"Cost of Living" Stipends for NCAA Student-Athletes

[SoxJox]

Penn State does not stand alone in this, but a recent PennLive story reports that Penn State will lead the B1G in allowances for a COL stipend of $4,700 - the highest in the B1G.  By comparison, tOSU currently offers $2,454 and ranks 8th in the B1G.  MSU is lowest at $1,872.
 
The NCAA approved such stipends in mid-January 2015, in the wake of much broader authority awarded in August 2014 to the Power 5 conferences.
 
The rub is what has euphemistically been referred to for decades as a "full ride" scholarship. (i.e., full grant in aid)
 
The report here suggests that the level of the stipend is somewhat subjective and could, in the end, wind up serving as a recruiting lever.  The stipend's level is set by university budget offices and financial aid departments.
 
I would imagine that the closer a school can come to making it a true "full ride" could potentially gain more solid purchase (no pun intended) with recruits.

 

[WayBackVazquez]

Yeah, this was bound to happen. I had a major gripe with the UMich administration about this during law school because they set the personal expenses amount so low (I remember it being significantly lower than the other law school in the same city). They do it so they can claim to prospective students that the total cost of attendance is comparable with their peers, but the students sometimes end up getting screwed by not being able to get the financial aid they actually need.
 
Is PSU's tuition relatively low? That would explain why they are more realistic about the other costs.
 
Also, shouldn't this be in the college sports forum?

 

[SoxJox]

You are correct that this should probably be in the college sports forum, and that is where I meant to start this.  Mods...can you please assist on relocating?  Thanks.
 
In any case, the 2013-2014 tuition cost rankings were reported by Purdue here.  I wouldn't imagine that the relative rankings or movement among schools has changed greatly in the past 2 years, but Penn State clearly leads the pack as the most expensive school for resident tuition, and is in a virtual tie with Illinois for non-resident tuition.
 
On a state-funding note...the wrangling between Penn State and the state legislature and Governor are legendary.  I'll have to pull it up but I am confident in saying at the moment that Penn State receives less $$ per student (and as a percentage of overall annual expenses - something like less than 4% of the total school budget) from the state than any other B1G institution.  In a distant way, this places just that much more pressure on the football program to generate revenue and self sustain.

 

[SumnerH]

Moved to the college sports forum.

 

[Infield Infidel]

On a state-funding note...the wrangling between Penn State and the state legislature and Governor are legendary.  I'll have to pull it up but I am confident in saying at the moment that Penn State receives less $$ per student (and as a percentage of overall annual expenses - something like less than 4% of the total school budget) from the state than any other B1G institution.  In a distant way, this places just that much more pressure on the football program to generate revenue and self sustain.

 
Is this is because Penn State isn't exactly a state school like the other public schools in the Big Ten? Penn State, Pitt, and Temple have that anachronistic state-related status that puts them at arm's length from state oversight. No other state has that kind of separate state-related status. Pitt and Temple will likely have the same issue in their respective conferences. 

 

[WayBackVazquez]

On a state-funding note...the wrangling between Penn State and the state legislature and Governor are legendary.  I'll have to pull it up but I am confident in saying at the moment that Penn State receives less $$ per student (and as a percentage of overall annual expenses - something like less than 4% of the total school budget) from the state than any other B1G institution.  In a distant way, this places just that much more pressure on the football program to generate revenue and self sustain.

 
I don't think this is true. Michigan's annual budget is more than twice PSU's, and it receives only about 50% more state funding.

 

[SoxJox]

 
I don't think this is true. Michigan's annual budget is more than twice PSU's, and it receives only about 50% more state funding.

I was perhaps a bit off, although I have routinely heard the 4-5% figure quoted for many years.  In any case.
 
Here
 
"For instance, state appropriations account for less than 15 percent of Penn State's general fund budget"

 

[SoxJox]

 
Is this is because Penn State isn't exactly a state school like the other public schools in the Big Ten? Penn State, Pitt, and Temple have that anachronistic state-related status that puts them at arm's length from state oversight. No other state has that kind of separate state-related status. Pitt and Temple will likely have the same issue in their respective conferences. 

