Possible snags with stipends

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24553166/ncaas-latest-cost-of-attendance-debate-offers-questions-no-answers


When it comes to the five major conferences creating their own rules to help college athletes, no topic dominates the conversation like cost of attendance. Good luck getting details yet about the latest attempt to pay college athletes a stipend.

“I don't think anybody knows exactly how it's going to work,” Kansas State football coach Bill Snyder said. “It's like anything, if it's in athletics or state legislation or national legislation. You enact rules and changes and sometimes there's not enough research on it and you just don't know until you experience it and then you try to fine tune it. I think that's what's going to take place.”


All around the country, questions about drilling down into cost of attendance are met with shrugs and more questions. Schools are starting to discuss the topic at their conference spring meetings, including this week with the Pac-12, Big 12, Mountain West and Mid-American Conference all in Phoenix.

The meat and potatoes of the governance issue still centers around stipends.



Based on the proposed changes to the NCAA governance structure, which still must be approved, the power five conferences will determine what cost of attendance looks like. The other five Football Bowl Subdivision conferences await those answers.


Universities annually list a higher actual cost of attending college beyond an athletic scholarship. It's based on miscellaneous expenses that differ by school. A 2012 study found that out-of-pocket expenses for a full-scholarship FBS athlete ranged from $1,000 a year to $6,904 a year, depending on the school. The average NCAA gap is now around $3,500.


Just within the Big 12, the cost-of-attendance number per athlete ranges from approximately $2,000 to $5,000, Texas Tech athletic director Kirby Hocutt said. That raises the question of whether conferences will mandate cost of attendance within their league, or allow each member to decide.



In the Mountain West Conference, cost of attendance would cost its schools between $400,000 to $600,000 a year if it's a flat $2,000 stipend, commissioner Craig Thompson said. If it's a full cost of attendance, the figure would go up.


Thompson said he's hearing from power five schools who say they can't afford cost of attendance. Budgets have to be changed, including potentially changing staffing levels, Thompson said.


Stanford football coach David Shaw rattled off the questions he has about cost of attendance. Does the number change from college to college? Would there be a stipend that makes it an even number? Does the stipend need to be based on cost of living based on where a university is located?


The cost of living adjustment “is where this got in the muck and mire three years ago,” Shaw said.


The Division I Board of Directors in 2011 passed a $2,000 cost-of-attendance stipend, only to see NCAA members override the proposal. It's questionable whether a flat stipend could be used this time. Every FBS conference is being sued for allegedly violating antitrust laws by capping the value of scholarships. Another try at a flat stipend could be viewed by the courts as a different version of a cap.

Never realized that even stipends could be struck down in the courts for this reason.



In 2008, the NCAA settled a federal antitrust lawsuit over the same issue of miscellaneous expenses. The NCAA settled White v. NCAA by agreeing to make $10 million available over three years to qualifying athletes for reimbursement of educational expenses such as tuition, books, supplies and equipment. The NCAA also expanded the criteria it uses to provide money to athletes from a $218 million assistance fund.


“We generate $240,000 per school from the NCAA Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund to be used for the same types of things the cost of attendance gap is supposed to address,” Conference USA commissioner Britton Banowsky said. “There are funds already in place that could be applied to this.”

Another fascinating point, which could be a huge sticking point in the whole stipend issue.

At a meta level, too, the existence of this article also seems to point to the fact that the non-P5 commissioners don't want autonomy for the P5.

[walliver]

Oh c'mon LFN, its people like you with their plantation attitudes toward downtrodden athletes that forced poor innocent Jameis Winston to steal those cooked crab legs and crawfish. Florida State was starving that poor young man so the white folks at the Plantation House could enjoy their feast.

I wonder if the new stipend would include the cost of crab legs and crawfish, if so it might be a competitive advantage to UL-Lafayette and Tulane.

