I found this article in Sunday's Messenger interesting and informative. I'm not sure how many scholarship athletes OU has but at $3200 each, this adds up quickly.

http://www.athensmessenger.com/sports/ohiouniversity/ohio...

Seriously. If they get their tuition, room and board as part of a scholarship, what is the purpose of this stipend? What does "cost of attendance" really mean?

-If it is meant to supplement their lifestyle with grocery, travel and other living expenses, why not find a means to control that with a reimbursement system?

Each scholarship student-athlete is allowed up to $3,000 allowance for travel to/from home, cell phone charges (I groan about that), and any special circumstance purchases.

Put the onus on the student-athletes to request those funds.

While it may add processing/audit costs, it would be more efficient overall than just issuing checks at will. Plus, it gets them ready for the business world when you have to go through that process (and in the real world, nothing is given to you). Or issue them gas cards, grocery cards and travel vouchers (no alcohol/tobacco)

"personal expenses" -- therein lies Pandora's box. Anything can be considered a personal expense, including an actual subscription to Pandora.

This kind of reminds me of how recently on multiple occasions my wife and I have been given money or gift cards for our infant son. She wants to put it aside and be sure we spend it on him. I'd rather just put it in my pocket. That particular bill or gift card might be spent on anything, but if it is, I'll be spending a different bill or gift card on things for my son. There are plenty of things he has to have.

Some people are going to spend more responsibly than others, but I'd bet every athlete has at least $3,200 of necessities they will spend on.

I'm sure there will be some issues to work out in implementing this policy. But I agree with the underlying premise--that college student athletes now have to work year round on their games. Non athletes have time for a part time job, but athletes don't really have time for a part time job. I support the full cost of attendance concept. But I agree that if the money is wasted on frivolities, that could generate resentment from other students.

These issues can be resolved IMO.

Interesting: Here is a select list of schools offering stipends less than Ohio:

Duke - $2200

Michigan State - $1872

Northwestern - $2492

OSU - $2602

Alabama - $2892

Michigan - $2204

Notre Dame - $1950

Vanderbilt - $2780

source: http://m.chronicle.com/article/At-Least-15-Athletics-Prog...

Athletic scholarships already offered this. Those who live off campus got the same checks just like you did. They are now getting a little extra.

Gotcha. I'd still say it's a good thing. I still had to work at Hungry Howie's to help out. Sometimes I would work 30 hour per week on top of my class schedule. Athletes obviously don't have that option.

I was reading the Idaho board and saw them discussing NDSU... I learned Idaho is one of like 5-10 D-1 schools not offering cost of attendance.

Imagine the NDSU coaches walking into a recruits house and reminding them they will get a couple grand a year from NDSU but zero from Idaho. LOL... Why even bother staying at D-1? Commit the resources or just drop to D-2 and be done with it. I see a ton of value for schools in playing D-1 football. That value drops SIGNIFICANTLY if you're just basically giving up which is what not offering cost of attendance would be.

I really don't understand the argument against cost of attendance. I understand those who are against the spending that occurs at D-1 programs... I don't agree with their assessment, but I understand their thinking. I do not understand how someone could be in favor of D-1 football but be against cost of attendance. If you are against cost of attendance, just go all the way and argue that the school should not play D-1 football.