keep the clock moving.

The problem is that it does cost different amounts to attend different schools. You could actually argue that prior to this, schools like PSU and Pitt with higher cost of attendance were at a disadvantage because students on full scholarships had to pay COA out of pocket. This actually levels the playing field.... The difference is that it's a coming in the form of a cash payout, but at the end of the day, students at PSU and Pitt were paying that anyway compared to a school like MSU that is less than $1,900.

Basically, Pitt students on average have $1,400 more in costs per year than MSU students. All this does is even that out for athletes on full scholarship.

 

[spud358]

Re: Reply

Originally posted by PITTLAW:
I presume there must be some verifiable formula for how it is calculated? If not, this will be ripe for abuse. Does not surprise me there is trouble brewing already...paying college athletes money is just not going to be a good thing for the sport. Hail to Pitt!

Yes and no. There are some guidelines the feds have in place, but universities are responsible for reporting their own numbers. Thus, there is some flexibility in how the "additional costs" are calculated. I'm suspect par tot the reason PSU's is higher is because of the location. There is no major airport within 3 hours and the average PSU student travels pretty far. However, the thing to remember here is that this is a very important number for a university, especially admissions. It's closely connected with financial aid and for many potential applicants, it's a major consideration in choosing a college. There is no doubt that coaches and athletic department personnel are going to lobby for an increase in this number, but an increase has wide implications for a university. I suspect you won't see it get out of control for that reason.

As for paying athletes, this isn't really paying them. It's just a change to the language in the scholarship to include a cost that was previously excluded. It's a real cost that until now, even full-scholarship athletes were paying out of pocket. People won't see it that way and will see it as payment with added advantage. As pointed out above though, it's actually more of a CORRECTION than an added advantage. For example, an athlete choosing MSU over Pitt would save $1,400/year in expenses and now they won't.



This post was edited on 3/3 1:02 PM by spud358

 

[Beezzz]

Re: Reply

Originally posted by PITTLAW:
I presume there must be some verifiable formula for how it is calculated? If not, this will be ripe for abuse. Does not surprise me there is trouble brewing already...paying college athletes money is just not going to be a good thing for the sport. Hail to Pitt!

Agreed.

 

[PittMan 72]

Re: Reply

Originally posted by PITTLAW:
I presume there must be some verifiable formula for how it is calculated? If not, this will be ripe for abuse. Does not surprise me there is trouble brewing already...paying college athletes money is just not going to be a good thing for the sport. Hail to Pitt!

The concerning part is this excerpt from the article linked in the OP (if the author that wrote it is in fact accurate):

"The interesting part is, this estimated expenses figure, set by university budget offices and financial aid departments, has varied widely in the past from school to school. It's always been a somewhat arbitrary amount."

So if this is the case, and schools are allowed to make changes as they see fit and game the C.O.A. amount for their own purposes and in the best interests of their FB and BB coaches, then "ripe for abuse" may be a gross understatement.

Think some uniformity and parameters need to be established very soon. Or this could easily become a real mess.

 

[The Loaded Italian]

Giving any kind of stipend is absolute wrong.

Giving a stipend for other reasons, such as poverty, or something along those lines, fine. Not for playing a sport.

 

[OH Pete]

Help me understand why living at PSU more costly than Ann Arbor or Chicago?

Can someone explain how this works? I can't understand how after paying for tuition, books, & room and board that it could possibly be more than twice as expensive to live in State College than it would to live in Chicago or Lansing. Shouldn't cost of living play into all of this, i.e. take the average cost of the things that aren't covered by the scholarship and base the stipend on that?. I'm not too savvy on this, but doesn't the government publish Cost of Living factors for various areas of the US? Seems like a much fairer way to do things.
This post was edited on 3/3 1:57 PM by OH Pete

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Originally posted by LeftCoastPanther:



This better end up where no one school can offer more than others. It needs to be split equally. Not sure if this still needs to be voted on or not.

Everything seems to favor the bigger schools. We can't even change the clock rules to make it a more level playing field. Meyer gets the best players to tOSU and is allowed to run more plays due to the damn clock stopping after every first down. His goal of wanting to run 85 plays a game would never happen if college mirrored how the pro refs are always swinging that arm to keep the clock moving.