[superman7515]

I wonder if the new stipend would include the cost of crab legs and crawfish, if so it might be a competitive advantage to UL-Lafayette and Tulane.

You can have those crappy crab legs, I'll take a blue crab any day. Won't argue with the crawfish/crawdads though, outstanding.

[Sader87]

Sister-in-law is a New Orleans native and we started a "Crawfish Boil" party that has grown by leaps and bounds every year. While fun and festive, gastronomically, I'll still take a New England clambake anyday.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Sister-in-law is a New Orleans native and we started a "Crawfish Boil" party that has grown by leaps and bounds every year. While fun and festive, gastronomically, I'll still take a New England clambake anyday.

Cant we all just get along? I like both!

[PAllen]

Sister-in-law is a New Orleans native and we started a "Crawfish Boil" party that has grown by leaps and bounds every year. While fun and festive, gastronomically, I'll still take a New England clambake anyday.

+1. Although, I'll take a crab feast over both.

[MplsBison]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24553166/ncaas-latest-cost-of-attendance-debate-offers-questions-no-answers



The meat and potatoes of the governance issue still centers around stipends.







Never realized that even stipends could be struck down in the courts for this reason.




Another fascinating point, which could be a huge sticking point in the whole stipend issue.

At a meta level, too, the existence of this article also seems to point to the fact that the non-P5 commissioners don't want autonomy for the P5.

It's not saying the courts can strike down a flat stipend. It's saying that the courts could view flat stipends as being really no better than the "artificial" cap on scholarship values that the NCAA sets now - which is the basis for one of the lawsuits against the NCAA or the P5 conferences (not sure of whom the defendant is or which lawsuit exactly). In other words, the lawsuit is claiming "hey, you're making millions of dollars - who are you to say that my scholarship can only be worth a maximum of X dollars?? That doesn't cover my costs or what I'm really worth!" So you can understand how just bumping up the value of a scholarship by a couple thousand across the board doesn't really do much, in that viewpoint.


The bottom line: the lawsuits aren't going to wait for a multi-year, exhaustive discussion and negotiation with every possible conference and school having a say. They (the P5 conferences and the NCAA) have to do something and do it quickly, before the litigation begins.

[RichH2]

Blue crab. most definitly. Stipends,well in favor of food for kids but not the P5 riding on those coattails to reap $$ and further dilute the illusion of amateur sports. It's all about their money not the players.

[MplsBison]

Blue crab. most definitly. Stipends,well in favor of food for kids but not the P5 riding on those coattails to reap $$ and further dilute the illusion of amateur sports. It's all about their money not the players.

Increasing the dollar amount that is distributed to a student-athlete under full scholarship and removing any restrictions on the amount and type of food that the school can provide to student-athletes can only possibly increase the expenses for these schools, while not increasing any revenues.

(Unless perhaps they're going to start seeking corporate sponsorship from grocery stores to provide the food for their athletes...but that's another topic altogether)

[RichH2]

Agree Mpls as to stipends,my point is the issue is control of revenue with the stipends merely a stalking horse to deflect Objections,lawsuits and Congress. Unlikely that the current anti trust exemption will survive this power play for the P5 or even for the NCAA.

[MplsBison]

Oh absolutely, everything that's happening at this moment is directly in preparation for defeating the impending litigation.

It's either win those lawsuits, or college athletics dies as a major, national sporting event.


I'm not sure which side I favor, at this moment. I do think college athletes at the top revenue schools should be paid for what they do, but I know presidents would rather pull the plug than give in. It's hard to think of there not being March Madness or the major bowl games on TV.

[RichH2]

Hope it wont go that far. Even tho P5 Presidents are 2ndary to ADs,they wont allow move if it removes all pretense of academia. What the back up (real plan) is will appear to appease them,NCAA and Congress while giving P5 more de facto control of football revenue.

[Bisonoline]

Sister-in-law is a New Orleans native and we started a "Crawfish Boil" party that has grown by leaps and bounds every year. While fun and festive, gastronomically, I'll still take a New England clambake anyday.