No, it's  more that state legislators have come to understand that for the past 4 decades applications have continued to go up, attendance continues to go up, and families and students are more than willing to by into what has become recognized as one of the most expensive state university systems.  No need to provide links...just Google it.  Most expensive in state schools.  Pitt and Penn State annually are fighting for top spot.  Why legislate more support when students seem just as happy to pay anyway?
 
Now, the root cause question is: why are people willing to pay at these levels?  Must be that football culture.

 

[WayBackVazquez]

I was perhaps a bit off, although I have routinely heard the 4-5% figure quoted for many years.  In any case.
 
Here
 
"For instance, state appropriations account for less than 15 percent of Penn State's general fund budget"[/size]

Yeah, I think Michigan's is 9%. Ohio State is pretty low, too. Certainly compared to places like Wisconsin.

 

[ManilaSoxFAN]

How do these schools differentiate between
 
a) the financial aid which would normally be given -- on a "blind need" basis -- to a meritorious student and
 
b) some small stipend that same student would receive by making a varsity sport which has only a little or no scholarship packages?
 
Is there a lot of "back-door" wink wink money for athletes based on their (good enough; not great) grades and financial needs?
 
EDIT for clarity: i.e. Get a full ride for a kid cuz Coach wants him...but officially call it "need" for a "normal" student. It's a way around restrictions or athletic/team budget constraints. The stipend alone won't net the great player, but the "need" money will.

 

[SoxJox]

How do these schools differentiate between
 
a) the financial aid which would normally be given -- on a "blind need" basis -- to a meritorious student and
 
b) some small stipend that same student would receive by making a varsity sport which has only a little or no scholarship packages?
 
Is there a lot of "back-door" wink wink money for athletes based on their (good enough; not great) grades and financial needs?
 
EDIT for clarity: i.e. Get a full ride for a kid cuz Coach wants him...but officially call it "need" for a "normal" student. It's a way around restrictions or athletic/team budget constraints. The stipend alone won't net the great player, but the "need" money will.

The schools differentiate them the way the NCAA allows, which is to mean that students attending on athletic scholarships - whether "full ride" or partial, may also qualify for needs based financial aid (e.g., Pell Grants, which can be used to cover the same types of expenses as athletic scholarships, which is to mean tuition and fees, room and board, and course-related books).
 
But I think what you're asking is: if a student does not get an athletic scholarship is there a way to skirt the problem by awarding the student some needs-based or other form of financial aid more typically awarded to non-athletes.
 
It really won't matter because for football the athlete still will have the "counter" test (NCAA Bylaw 15.5.1) applied to determine if s/he counts against the team limit.  Here is a great summary of student-athlete financial aid and a description of the counter test.
 
This is slightly different for "equivalency" sports vs. "head count" sports, where for the former the school is limited by a $$ amount that they can divvy up to an equivalent # of full scholarships.  So, for example, in equestrian (I know this one only because my daughter was awarded an equestrian scholarship), there is a limit of 15 equivalent scholarships.  The full $$ cost-of-attendance for those 15 scholarships varies by school, but if the team has more than 15 members, the school can parcel those $$ out however they see fit.  The number of team members at my daughter's school generally allows them to cover 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% for the FR, SO, JR, and SR years, respectively.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

What's the denominator in these stipend amounts being bandied about?  Are these figures monthly, per-semester, per-year?
 
And are they limiting them to men's football and basketball, or giving them out to the members of the Women's Water Polo team too?  Not sure if there's a Title 9 issue there, but you'd think that if left to their own devices, athletic directors would only like to increase the comp offered to the big-money sports.

 

[SoxJox]

What's the denominator in these stipend amounts being bandied about?  Are these figures monthly, per-semester, per-year?
 
And are they limiting them to men's football and basketball, or giving them out to the members of the Women's Water Polo team too?  Not sure if there's a Title 9 issue there, but you'd think that if left to their own devices, athletic directors would only like to increase the comp offered to the big-money sports.

It typically is per year as NCAA scholarships generally are awarded on an annual basis - at least that been my daughter's experience.  On the other hand, schools are allowed to make multi-year awards to provide the athlete assurances in the event they get injured, the coach leaves, or they don't pan out performance wise.
 