What sport have you been following the past, oh....I dunno, 50 years. When teams try to join the elite, think Pitt, Miami, SMU, Colorado amongst others, they have done so in maybe dubious ways. They play the game, and then they get busted on.

It has always been like that, it is more unfair than MLB.

Still....I don't think anyone would argue that PSU is a bigger football school than Ohio State or Michigan. But yet, they have managed to double their stipend giving athletes up to $3000 more pocket change than these two. Not Indiana, not Northwestern, but tO$U and Michigan.

Let the arms race begin now.

This train is out of the barn and it can't be put back without the exception of ONE WAY. And that is a nuclear option.

 

[wbrpanther]

I believe the stipend was put into effect because the NCAA adopted rules against Athletes on scholarship having jobs to supplement their scholarships. They had to do this because schools giving phantom jobs to kids was rampant in the 60s and 70s. It was common for big ticket donors to supply no show jobs to football and basketball players for pretty big bucks.

 

[wbrpanther]

Someone needs to explain to me why the differences in stipends should be so great. Cost of a full scholarship? then explain why Northwestern costs twice as much as Ped State but their stipend would be half of Ped State's. Actual living expenses? Really? Things cost twice as much in State College as in Evanston Illinois? Pizzas are 25 bucks in Happy Valley? No?

The power 5 has to standardize the upper limit of these stipends much closer to the actual averages listed now. An article I read said the upper limit right now is 4,800 dollars. Ped State's estimate comes in at 4,788 dollers, a mere 12 dollars shy of the upper limit. So it is obvious that their athletic department makes way way way more money than most of the rest of them. This is the same athletic department that said it couldn't afford to play Pitt away every other year because they had to fund all their sports, remember? tOSU and Michigan can and will raise their figures if they have too because of the enormous crowds they get 7 or 8 times a year.

I can't help but believe some reform will be made by the Power 5 teams to take away what is an obvious recruiting advantage.2 to 3 hundred dollars a month extra walking around cash is a pretty big difference to a kid that doesn't have a lot to start with.

 

[Pitt-Chains]

Spud, I'm not so sure.. I think it is in $2XXX, not certain... Read something on PITT forum..

 

[spud358]

Re: Help me understand why living at PSU more costly than Ann Arbor or Chicago?

Originally posted by OH Pete:
Can someone explain how this works? I can't understand how after paying for tuition, books, & room and board that it could possibly be more than twice as expensive to live in State College than it would to live in Chicago or Lansing. Shouldn't cost of living play into all of this, i.e. take the average cost of the things that aren't covered by the scholarship and base the stipend on that?. I'm not too savvy on this, but doesn't the government publish Cost of Living factors for various areas of the US? Seems like a much fairer way to do things.
This post was edited on 3/3 1:57 PM by OH Pete

The issue here is that it's not just about cost of living in a specific area. COA covers 4 main areas: 1.tuition and fees, 2.room and board, 3.books/class materials, and 4."transportation / personal". Full athletic scholarships cover the first 3, but always excluded the last one until now. The majority of cost of living comes in the form of room and board, so that has already been big difference between how much a scholarship might be worth between schools. Thus, cost of living isn't a huge factor for #4.

Ultimately, the question asked, per the federal definition of COA, is what is the TRUE average cost of attendance for a given university is for one year. Cost of living factors are one piece of that and are already largely factored in through the room and board piece. Using ONLY a cost of living measure would be a bad metric.

It's actually a major advantage for universities to have a low COA. When students are considering where to apply and where to attend, this is something they (and especially parents) look at very closely because it's the TRUE out of pocket expense. It seems obvious that schools will race to increase #4 because of football and basketball recruiting, but I'm not so sure. This is not a number you can just change on a whim without major university wide implications. I'm sure every coach will be advocating for an increase, but the administrators will be faced with asking if a small potential advantage in recruiting is worth all the implications associated with doubling or tripling they COA data. Frankly, that would be highly unethical to do so....

 

[spud358]

Originally posted by Pitt-Chains:
Spud, I'm not so sure.. I think it is in $2XXX, not certain... Read something on PITT forum..