Invite me to both and I will give you a professional opinion! xthumbsupx

[Sader87]

Invite me to both and I will give you a professional opinion! xthumbsupx

Done and done if HC and NDSU can set up a home and home series....

Year 1: NDSU Bison Burgers at the Fargo Dome
Year 2: Clambake at Fitton
Year 3: BBQ (or whatever you guys eat out there...) at the FD
Year 4: Crawfish Boil at Fitton...or maybe in Frisco?

[Bogus Megapardus]

Rotting carp scraped from the filtration screens at the Upper Saucon Sewage Treatment Facility. Lehigh University - it's what's for dinner. Yum. ;)

[LeopardBall10]

The biggest issue I have heard about stipends (or any form of player payment really) is that by paying the players you establish them as a type of employee of the school. Yes, this could be argued and would no doubt have to be decided in court, but as soon as that distinction is made then a whole new slew of issues arrises. Valuations of all team meals would have to be established so that these new employees could be taxed for those company meals. Same thing goes for entertainment budgets used during recruiting.

If the IRS doesn't go after the institutions tax exempt status you better believe they'll go after the players.

[RichH2]

Yes 10. The elephant in the room blithely glossed over,at least publicly, by Delaney et al. Calling them stipends does not mean they aren't income. Courts likely to view them as impermissible caps. Doubt P5 really cares about stipends as long as they get control of revenue.
A question about this proposal. What prevents P5 from raising schollie limit for themselves to 100?

[MplsBison]

Yes 10. The elephant in the room blithely glossed over,at least publicly, by Delaney et al. Calling them stipends does not mean they aren't income. Courts likely to view them as impermissible caps. Doubt P5 really cares about stipends as long as they get control of revenue.
A question about this proposal. What prevents P5 from raising schollie limit for themselves to 100?

In theory it could happen.

But why would they voluntarily raise the largest component of their costs by around 18% when it doesn't get them anything?

[RichH2]

In theory it could happen.

But why would they voluntarily raise the largest component of their costs by around 18% when it doesn't get them anything?
Well, short answer is to control more talent to solidify further theur supremacy in football Dont forget bear bryant andothers used to stockpile talent both to improve their team and keep recruits from competitors

[Lehigh Football Nation]

If every P5 program had 15 more scholarships to offer for kids to sit on the bench, that's 500+ scholarship players that are not available for non-P5 and FCS schools.

[DFW HOYA]

If every P5 program had 15 more scholarships to offer for kids to sit on the bench, that's 500+ scholarship players that are not available for non-P5 and FCS schools.

They are still available in recruiting, of course, unless they don't have the right AI....

[BISON Thunder]

Yes 10. The elephant in the room blithely glossed over,at least publicly, by Delaney et al. Calling them stipends does not mean they aren't income. Courts likely to view them as impermissible caps. Doubt P5 really cares about stipends as long as they get control of revenue.
A question about this proposal. What prevents P5 from raising schollie limit for themselves to 100?
Wait till the IRS gets involved...

[walliver]

In theory it could happen.

But why would they voluntarily raise the largest component of their costs by around 18% when it doesn't get them anything?

At many large public schools, the head coaches salary is greater than scholarship costs for all 85 scholarship football players. Many large programs, especially in the SEC, have work-arounds to deal with what they feel are an inadequate number of scholarships. Many of the larger programs will have grey-shirts. Scholarships are routinely taken away after eligibility is completed in December. Promising athletes are routinely parked at junior colleges. Adding a few extra scholarships will not be a big deal for them.

In fact, one of the "reforms" being advocated is to extend scholarships to allow players to actually graduate. I don't think for a minute that these extensions will be allocated to current scholarship limits. Just allowing these extensions will probably push some programs well into the 90's without even adding more active athletes.