And the "partial" awards like what I mentioned (25%...) generally are associated with the equivalency sports.  I can't say with absolute certainty, but most if not all Div I "head count" awards for football and basketball are "full ride" GIA (grant-in-aid).  Perhaps somewhat fewer for Div II.  One misnomer here is the "full ride."  Most scholarships falling under this euphemistic category do NOT cover the entire cost-of-attendance.  As I mentioned above, full scholarships cover only tuition and fees, room and board, and course-related books.  If the athlete opts for the university medical/health insurance (i.e., is for some reason not covered under a parent's or guardian's plan) that would be an uncovered expense/fee.
 
It most assuredly is a Title IX issue, but the language in the bylaws and the total equivalency numbers (which vary by sport) are intended to compensate for that.  The catch is the focus on providing equal "scholarship opportunities" for both men and women athletes - but it doesn't necessarily mean everyone gets a full GIA.
 
Edit: I was perhaps a bit too flip with my characterization of "however they see fit."  There are, to be sure, limitations and guidelines, but in general the schools have great leeway in the awards.  So, in my example above, they could decide not to award 25% to a FR, but instead offer only $1,000, in which case the school could than award a SO rider more than 50%.  In the end, though, they can't exceed the total $$ amount calculated for the cost-of-attendance for 15 students.

 

[ManilaSoxFAN]

Good info, SoxJox. Thanks.
 
I still have some questions (that link didn't work for me, btw). Here are some parameters:
 
Div 1 school with quite high academic pedigree (say an Ivy).
 
Applicant has the academic numbers to get in...but barely. So he is a big "maybe".
 
Family's finances are calculated by CSS profile and the kid will get a huge aid-in-grant (school's policy) if accepted.
 
Non-football/basketball coach has very little or zero athletic scholarship resources left (either he has used up the head count or has already promised his total equivalent allocation), but he likes this player. 
 
So coach goes to Admissions and says "let this kid in; he'd be great for our team". Admissions accepts the applicant because of coach and because the kid was on the bubble legitimately.
 
Admitted with close to full a ride grant, then "walks on" the team. Voila -- a scholarship for an athlete in the guise of aid for a financially-needy, academically-qualified, "regular" student. 
 
Is this allowed? Is it done? A lot???

 

[SoxJox]

A caveat up front: much of my and my daughter’s experience is related to equestrian scholarships, so we have a bit of a narrower view, but much of the process is the same for all sports.
 

Good info, SoxJox. Thanks.
 
I still have some questions (that link didn't work for me, btw). Here are some parameters: It is a PowerPoint file and not a web page so maybe it’s being downloaded to your Download folder.)
 
Div 1 school with quite high academic pedigree (say an Ivy). Ivies (Ivys?) don’t award athletic scholarships.  However, preferential admissions treatment often is given to athletes that a coach is seriously recruiting.  The coaches routinely submit lists of applicants they recommend being admitted for athletic purposes.
 
My daughter didn’t even consider the Ivy League schools, which include only Brown and Cornell (this does not include other schools such as Dartmouth that compete in the IHSA (intercollegiate Horse Show Assn).  IHSA consists of over 400 schools that offer equestrian as a non-scholarship club sport.   And on this note, equestrian hit the 10-year limit last year as an emerging sport and the Div I Leadership Council and Div II Management Council recommended that the sport be dropped as they have been unable to achieve the goal of having 40 sponsored teams to sustain the sport at a championship level.  That recommendation has not yet been acted upon.  There were 23 Div I / Div II sponsor schools in 2014.
 
Applicant has the academic numbers to get in...but barely. So he is a big "maybe".
 
Family's finances are calculated by CSS profile and the kid will get a huge aid-in-grant (school's policy) if accepted.
 
Non-football/basketball coach has very little or zero athletic scholarship resources left (either he has used up the head count or has already promised his total equivalent allocation), but he likes this player. 
 
So coach goes to Admissions and says "let this kid in; he'd be great for our team". Admissions accepts the applicant because of coach and because the kid was on the bubble legitimately.
 
Admitted with close to full a ride grant, then "walks on" the team. Voila -- a scholarship for an athlete in the guise of aid for a financially-needy, academically-qualified, "regular" student. 
 