$3,122 is what the Pitt Net price calculator shows (Actual Pitt website).

collegedata.com shows $3,222. I'd trust the actual Pitt site over them though. considering they are off by exactly $100, I'm guessing the college data is a typo.


This post was edited on 3/3 2:35 PM by spud358

This post was edited on 3/3 2:37 PM by spud358

 

[NTOP]

"The average psu student travels far"??? No major airport within 3 hours?

Kids don't generally fly to.from school. Sappy Valley is 3 hours to Philly, a bit less to Pgh, maybe closer to BWI??
It's the cult gaming the system. Who says psu is more expensive than MSU??

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Can somebody explain how a student-athlete living in State College, PA needs 60% more money for "incidental living expenses" than a student-athlete living in East Lansing, Michigan? Loosely, translated, that's basically like saying State College's cost of living is 60% higher than East Lansing's. That is freaking crazy. PSU is using some funky math there.

 

[spud358]

Originally posted by Sean Miller Fan:

Can somebody explain how a student-athlete living in State College, PA needs 60% more money for "incidental living expenses" than a student-athlete living in East Lansing, Michigan? Loosely, translated, that's basically like saying State College's cost of living is 60% higher than East Lansing's. That is freaking crazy. PSU is using some funky math there.

Keep in mind that PSU's COA has been high for years.... well before the NCAA even hinted at using it as a metric for additional scholarship money. In fact, it's beneficial for a university to have as low of a COA as possible because they don't want to appear as too expensive and lose out on quality applicants. You can question the math of some of these higher schools, but there is absolutely no denying that it has NOTHING to do with gaining an advantage with regard to this potential change to athletic scholarships.

If anything, I suspect other schools like MSU, have been keeping their COA figure as low as possible because that is beneficial. It's actually even more likely that schools like MSU are the ones who have been using "funky math" to keep it low because low was better.

This post was edited on 3/3 3:37 PM by spud358

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Originally posted by spud358:

Originally posted by Sean Miller Fan:

Can somebody explain how a student-athlete living in State College, PA needs 60% more money for "incidental living expenses" than a student-athlete living in East Lansing, Michigan? Loosely, translated, that's basically like saying State College's cost of living is 60% higher than East Lansing's. That is freaking crazy. PSU is using some funky math there.

Keep in mind that PSU's COA has been high for years.... well before the NCAA even hinted at using it as a metric for additional scholarship money. In fact, it's beneficial for a university to have as low of a COA as possible because they don't want to appear as too expensive and lose out on quality applicants. You can question the math of some of these higher schools, but there is absolutely no denying that it has NOTHING to do with gaining an advantage with regard to this potential change to athletic scholarships.

If anything, I suspect other schools like MSU, have been keeping their COA figure as low as possible because that is beneficial. It's actually even more likely that schools like MSU are the ones who have been using "funky math" to keep it low because low was better.


This post was edited on 3/3 3:37 PM by spud358

How do you explain the huge disparity? Why is it advantageous for Michigan State to calculate a low cost of attendance? Are they afraid they will lose English majors to Penn State because Penn State if they don't tell them how expensive it is to live in the State College area?

 

[raleighpanther]

To think that the NFL and the NBA have salary caps, but that the P5 schools will move forward without one, is insane. I'm stunned that this hasn't happened yet.

 

[pittdan77]

State College is a lot of things but it certainly is not a cheap place to live.

 

[spud358]

Originally posted by Sean Miller Fan:

Originally posted by spud358:

Originally posted by Sean Miller Fan:

Can somebody explain how a student-athlete living in State College, PA needs 60% more money for "incidental living expenses" than a student-athlete living in East Lansing, Michigan? Loosely, translated, that's basically like saying State College's cost of living is 60% higher than East Lansing's. That is freaking crazy. PSU is using some funky math there.

Keep in mind that PSU's COA has been high for years.... well before the NCAA even hinted at using it as a metric for additional scholarship money. In fact, it's beneficial for a university to have as low of a COA as possible because they don't want to appear as too expensive and lose out on quality applicants. You can question the math of some of these higher schools, but there is absolutely no denying that it has NOTHING to do with gaining an advantage with regard to this potential change to athletic scholarships.