IF the big programs do expand to more than 85 active scholarships, it will reduce FCS access to higher quality high school seniors, but will open up a lot of transfer opportunities. I don't particularly like FBS transfers, but I know they are popular among many FCS fans. The extent of transfer access will depend on some extent to NCAA policy. As long as current rules apply, FCS programs might have some advantages over the Wannabe-5 conferences. On the other hand, if there is enough separation by the Big-5, the NCAA might allow penalty-free transfers to the Wannabe-5.

[MplsBison]

If every P5 program had 15 more scholarships to offer for kids to sit on the bench, that's 500+ scholarship players that are not available for non-P5 and FCS schools.

So you're going to voluntarily increase your costs 18% in order to bring in players to literally sit there and do nothing to help you win, as well as bringing in zero additional revenue, all in the name of potentially harming a lower teams that pose no threat to you?

Far fetched, at best.

[RichH2]

Yes Mpls they would do i tin a heartbeat. better to spend a bit more money to keep stranglehold on BigBucks fromTV and Bowls.

Stipends are indeed ordinary taxable incpme. Not really an issue as most kids wont make enuf to actuallyowe taxes.
:) Now their schollies plus these stipends, certainly qualify as income. Taxable portion would be net less value of their education. That deductionmay not be much at some schools.

[MplsBison]

Yes Mpls they would do i tin a heartbeat. better to spend a bit more money to keep stranglehold on BigBucks fromTV and Bowls.

Stipends are indeed ordinary taxable incpme. Not really an issue as most kids wont make enuf to actuallyowe taxes.
:) Now their schollies plus these stipends, certainly qualify as income. Taxable portion would be net less value of their education. That deductionmay not be much at some schools.

Sholarships as taxable income is really overhyped. You don't pay taxes on qualifying educational expenses.

[RichH2]

Mpls suggest you read the actual limits on qualified educational expenses. Unless altered most kids will not be eligible for much here. Issue rcomplicated by fact that schollies are 1yr contracts dependant on kids performing a service for the school in return for the money,

[Bill]

Sholarships as taxable income is really overhyped. You don't pay taxes on qualifying educational expenses.

This isn't really true. Money received would be counted as income, not a qualifying expense. Not only would the players have to be income taxes on the scholarships, they would have to pay social security and disability as well...A kid at Stanford may have to pay around 10-15K annually if the package was valued at 60K. Of course, schools could then over-award the money to cover the taxes...or have the schools pay the taxes for the kids. Anyway you slice it, the FBS big ticket private schools like Stanford, Duke, etc could be in an interesting predicament...as could their student athletes.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

At many large public schools, the head coaches salary is greater than scholarship costs for all 85 scholarship football players. Many large programs, especially in the SEC, have work-arounds to deal with what they feel are an inadequate number of scholarships. Many of the larger programs will have grey-shirts. Scholarships are routinely taken away after eligibility is completed in December. Promising athletes are routinely parked at junior colleges. Adding a few extra scholarships will not be a big deal for them.

In fact, one of the "reforms" being advocated is to extend scholarships to allow players to actually graduate. I don't think for a minute that these extensions will be allocated to current scholarship limits. Just allowing these extensions will probably push some programs well into the 90's without even adding more active athletes.

The critical question that needs to be asked:

What is the priority of this problem?

For 75-80% of the NCAA membership, it's not a problem at all.

For the P5, it's a big problem.

The P5 wants to solve this problem by throwing money at it (stipends, funds) and having it only benefit their own athletes.

For the rest, it's an expensive proposition to solve a problem they don't have.

You want to see a bunch of P5 commissioners run for the door? Propose that they take a tiny portion of the money from payouts they get from the BCS, i.e. ivory backscratcher money, and have it go towards a fund that provides a stipend to ANY ATHLETE based on NEED REGARDLESS OF CONFERENCE. This could be done, but they won't do it. After all, they all need ivory backscratchers.

[RichH2]

Lol, So true LFN. To prequote Delany's response. " What, you want our money?"

