What are your unpopular opinions?

• said_aouita

  

  All Jap's/slant eyed bastards have no souls.
• lhslep134

  

  gut;1484188 wrote:But that doesn't change the fact that the scholarship athlete is still forced to walk around broke

  If that's happening, it's because they grossly mis-budgeted the money they get, unless they play for a small school that can't afford to give them any money beyond education and books.
• gut

  lhslep134;1484193 wrote:If that's happening, it's because they grossly mis-budgeted the money they get, unless they play for a small school that can't afford to give them anything money beyond education and books.
  
  You know, athletes can take out loans for spending money too.

  Sorry I don't know the number...How much do scholarship athletes get for spending money to do with as they wish?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "But that doesn't change the fact that the scholarship athlete is still forced to walk around broke."
  
  Doesn't happen, at my university scholarship athletes had their own gym, cafeteria and personal tutors (I was one of them). Books and lab fees were free. If they chose to live on campus it was free. If they chose to live off campus they had a stipend. They also received a stipend for travel expenses (this I can see being increased for family). They also were guaranteed good Summer jobs.
• lhslep134

  

  gut;1484194 wrote:Sorry I don't know the number...How much do scholarship athletes get for spending money to do with as they wish?

  I edited my post because they can't get any additional Pell Grant money if they're received full cost of attendance athletic aid.
  
  To answer your question, it depends on the school and the athlete's choices. Those that receive full COA are given money equitable to the average amount. If they choose a lifestyle well above the average amount they've mis-budgeted and won't have any spending money.
  
  If they choose a lifestyle around or below average they'll have enough spending money.
  
  How can OSU athletes have new cars? Because they choose to spend their money on car loans instead of nice housing or other things.
  
  EDIT: like MB said, athletes have access to certain amenities that reduce the amount of money they need to spend.
• gut

  Manhattan Buckeye;1484195 wrote:"But that doesn't change the fact that the scholarship athlete is still forced to walk around broke."
  
  Doesn't happen, at my university scholarship athletes had their own gym, cafeteria and personal tutors (I was one of them). Books and lab fees were free. If they chose to live on campus it was free. If they chose to live off campus they had a stipend. They also received a stipend for travel expenses (this I can see being increased for family). They also were guaranteed good Summer jobs.

  WTF? Half of that is illegal.
  
  Nevermind. Starting this 2012-13 year they got $2000 stipend for the academic year. Seems the NCAA fully agreed with me.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  What half, or even quarter, is illegal? Almost all major universities have their own gyms and cafeterias for athletes.
• lhslep134

  

  Gut, watch OTL today: Arizona's AD is one and he'll be (or maybe he already has) talking about the full amount of money spent towards each athlete.
• gut

  lhslep134;1484196 wrote: To answer your question, it depends on the school and the athlete's choices. Those that receive full COA are given money equitable to the average amount. If they choose a lifestyle well above the average amount they've mis-budgeted and won't have any spending money.

  Wait a second....If they live in the dorm and eat in the school cafeteria, they would have $0 left in their pocket. No? So they would either have to game the system some way or choose a lower standard of living off-campus to generate walking around money?
• gut

  lhslep134;1484199 wrote:Gut, watch OTL today: Arizona's AD is one and he'll be (or maybe he already has) talking about the full amount of money spent towards each athlete.

  I don't care - it's irrelevant to the central issue which is having walking around money. No student taking out a loan would agree to not having or being able to earn entertainment money.
• gut

  Manhattan Buckeye;1484198 wrote:What half, or even quarter, is illegal? Almost all major universities have their own gyms and cafeterias for athletes.

  But what about when the kid wants to go to a movie, order a pizza, or have a beer?
  
  It's not about how much the university spends on these kids, it's the fact that conditions of the scholarship and eligibility prevent them from being able to earn money to enjoy the student life as other students do.
• lhslep134

  

  gut;1484201 wrote:Wait a second....If they live in the dorm and eat in the school cafeteria, they would have $0 left in their pocket. No?

  Please use reading comprehension man. You posted a quote of me saying that choosing a luxurious lifestyle will result in $0. Then you post a scenario in which an athlete lives the most basic lifestyle possible, and say they'll have $0.
  
  I don't see how you could have possibly read my post and then posted what you did.
• gut

  lhslep134;1484204 wrote:Please use reading comprehension man. You posted a quote of me saying that choosing a luxurious lifestyle will result in $0. Then you post a scenario in which an athlete lives the most basic lifestyle possible, and say they'll have $0. Clearly my post and yours are not compatible.

  I never said choosing a luxurious lifestyle results in $0 - take your own advice and learn reading comprehension. They weren't given anything for discretionary living expenses. None. The scenario you presented is finding a way to live more cheaply off campus to milk the stipend. But if they chose the on-campus option they would have nothing left over.
  
  We can go back and forth. The NCAA agreed with me and this year allowed a stipend of $2000. So clearly it was an issue, clearly they weren't given discretionary living expenses, at least not in a way above board.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  gut;1484203 wrote:But what about when the kid wants to go to a movie, order a pizza, or have a beer?
  
  It's not about how much the university spends on these kids, it's the fact that conditions of the scholarship and eligibility prevent them from being able to earn money to enjoy the student life as other students do.