If anything, I suspect other schools like MSU, have been keeping their COA figure as low as possible because that is beneficial. It's actually even more likely that schools like MSU are the ones who have been using "funky math" to keep it low because low was better.


This post was edited on 3/3 3:37 PM by spud358

How do you explain the huge disparity? Why is it advantageous for Michigan State to calculate a low cost of attendance? Are they afraid they will lose English majors to Penn State because Penn State if they don't tell them how expensive it is to live in the State College area?

How is it NOT advantageous for a school to be as cheap as possible? Most people factor in the cost of something went considering a purchase (in this case, an education). I'm a little confused as to why that even needs to be explained.... Your 3rd sentence isn't really a sentence that makes any sense, so maybe I'm missing your point. At the end of the day, a college education is MAJOR purchase and like any purchase consumers will consider the price.

State college is actually quite expensive. It's rural, but that works against students in this aspect because housing is limited and housing close to campus fetches a real premium. In fact, many student apartments in state college rival or exceed those in in cities like Chicago. People don't realize that. Another factor is travel expenses. PSU is quite rural so the average student's travel expenses are going to be higher compared to many schools. Another big piece of this puzzle that can vary greatly from school to school is health insurance costs. There are a bunch of other factors that schools consider, but not all may be calculated exactly the same.

The point here is that while people really want to look at these numbers in the context of athlete stipends, these are numbers that have been available WELL before this was even being talked about. And historically, this is a number that schools tried to keep as low as possible, not inflate.

 

[Pitt-Chains]

Thanks spud.

 

[curt941]

How long till the cost of attendance at Alabama is like $150k a year? Just let the boosters funnel money into the athletic department legally instead of through handshakes and bag men.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Originally posted by spud358:

Originally posted by Sean Miller Fan:

Originally posted by spud358:

Originally posted by Sean Miller Fan:

Can somebody explain how a student-athlete living in State College, PA needs 60% more money for "incidental living expenses" than a student-athlete living in East Lansing, Michigan? Loosely, translated, that's basically like saying State College's cost of living is 60% higher than East Lansing's. That is freaking crazy. PSU is using some funky math there.

Keep in mind that PSU's COA has been high for years.... well before the NCAA even hinted at using it as a metric for additional scholarship money. In fact, it's beneficial for a university to have as low of a COA as possible because they don't want to appear as too expensive and lose out on quality applicants. You can question the math of some of these higher schools, but there is absolutely no denying that it has NOTHING to do with gaining an advantage with regard to this potential change to athletic scholarships.

If anything, I suspect other schools like MSU, have been keeping their COA figure as low as possible because that is beneficial. It's actually even more likely that schools like MSU are the ones who have been using "funky math" to keep it low because low was better.



This post was edited on 3/3 3:37 PM by spud358

How do you explain the huge disparity? Why is it advantageous for Michigan State to calculate a low cost of attendance? Are they afraid they will lose English majors to Penn State because Penn State if they don't tell them how expensive it is to live in the State College area?

How is it NOT advantageous for a school to be as cheap as possible? Most people factor in the cost of something went considering a purchase (in this case, an education). I'm a little confused as to why that even needs to be explained.... Your 3rd sentence isn't really a sentence that makes any sense, so maybe I'm missing your point. At the end of the day, a college education is MAJOR purchase and like any purchase consumers will consider the price.

State college is actually quite expensive. It's rural, but that works against students in this aspect because housing is limited and housing close to campus fetches a real premium. In fact, many student apartments in state college rival or exceed those in in cities like Chicago. People don't realize that. Another factor is travel expenses. PSU is quite rural so the average student's travel expenses are going to be higher compared to many schools. Another big piece of this puzzle that can vary greatly from school to school is health insurance costs. There are a bunch of other factors that schools consider, but not all may be calculated exactly the same.

The point here is that while people really want to look at these numbers in the context of athlete stipends, these are numbers that have been available WELL before this was even being talked about. And historically, this is a number that schools tried to keep as low as possible, not inflate.

Cost of attendance is really just cost of living. Its things that aren't included in room and board and aren't covered by a scholarship (toothbrush, soap, a winter jacket, snow boots, transportation to campus, taking a date to the movies, etc).