[Lehigh Football Nation]

More details on the "snags":

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/05/07/ncaa-governance-restructuring-reform-cost-of-attendance-scholarship/8824393/


This October will mark the third anniversary of NCAA president Mark Emmert unveiling a proposal that would have allowed schools to give college athletes a stipend of up to $2,000 per year.


And yet, even as the notion of enhancing athletic scholarships is now viewed as inevitable amid sweeping changes to the NCAA structure, the last 30 months of discussion have produced remarkably few details about what a so-called "full cost of attendance" benefit would look like or how much of a dent it would put into athletic department budgets.






Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott confirmed that the current focus of those five leagues is a scholarship that covers the full cost of attendance rather than a stipend.


"I think at some stage we'll plan to have financial aid officers and athletics administrators representing the 65 schools together discussing a common approach of how to go about it," Scott said.


But that's also where the complications come in.


Each university publishes a full cost of attendance number based on the miscellaneous expenses over and above what's normally included in the scholarship, and those numbers vary significantly for two reasons: One, each school calculates them differently; and two, there are inherent cost-of-living factors that differ from one school to the next.


"When our kids move off-campus they get a huge check because our on-campus room and board is expensive," Buffalo athletics director Danny White said. "Some other universities it could be $3-4,000 less. Nobody's talking about that discrepancy, and that's huge before you even start thinking about a stipend."


Ultimately, the five conferences that will drive the discussion in the NCAA's new autonomous structure – the SEC, ACC, Big 12, Pac-12 and Big Ten – will have to come up with some sort of standard formula about what's included in full cost of attendance. Each school will end up with a different number, but the way in which that number is calculated will be the same across the board. Otherwise, competitive equity concerns – particularly, the notion that some schools will throw in extra elements as a recruiting incentive – will come into play.


Ignoring for a moment that P5 autonomy is not a fait accompli - not by a long shot, even though the author makes that implicit assumption - you have to think about this a second and laugh. The P5 admins getting together and coming up with a formula. What could possibly go wrong?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

But wait - there's more!




"When we say it's complicated, this is not bureaucracy grinding to a halt. It's a whole new mindset that has to be thought through," Oklahoma athletics director Joe Castiglione said. "What federal laws out there guide some of these decisions? Are there tax implications? Say a student is pursuing their degree and part of it requires them to purchase certain things to make that happen. It's not tuition, room board or books, but maybe it's a musical instrument. Maybe it's access to pay for some of their laboratory experience. Hopefully there can be some development of a definition of what would be included."

At minimum, athletics directors are expecting that once implemented, the full cost of attendance will add $500,000-$600,000 to their budgets, but the number could easily be larger than that depending on what's included in the final calculation.


Even among the five power conferences, that could create budget challenges. San Diego State athletics director Jim Sterk pointed out that several schools have taken their recent increases in television money and leveraged them to build facilities, creating debt service obligations that leave precious little room for error.


Meanwhile, a school like Northern Illinois, whose $23.8 million budget was 72% subsidized by student fees and other institutional support over the last fiscal year, will have to find a way to go along with whatever the Power 5 decide.


The extremely rich irony of this whole thing about stipends is that it's quite possible that the P5 admins will come up with some sort of completely unworkable construct, and they won't have the NCAA to blame when the whole thing goes south.

[DFW HOYA]

Bottom line: will your school carry the extra $2,000 per athlete?

Most, if not all, will.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Bottom line: will your school carry the extra $2,000 per athlete?

Most, if not all, will.

I don't think so.

If it's a fixed number, then it's "capping the value of a scholarship", so they're trying to make it a formula.

The formula will inevitably find that the cost might be $2,563 in Nebraska, but the cost of the same things in Palo Alto might be $5,123.

[UAalum72]

Even with a common formula, do they think no school (or its boosters) will cheat? Who's going to enforce it? The NCAA?