  My football player friends had no problem with any of that. You get a stipend. You don't have to spend it on laundry, or food, or whatever. You can pocket it and go to the athletic center for all of your needs. There wasn't a single football player at my University hurting for money. They had plenty of it for pizza, beer and girls. Most of them drove better cars than the rich Frat boys. And to my earlier point, they were guaranteed jobs in the Summer - this might be antiquated now, but even at the programs that didn't cheat - these guys (and girls) have money.
• gut

  Manhattan Buckeye;1484209 wrote:My football player friends had no problem with any of that. You get a stipend. You don't have to spend it on laundry, or food, or whatever. You can pocket it and go to the athletic center for all of your needs. There wasn't a single football player at my University hurting for money. They had plenty of it for pizza, beer and girls. Most of them drove better cars than the rich Frat boys. And to my earlier point, they were guaranteed jobs in the Summer - this might be antiquated now, but even at the programs that didn't cheat - these guys (and girls) have money.

  See, I don't think that was on the up-and-up. For like the 5th time...If that were the case, there would not have been a need for the NCAA to allow for a NEED-BASED stipend of up to $2000:
  http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/05/ncaa_considers_more_scholarshi.html
  
  http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/daily-take/201307/living-high-life-not-so-much-college-athletes-say
  "We got $1,100 a month,” Schofield said of his time at Wisconsin. “You pay rent at $650, you pay your cell phone bill and if you have a car up there you have to pay for parking. How do you pay for your bills and groceries?"
  
  That sounds about right to me. That is hardly an amount that leaves much walking around money. That's an entirely different argument than I'm making - any other student can get loans for tuition/ R&B and then get a job for entertainment expenses whereas the student athlete's only option was to squeeze the turnip.
• lhslep134

  

  gut;1484207 wrote:The scenario you presented is finding a way to live more cheaply off campus to milk the stipend. But if they chose the on-campus option they would have nothing left over.

  Are you talking about my stipend scenario or you non-stipend scenario? Because you took my scenario and created a new one with 2 options:
  
  1) live off campus with a stipend
  2) live on campus with no stipend
  
  That scenario that you are using doesn't exist. So thank you, but my comprehension is quite fine.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  ""We got $1,100 a month,” Schofield said of his time at Wisconsin. “You pay rent at $650, you pay your cell phone bill and if you have a car up there you have to pay for parking. How do you pay for your bills and groceries?""
  
  That explains quite a bit - poor budgeting. Rent in Madison shouldn't be $650, how much is the cell phone bill? They don't need to purchase food, and if they do they get a stipend.
  
  I can only speak from my experience....but no one at my university was starved, the football guys lived liked kings and they had jobs in the Summer. I'd be surprised how anyone would put their name to being destitute at a I-A program.
• lhslep134

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1484219 wrote:
  
  That explains quite a bit - poor budgeting.

  Yup
• gut

  lhslep134;1484216 wrote:Are you talking about my stipend scenario or you non-stipend scenario? Because you took my scenario and created a new one with 2 options:
  
  1) live off campus with a stipend
  2) live on campus with no stipend
  
  That scenario that you are using doesn't exist. So thank you, but my comprehension is quite fine.

  Prior to this year, there was no legal stipends given for entertainment expenses, otherwise the NCAA would not have had to pass the rule it did. Make sense?
  
  Are you still confused? Did you read the links I posted? Were you able to comprehend them?
• gut

  Manhattan Buckeye;1484219 wrote:""We got $1,100 a month,” Schofield said of his time at Wisconsin. “You pay rent at $650, you pay your cell phone bill and if you have a car up there you have to pay for parking. How do you pay for your bills and groceries?""
  
  That explains quite a bit - poor budgeting. Rent in Madison shouldn't be $650, how much is the cell phone bill? They don't need to purchase food, and if they do they get a stipend.
  
  I can only speak from my experience....but no one at my university was starved, the football guys lived liked kings and they had jobs in the Summer. I'd be surprised how anyone would put their name to being destitute at a I-A program.

  Oh Christ. Stop with your imaginary budgets and read what I posted. The NCAA agreed with me. That is why they passed the rule they did.
  
  http://uwhelp.wisconsin.edu/living/costs.aspx#madison
  
  Cost of a double room: $2600/semester for a shared dorm room...errrr, $650 a month? I mean, I'm no expert on rent in Madison.
• Ironman92

  

  Commander of Awesome;1484161 wrote:SMH no kidding. We had a nice thread/discussion going until F4F came in.

  
  Did you say pee?
• lhslep134

  

  gut;1484227 wrote:Prior to this year, there was no legal stipends given for entertainment expenses, otherwise the NCAA would not have had to pass the rule it did. Make sense?
  

  There still are no entertainment stipends. It doesn't sound like you know the NCAA rulebook.
• Ironman92

  

  like_that;1484171 wrote:anyway this thread isn't about pwning c4f. Let's not derail your thread S&L and get back on topic before c4f derails it again.
  
  
  Another unpopular opinion of mine: Skyline sucks ass.

  
  +1 on the Skyline
• gut

  lhslep134;1484231 wrote:There still are no entertainment stipends. It doesn't sound like you know the NCAA rulebook.

  My mistake. It still doesn't change a single thing I said, except to make me more correct because their "full scholarships" don't cover the full cost of attendance.
  
  Still waiting on you to show me where athletes are given money for non-essential living expenses. I don't believe in indentured servitude.
• lhslep134

  

  gut;1484236 wrote:except to make me more correct because their "full scholarships" don't cover the full cost of attendance.
  

  Except they do, so you're wrong. I direct you to NCAA bylaw 15.2.4 regarding cost of attendance.
  
  I've spent a lot of unnecessary time explaining this to you.