<p>LasMa, the allowance the above poster was referencing is typically a stipend to cover cost of living (rent/utilities/groceries) after the guys stop living in the dorms. At my undergrad, their stipend was just slightly more than what I spent each month on those items (ie, they’re not given a seriously lavish lifestyle or anything). </p>
<p>SoccerGuy, it seems like you’re insinuating that there’s something shady going on between tutors and athletes. I tutored athletes (men’s baskeball and football at a big state school in the midwest) and I can assure you the shadiness you’re alluding to just doesn’t happen. For the most part, tutors are assigned to athletes to help them manage their school work and help keep them on track and are absolutely forbidden from assisting with assignments, quizzes, or tests. The consequences of such actions are considerable for both the tutor (who is a student too!) and the athlete–and in three years, I never heard of a violation.</p>
<p>Yeah, big time college sports are a facade, but I don’t know where to begin to improve it. The athletes ARE exploited but it’s my opinion that paying them is counter to the mission of college sports. The mission of college sports is supposed to be healthy competition, dedication, achievement and sportsmanship. I’m not naive in the least. I realize that the typical Division I athlete’s daily routine resembles little of a true college experience, from the athletes’ only dorms to the media interaction. College officials and coaches could learn a thing or two from the late John Wooden’s example. He insisted that his UCLA players were demonstrate character on the court and were the quintesential student in the classroom and elsewhere on campus.</p>
<p>I know a couple athletes at Clemson (not any football players though) and an eye is always kept on their academics. It is known if they don’t attend class (while most college students could blow it off if they wanted to), they have mandatory study hall or tutoring hours to go to (the number of hours depends on their GPA) while other college students don’t have that. </p>
<p>I was listening to a talk show earlier today and he was talking about how all these TV companies are throwing money at college football and he wasn’t sure where the money was coming from. I thought it was a valid point that he made that if schools follow the money (like Texas A&M) instead of keeping their rivalries/leagues/tradition intact, it could be very bad for college football (anything sound familiar with why the economy is the way it is right now?)</p>
<p>They are gifted physically, your gifted mentally, let them be rewarded for there dedication to sports and you for your academics, if you pull in big research for a college, you deserve same as college athlete otherwise they balance college and a legit hardcore sport that consumes much of a day, so if they get slack, its because they deserve it.</p>
<p>Because they benefit towards the amount of income being brought into the university, a humble stipend compared to millions in attendance, apparel, food, etc.</p>
<p>the problem is not getting the kids an education. The problem is when the kids leave school and still cannot read. The problem is when Kemba Walker graduates in 3 years from UConn, and says that he just read his first book. The problem is when tutors at N. Carolina were doing their students papers.</p>
<p>To some extent I would agree with you. My understanding is it is meant to prevent sports agents or other individuals from paying the players excessive amounts of money in return for other things. If a player could sell his jersey, what would stop him from accepting a check for $50,000 from an agent with intentions of that agent being the player’s representative later on…</p>
<p>I don’t get why people have issues with athletes having academic tutors at college. I think it’s admirable that those kids, who probably have been passed along in their high schools without having to be successful academically (a stereotype which I hope is fading away!), are at least being helped to gain some minimal skills while in college. What would you rather have happen—they are not admitted at all and learn nothing? Sure, it’s not “fair” if an academically talented student (non-athelete) is denied admission because a talented athlete who cannot read is admitted and tutored through basic classes. But those academically talented kids will be able to attend somewhere and make something of themselves. These athletes are able, through college sports programs, to make the most of their own talents.</p>
<p>This from a lifetime Alabama fan. In the name of full disclosure! RTR</p>
<p>Everyone else on a college campus is expected to have the maturity to manage schoolwork, balance time spent on homework with other pursuits without being babysat or being assigned private tutors. I see no reason the bar should be lower just because someone can kick a football. The idea of mandated study hours and private tutors is just insane. Let athletes figure it out just like everyone else does. Plenty of kids have work-study jobs and / or extracurriculars that take up a lot of time, but the school doesn’t offer them babysitters to ensure they get their homework done.</p>
<p>That post shows you have zero understanding of the demands of D-1 football. Everyone else has ECs they can drop if they want to or miss a meeting and nobody gets upset. Being a player is like having a demanding full-time job while going to school. And they don’t get summers off either. Most schools have tutors available and not all players need them or use them. Many athletes are minority kids without the same background as the upper middle-class kids that populate NU and other schools including many state flagships. And most of those also have special programs to help non athlete minority kids adjust, with tutors and the rest.
The college presidents has voted and it approves of allowing gifted athletes to go to better colleges just as gifted kids with other talents also get in that might not otherwise. Ever see the SAT scores for NU’s performing arts students? Not that great compared to engineering.</p>
<p>If Alabama is indeed admitting students who can’t even read solely because they can throw a football (and I don’t know if Alabama is doing so, specifically), then that sums up precisely what’s wrong with college sports. Aren’t you embarrassed? It’s one thing for, let’s say, an Ivy League to admit an athlete with 1800 SAT’s instead of 2100 - he’s still literate, he can do the work, whatever. It’s quite another to admit someone who can’t even read. Aren’t you embarrassed to “use” students like that? It’s not like the university truly cares about students born into disadvantaged backgrounds / underfunded school situations – unless they can throw a ball and make money, in which case all of a sudden they care passionately.</p>
<p>Well, of course not, duh – what do math SAT’s have to do with the ability to be a Broadway-bound actor or actress? But what does NU have to do with this, other than that’s where I went? Were they being held up as the Perfect Sports School or something?</p>
<p>And the difference between the kind of program you referenced and tutors for barely-literate football players is that in the kind of program you referenced, minority students were being recruited for being academic diamonds-in-the-rough and showing potential. You know, because that’s the whole purpose of a university - not being a training ground for the NFL.</p>
In the name of full disclosure! RTR</p>