[RichH2]

Even with a common formula, do they think no school (or its boosters) will cheat? Who's going to enforce it? The NCAA?

:) :) I'm thinking the IRS

[MplsBison]

This isn't really true. Money received would be counted as income, not a qualifying expense. Not only would the players have to be income taxes on the scholarships, they would have to pay social security and disability as well...A kid at Stanford may have to pay around 10-15K annually if the package was valued at 60K. Of course, schools could then over-award the money to cover the taxes...or have the schools pay the taxes for the kids. Anyway you slice it, the FBS big ticket private schools like Stanford, Duke, etc could be in an interesting predicament...as could their student athletes.

If the schools were giving out paychecks to players on a per-game basis, that would make an easy case for it to be counted as income.

Not so when we're just talking about a scholarship whose monetary value exceeds the semester bill and so the school then deposits the excess in the student-athlete's checking account. It would be like if you took out a $25k federal loan and the semester bill was only $24k. You get a 1000 bucks extra. You're technically not supposed to spend any of that money on non-qualifying expenses, but people do it all the time and no one polices it.

Then say the student-athlete works a part-time job such that he has to file income taxes. Is he technically suppose to declare that extra 1000 as income? Probably, but if he doesn't - no one cares. The IRS isn't going to come audit some student over a 1000 bucks.

[MplsBison]

The critical question that needs to be asked:

What is the priority of this problem?

For 75-80% of the NCAA membership, it's not a problem at all.

For the P5, it's a big problem.

The P5 wants to solve this problem by throwing money at it (stipends, funds) and having it only benefit their own athletes.

For the rest, it's an expensive proposition to solve a problem they don't have.

You want to see a bunch of P5 commissioners run for the door? Propose that they take a tiny portion of the money from payouts they get from the BCS, i.e. ivory backscratcher money, and have it go towards a fund that provides a stipend to ANY ATHLETE based on NEED REGARDLESS OF CONFERENCE. This could be done, but they won't do it. After all, they all need ivory backscratchers.

Which problem are you referring to?

I don't see anything wrong with making scholarships 4-year contracts, so long as the student athlete completes his eligibility in good standing on the team. That should be NCAA wide, FBS, FCS and DII.

[MplsBison]

But wait - there's more!

The extremely rich irony of this whole thing about stipends is that it's quite possible that the P5 admins will come up with some sort of completely unworkable construct, and they won't have the NCAA to blame when the whole thing goes south.

The P5 have to come up with something to beat the lawsuit that claims the P5 artificially cap the value of a scholarship. Otherwise, college athletics are toast.

[MplsBison]

Bottom line: will your school carry the extra $2,000 per athlete?

Most, if not all, will.

Depends if it can be implemented on less than all of the sports in the department.

At NDSU, I'd vote for it just on football and men's basketball and then the most competitive women's teams that would balance out title IX lawsuit threats.

[MplsBison]

Even with a common formula, do they think no school (or its boosters) will cheat? Who's going to enforce it? The NCAA?

Who enforces it now? What's to say that some P5 schools aren't secretly inflating the value of scholarships now?

[LeopardBall10]

Depends if it can be implemented on less than all of the sports in the department.

Has the idea of just applying this to "profitable" sports been thrown out the window?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Which problem are you referring to?

A variety of different issues, but the one specifically I responded to was this:


At many large public schools, the head coaches salary is greater than scholarship costs for all 85 scholarship football players. Many large programs, especially in the SEC, have work-arounds to deal with what they feel are an inadequate number of scholarships. Many of the larger programs will have grey-shirts. Scholarships are routinely taken away after eligibility is completed in December. Promising athletes are routinely parked at junior colleges. Adding a few extra scholarships will not be a big deal for them.

In fact, one of the "reforms" being advocated is to extend scholarships to allow players to actually graduate. I don't think for a minute that these extensions will be allocated to current scholarship limits. Just allowing these extensions will probably push some programs well into the 90's without even adding more active athletes.

