(08-14-2013 03:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 03:27 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 02:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 12:08 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 12:03 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Not really, if players could sell their autograph, they would earn the market value of it by playing better on the field. Schools handing out money have to hand it out equally.

One of these options induces better performance on the field. One of them induces just the opposite.

One of these teaches these student athletes the value of success equaling independence. The other teaches them the value of being dependent. One of these leads to a mindset better prepared for success in the real world, one doesn't.

1. This is amateur athletics.

2. You are opening Pandora's Box when you do this. Football factories will simply advertise scheduled autograph sessions that will generate profit for both the football program and the recruit/player. They'll use this as a "workaround" to be able to buy the best athletes available.

3. If schools and players are going to turn this whole experience into a business, then it's time to remove the tax exempt status from these programs.

Remove tax exempt status blah blah blah. People use this line so often and its pretty obvious folks don't even have an understanding of what grants tax exempt status. A tax exempt institution absolutely has the right to make money, it is what they do with that money that matters in terms of tax exemption status.

It gets so tedious to read over and over people ignorantly speaking about these Universities possibly losing it over something this small.

The 501©(3) tax exemption can be lost if individuals inside of the organization begin to draw unreasonable compensation for their efforts. If people inside of these athletic programs begin to draw outlandish salaries/fees from the host organization for running autograph gatherings and any other activity of the sort, then the IRS could step in and investigate on the grounds of organization-related activities being used for the personal financial gain of certain individuals.

I do not know how you'd establish what is a "fair salary" for those that are a part of the non-profit organization.

Let's say I ran a HS football team's cookie sale. The sale raises $50k for the program. I decide, as an organization's leading board member, that I deserve a colossal $10k off of the top for my "efforts" in the fundraising endeavor. If you were the IRS, wouldn't you look at me for taking a bit of money off of the top? I worry that middlemen involved in running "autograph sessions" could get their hands in the cookie jar - and burn everyone else in the process.

Maybe, but we are talking about the football players getting some money from this. They are not salaried employees. I think it is a bit of a stretch to think that these coaches and officials are going to get huge boosts in pay from what they already make just by having these sessions. In fact I would point out these coaches salaries as evidence that the letter of the law that you state doesn't truly get followed in every single case.

Employees of non profits can make considerable salaries. Just look at some of the folks running some supposed "charities". The United Way is a wonderful example of an absolute joke non profit in which a rather small percentage of donated funds actually make it into charitable distribution.

If the Feds tackle the schools then there is risk of the fallout affect of all these other Institutions having to be looked at. None of these people really want to do that much work nor do they want to put their cushy jobs at risk. They all live quite comfortably.

Let's just shake hands. There is no point arguing over something when it will never happen. Even if I had a perfect legal case for stripping tax-exemption, there is no point in fighting over such things as there are shadowy people in CFB that will NEVER and I mean NEVER allow the 501©(3) designation to be taken away.

(08-14-2013 03:41 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 03:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 03:27 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 02:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 12:08 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  1. This is amateur athletics.

2. You are opening Pandora's Box when you do this. Football factories will simply advertise scheduled autograph sessions that will generate profit for both the football program and the recruit/player. They'll use this as a "workaround" to be able to buy the best athletes available.

3. If schools and players are going to turn this whole experience into a business, then it's time to remove the tax exempt status from these programs.

Remove tax exempt status blah blah blah. People use this line so often and its pretty obvious folks don't even have an understanding of what grants tax exempt status. A tax exempt institution absolutely has the right to make money, it is what they do with that money that matters in terms of tax exemption status.

It gets so tedious to read over and over people ignorantly speaking about these Universities possibly losing it over something this small.

The 501©(3) tax exemption can be lost if individuals inside of the organization begin to draw unreasonable compensation for their efforts. If people inside of these athletic programs begin to draw outlandish salaries/fees from the host organization for running autograph gatherings and any other activity of the sort, then the IRS could step in and investigate on the grounds of organization-related activities being used for the personal financial gain of certain individuals.

I do not know how you'd establish what is a "fair salary" for those that are a part of the non-profit organization.

Let's say I ran a HS football team's cookie sale. The sale raises $50k for the program. I decide, as an organization's leading board member, that I deserve a colossal $10k off of the top for my "efforts" in the fundraising endeavor. If you were the IRS, wouldn't you look at me for taking a bit of money off of the top? I worry that middlemen involved in running "autograph sessions" could get their hands in the cookie jar - and burn everyone else in the process.

Maybe, but we are talking about the football players getting some money from this. They are not salaried employees. I think it is a bit of a stretch to think that these coaches and officials are going to get huge boosts in pay from what they already make just by having these sessions. In fact I would point out these coaches salaries as evidence that the letter of the law that you state doesn't truly get followed in every single case.

Employees of non profits can make considerable salaries. Just look at some of the folks running some supposed "charities". The United Way is a wonderful example of an absolute joke non profit in which a rather small percentage of donated funds actually make it into charitable distribution.

If the Feds tackle the schools then there is risk of the fallout affect of all these other Institutions having to be looked at. None of these people really want to do that much work nor do they want to put their cushy jobs at risk. They all live quite comfortably.

Let's just shake hands. There is no point arguing over something when it will never happen. Even if I had a perfect legal case for stripping tax-exemption, there is no point in fighting over such things as there are shadowy people in CFB that will NEVER and I mean NEVER allow the 501©(3) designation to be taken away.

Now on that emboldened part I can absolutely agree. In fact I agree with this whole statement. You COULD absolutely make a case. The system is absolutely corrupt though and the shadowy people aren't necessarily just the ones in CFB.

(08-14-2013 02:45 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 02:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 12:36 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  NO. The reason it is outlawed is it not only opens the door to pay-for-play from boosters, but it creates a loophole where gamblers and game-fixers can buy players and influence their performance. I can just see some broke little-known linebacker or safety getting a few extra dollars for his autograph in exchange for him missing a few tackles that let the other team cover the spread. Unless the SA's are turned full professionals and paid to play, those influences must be kept at bay through the rules.

Paying the players wouldn't stop gamblers from offering money to fix games, and they're not limited to paying little-known players who have no money and no pro prospects. Some of the known and rumored college gambling scandals involved well-known players. I think a lot of us would be disillusioned if we knew about every time players were paid by fixers.

Exactly and as I said in previous post, if this ever actually did happen it wouldn't be allowed to be a free for all situation. It would happen in controlled settings controlled by the University. They still have the right to protect their status and keeping it from turning into a wild wild west situation in a way like what CommuterBob suggests.

No paying players wouldn't stop gamblers or game fixers from doing what they've always done, but it would continue to keep it to a minimum. Even in a controlled setting, it's a slippery slope that is opened up that would quickly and easily lead to abuse. It doesn't matter how you try to control it, nobody could completely, and that is why it can't be allowed at all.

Besides, paying for autographs is dumb. An autograph is a memento of a personal interaction with someone. Paying for the privilege of meeting that person and having them sign something is one thing, but paying someone else just to have that memento is stupid. The whole autograph "industry" is based on vanity.

Sure, we'll call it the "stipend".

Some of Dana Holgorsen's players might then have the ability not to have to starve or miss meals because of the likes of East Carolina and Marshall.

The more autographs you sell, the better you eat.