Is this allowed? Is it done? A lot???
 
I'm certain that the one part of your scenario happens all the time: where a student is OK academically (hell, maybe not even OK in some (many?) cases) and the coach "pulls some strings" to have the athlete admitted.  The "qualifier" though is that student-athletes added to the roster in this manner are still counters.
 
With that said, the underlying premise of this scenario probably can’t happen as you describe it because ALL financial aid, whether in the form of an NCAA GIA or others such as Pell Grants, university grants and scholarships still count against the team total.  So if the coach has very little or zero scholarships resources left then s/he is probably already at the head count or equivalency limit.  The athlete can't simply walk on with financial aid being provided in some form and not count.
 
Best the coach can offer is walk-on or preferred walk-on, neither of which nclude a promise of financial assistance, either upon admission or at some later point.  The difference between the two is that the latter merely guarantees a roster spot.  Any subsequent decision to award a scholarship is independent of the walk-on offer.
 

 

[swiftaw]

Not sure if this is  the appropriate place, but John Oliver did an attack piece on the NCAA on his show last night: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX8BXH3SJn0

 

[ManilaSoxFAN]

swftaw -- LOL funny. Not sure of the validity of this one singular perspective, but a funny piece nonetheless. 
 
I imagine sports success = endowment success = high qual applicants + high qual professors + high qual facilities = prestige = alumni networking = national reputation = need for national "advertising" = sports success = ......................or something like that.
 

 

[HomeRunBaker]

It typically is per year as NCAA scholarships generally are awarded on an annual basis - at least that been my daughter's experience.  On the other hand, schools are allowed to make multi-year awards to provide the athlete assurances in the event they get injured, the coach leaves, or they don't pan out performance wise.
 
And the "partial" awards like what I mentioned (25%...) generally are associated with the equivalency sports.  I can't say with absolute certainty, but most if not all Div I "head count" awards for football and basketball are "full ride" GIA (grant-in-aid).  Perhaps somewhat fewer for Div II.  One misnomer here is the "full ride."  Most scholarships falling under this euphemistic category do NOT cover the entire cost-of-attendance.  As I mentioned above, full scholarships cover only tuition and fees, room and board, and course-related books.  If the athlete opts for the university medical/health insurance (i.e., is for some reason not covered under a parent's or guardian's plan) that would be an uncovered expense/fee.
 
It most assuredly is a Title IX issue, but the language in the bylaws and the total equivalency numbers (which vary by sport) are intended to compensate for that.  The catch is the focus on providing equal "scholarship opportunities" for both men and women athletes - but it doesn't necessarily mean everyone gets a full GIA.
 
Edit: I was perhaps a bit too flip with my characterization of "however they see fit."  There are, to be sure, limitations and guidelines, but in general the schools have great leeway in the awards.  So, in my example above, they could decide not to award 25% to a FR, but instead offer only $1,000, in which case the school could than award a SO rider more than 50%.  In the end, though, they can't exceed the total $$ amount calculated for the cost-of-attendance for 15 students.

Athletes already receive preferential treatment and yes it really is "as they see fit" at least from my experiences years ago which I can't imagine have tightened up.

When I played D-3 ball at a small North Carolina school I had no athletic scholarship and a $15k annual tuition which was paid using 7 different grants and "non-athletic" scholarships (which I later found was used predominantly for athletes) totaling $22k. At the start of each semester I received an overage check of $3500 (give or take) to use toward whatever I desired.

If this occurs at a D-3 school what happens at major universities with elite athletes who produce revenue for their school?

 

[ManilaSoxFAN]

SoxJox -- once again, good stuff. Thanks. I've typically just followed sports (the competition) and not the mechanics of moving up the ranks and getting into position for college or pro level sports.
 
In my day, we had a scholarship, some loans and work-study jobs...and if we walked on the Div 1 varsity team, so be it. Nowadays, there a lot of rules and twists, it seems.
 
But now my kid is in play and I finally have to learn. Thanks for the insights. I must study this stuff carefully and thoroughly. I guess you found yourself riding this horse a few years ago (yuk yuk).