Issue date: 6/24/09 Section: Sports

Housing, tuition, books and almost every collegiate expense one can think of are included in a full-ride athletic scholarship, everything except one noticeable expense: living. Food, gas and going-out money are all not factored into the typical scholarship. With all their time going into practice, workouts, meetings, games and class, an athlete holding down a part-time job isn't feasible.

Most of the time athletes can manage to squeeze by, but sometimes the circumstances become enough to push athletes to desperate measures. Many Aggie athletes also have children and other adult responsibilities that their scholarships don't cover. A number of athletes throughout the nation take under-the-table payments and gifts that go against NCAA rules. It is also important to remember that many athletes come from poor backgrounds and money is tight for them and their families, regardless of scholarships.

Paying student athletes brings an image of athletes cashing a check, or even worse, making more than their teammates based on performance on the field. Images of boosters and powerful schools backing dump trucks of money to the best high school athletes to get them to sign with their school can't help but be thought up.

However, paying a student athlete would be a much cleaner process than many think. The addition of a "living expenses stipend" isn't unreasonable and would be highly regulated by the NCAA and universities to prevent illegal actions, corruption or payment differences between athletes or different programs.

It isn't like the major universities don't have the extra money to make such living expense attachments a reality. In 2004-2005 Texas A&M made over $5 million in athletic profit. With a living scholarship of $2,000 per year, the total cost for A&M's nearly 650 student athletes would be just over $1 million. For a school that commands over $64 million in total revenue a year and has the ability to construct multi-million dollar basketball practice facilities with only days of notice, this isn't unreasonable.

The only issue with a stipend is fairness. The top 10 profit gainers for athletics reads like a who's who list of powerful state schools. Texas A&M, Michigan, Texas, Georgia and other schools of that nature may be able to afford such a cost, but smaller schools have thin margins and the extra cost of a stipend would require cutbacks at another location.

Whereas Texas led the Big 12 in total profit with over $7 million, Iowa State made a total profit of a little over half a million; and Iowa State is a major BCS school. Small schools especially at the Div.-II and Div.-III level would be hard hit. Equality would be hard hit, and the major state and private schools with huge endowments, sponsorships and other cash cows would have a marked advantage over the little guys.

Continued...

Page 1 of 2 next >

Article Tools