I'm telling you there is no way it costs 60% more to live in State College than East Lansing, Michigan. I'm positive of that.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Originally posted by Sean Miller Fan:

Originally posted by spud358:

Originally posted by Sean Miller Fan:

Originally posted by spud358:

Originally posted by Sean Miller Fan:

Can somebody explain how a student-athlete living in State College, PA needs 60% more money for "incidental living expenses" than a student-athlete living in East Lansing, Michigan? Loosely, translated, that's basically like saying State College's cost of living is 60% higher than East Lansing's. That is freaking crazy. PSU is using some funky math there.

Keep in mind that PSU's COA has been high for years.... well before the NCAA even hinted at using it as a metric for additional scholarship money. In fact, it's beneficial for a university to have as low of a COA as possible because they don't want to appear as too expensive and lose out on quality applicants. You can question the math of some of these higher schools, but there is absolutely no denying that it has NOTHING to do with gaining an advantage with regard to this potential change to athletic scholarships.

If anything, I suspect other schools like MSU, have been keeping their COA figure as low as possible because that is beneficial. It's actually even more likely that schools like MSU are the ones who have been using "funky math" to keep it low because low was better.




This post was edited on 3/3 3:37 PM by spud358

How do you explain the huge disparity? Why is it advantageous for Michigan State to calculate a low cost of attendance? Are they afraid they will lose English majors to Penn State because Penn State if they don't tell them how expensive it is to live in the State College area?

How is it NOT advantageous for a school to be as cheap as possible? Most people factor in the cost of something went considering a purchase (in this case, an education). I'm a little confused as to why that even needs to be explained.... Your 3rd sentence isn't really a sentence that makes any sense, so maybe I'm missing your point. At the end of the day, a college education is MAJOR purchase and like any purchase consumers will consider the price.

State college is actually quite expensive. It's rural, but that works against students in this aspect because housing is limited and housing close to campus fetches a real premium. In fact, many student apartments in state college rival or exceed those in in cities like Chicago. People don't realize that. Another factor is travel expenses. PSU is quite rural so the average student's travel expenses are going to be higher compared to many schools. Another big piece of this puzzle that can vary greatly from school to school is health insurance costs. There are a bunch of other factors that schools consider, but not all may be calculated exactly the same.

The point here is that while people really want to look at these numbers in the context of athlete stipends, these are numbers that have been available WELL before this was even being talked about. And historically, this is a number that schools tried to keep as low as possible, not inflate.

Cost of attendance is really just cost of living. Its things that aren't included in room and board and aren't covered by a scholarship (toothbrush, soap, a winter jacket, snow boots, transportation to campus, taking a date to the movies, etc).

I'm telling you there is no way it costs 60% more to live in State College than East Lansing, Michigan. I'm positive of that.

East Lansing? Try Ann Arbor. Or Columbus. Or New Jersey. Or Evanstaon, IL.

 

[9nationalchampionships]

There are no cultural activities in creepy valley! I can't imagine why it would be expensive to live there.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Originally posted by recruitsreadtheseboards:

East Lansing? Try Ann Arbor. Or Columbus. Or New Jersey. Or Evanstaon, IL.

Yea, according to Penn State, their "cost of attendance" is $1,800 more than Maryland, $2,000 more than Rutgers and $2,500 more than Northwestern. Though not located in major cities, the 3 schools are close to DC, NYC, and Chicago meaning that the cost of living is very high. If you wanted to take a date out to Chicago or NYC, its going to be a little cheaper than a night out on the town in Bellefonte.

There's something fishy going on here. And of course, when asked if this was a recruiting advantage for Penn State, of course, James Franklin said "yes."

 

[mbe 34]

Horse has been out of the barn for along time on this issue.
All the power conferences have plenty of money to pay these kids
In the scope of things we're looking at peanuts.

Maybe they should consider salary caps and arbitration?

Money so rules big college sports.
Ped State pays $120 million in settlements and fines.
Read that an attorney for the woman accusing Winston at FSU of rape wanted $7 mill - and it would just go away.
It's all about money and that aint changing.
At least by openly paying players its more transparent.

Power 5 could try to set some guidelines -
No matter what they do there will be ways around it.
Several players have admitted to getting signing bonuses at schools
Let's bring that into the open as well