So, start with "inadequate number of scholarships", what could be a fig leaf for essentially adding more scholarships. Add to that:

* more of the "big money" ought to be redirected to the athletes
* athletes should have more money devoted to insurance
* athletes should have access to agents
* lowering head coaches salaries
* how to compensate athlete likenesses on EA Sports games

All of these items are high on the agenda of Arizona, and not on Amherst's agenda at all.

[RichH2]

Mpls
One quibble with your tax treatment of schollies. All of schollie money can be considered income for services. Net above fair value of education recd for that yr is taxable income.

[MplsBison]

Mpls
One quibble with your tax treatment of schollies. All of schollie money can be considered income for services. Net above fair value of education recd for that yr is taxable income.

I understand your argument. No doubt many would agree.

Just don't think it will be cut and dried. Obviously it would be bad for student-athletes to get these nice, expanded scholarships and then have to pay taxes on them. So the schools would fight for the rules to be changed to allow special exception for athletic scholarships, I would guess.

[MplsBison]

Has the idea of just applying this to "profitable" sports been thrown out the window?

I don't know if quotes from anyone high up have been published saying it, but I'm guessing it has at least been talked about. Not sure if it would be feasible to do. You'd have lots of complaints from the non-revue sports athletes and their families about "unfair" treatment.

[MplsBison]

A variety of different issues, but the one specifically I responded to was this:



So, start with "inadequate number of scholarships", what could be a fig leaf for essentially adding more scholarships. Add to that:

* more of the "big money" ought to be redirected to the athletes
* athletes should have more money devoted to insurance
* athletes should have access to agents
* lowering head coaches salaries
* how to compensate athlete likenesses on EA Sports games

All of these items are high on the agenda of Arizona, and not on Amherst's agenda at all.

The rules will be optional for Division I schools outside the P5.

DII and DIII have completely separate rulebooks. Though they may choose to voluntarily enact some of the improvements that the P5 grant themselves, if those changes are easy and cheap to implement in exchange for a significant, tangible improvement for those lower division student-athletes.

[RichH2]

I understand your argument. No doubt many would agree.

Just don't think it will be cut and dried. Obviously it would be bad for student-athletes to get these nice, expanded scholarships and then have to pay taxes on them. So the schools would fight for the rules to be changed to allow special exception for athletic scholarships, I would guess.

Ok,now apply same reasoning to the schools themselvesparticularly P5 w/o any federal exemption as NCAA currently has and the scopeofthis issue s/b clearer

[MplsBison]

No one in the federal government is going to come after the schools or the NCAA itself for taxes - so long as they don't try to screw over the public flagships remaining in the G5.

The only ones at risk of having to pay new taxes on money would be the players, if they start getting game checks. People don't like that for college players because the NCAA has brainwashed everyone under the guise of maintaining a false purity they brand as "amateurism" (which was actually created to suppress the working class professional rugby players in England, years ago ... but that's a topic for another thread).

[RichH2]

Naive position mpls.If kids have to pay taxes, quite possible, cloak of amateurism disappears,along with exemption for both payor and payee.

[MplsBison]

That's a reasonable position, but I disagree. The men who are at the very top of public flagship university systems (presidents, board members, chancellors, etc.) will work with politicians to ensure two things:

1) threaten players with income taxes if it looks like players or a player's union will start pushing for game paychecks

2) continue to maintain the status quo in regards to revenues from athletics (including media revenue): no taxes have to be paid on it by the schools


As I've said in other threads, the only way the schools themselves could come under fire from the federal government to start paying taxes on athletics (media) revenue is if they try to screw public flagship schools in the G5 that don't have any P5 schools in the state (UConn, Wyoming, Nevada, Hawaii, etc.)

[Lehigh Football Nation]

That's a reasonable position, but I disagree.

Post of the year. xlolx

[MplsBison]

No one said I had to be reasonable. :)