(05-09-2014 10:39 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 11:27 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 06:02 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  As I see it employees would be required to pay taxes. Is there a way around that?

As of now, college tuition is tax deductible. I'm sure good tax preparers could end up getting most of the rest of the covered expenses as "business expenses" and therefore also tax deductible. They'd end up paying virtually no taxes anyway.

Not even close. There is an annual limit of $4,000 on the deductability of tuition and qualifying fees. There is no deduction available for any other college costs, including room and board. It doesn't matter how good your tax preparer is, unless he encourages you to cheat and risk criminal charges.

If the athlete takes the deduction, then his parents can not claim him as a dependent on their return.

There are other tax credits you can claim as well. And as for the room and board, since they are delcared employees, that could be paid through the school as an expense account, similar to an employee having to pay for temporary housing on a TDY assignment and getting reimbursed. That isn't considered income.

Bob, unless you are a CPA, you might want to consider not speculating on tax matters. Athletes wouldn't have to report as income the cost of their hotel rooms and meals while on the road for away games any more than they do now. But their room and board for the rest of the year would be fully taxable. It would not be considered "temporary housing".

(05-09-2014 10:30 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:49 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  FWIW, these departments are totally cooking the books and the AD/presidents should be ashamed of themselves when they pull this crap that not many schools are making money. People rant and rave about corporate greed, but higher education isn't that far behind.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/1...d-revenues

Stop the madness, FBall and Bball drives the bus and the players should be compensated for the millions (billions?) they help produce. Whether that requires labeling them employees, I don't care. They should be able to negotiate, sell their brand and hire representation. To say otherwise is simply totally against the American spirit.

Over-paying the volleyball coach to avoid showing a profit is still money spent.

I love Hugh Freeze but his last raise at Ole Miss was a joke, it was strictly keeping up appearances so his salary would be in line with the rest of the league.

But the money is being spent, not so much hidden.

Obviously the presidents could say "Hey fork over $15 million to renovate the Fine Arts Building" but they don't because the AD and football coach and basketball coach will whine to the media and the big money donors that the president isn't committed to athletics.

Nice work plucking out the one example that isn't too egregious. They consider the scholarships an expense, that's just next level absurd and arguably not in line with GAAP. They spend on volleyball coaches and other nonsense just to continue the perception that they are losing money or breaking even. It's a joke. I listened to a president on PBS whining about schools not making much money when it's a farce. Not to mention, it's absurd that a volleyball or softball coach get paid so much when they add so little. I can understand spending big in the revenue sports, but spending on non-revenue doesn't seem like the right way to spend student/alums money.

The fact is that this shows how they are using smoke and mirrors to continue on with this farce. it's a joke and we should al lbe ashamed that we have let it go on for this long.

To quote an old friend.

"If we were in it to make money we wouldn't have track and field and softball as sports."

No they could make a profit if they wanted to. They don't want to and never have wanted to. If they wanted to make money they wouldn't drop $7 million on who they perceive to be the nation's best coach.

But they are mostly NOT trying to hide money. Trying to hide money means you sock it away to spend on something you really want later.

Instead they spend like drunken sailors in order to prove to the fans they are committed to winning.

If Texas buys walnut lockers, Alabama believes they need to buy mahagony to show they are more committed than Texas.

If Alabama buys leather chairs with iPhone charging stations built in then Texas believes they have to prove they are more committed by spending the extra to have the school logo stitched on the headrest.

This isn't calculated to hide that they are profitable, it is US vs. USSR 1946-1989.

The Russians launch a satellite, we have to match, they put a man in space, we have to match. US lands on the moon, Soviets scrub their moon program since they can't win the battle to be first or somehow do it more impressively.

No one has the stones to say $3 million for a coach is ridiculous, we refuse to keep up. The current weight room serves its purpose, we refuse to keep up.

(05-09-2014 10:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:39 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 11:27 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 06:02 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  As I see it employees would be required to pay taxes. Is there a way around that?

As of now, college tuition is tax deductible. I'm sure good tax preparers could end up getting most of the rest of the covered expenses as "business expenses" and therefore also tax deductible. They'd end up paying virtually no taxes anyway.

Not even close. There is an annual limit of $4,000 on the deductability of tuition and qualifying fees. There is no deduction available for any other college costs, including room and board. It doesn't matter how good your tax preparer is, unless he encourages you to cheat and risk criminal charges.

If the athlete takes the deduction, then his parents can not claim him as a dependent on their return.

There are other tax credits you can claim as well. And as for the room and board, since they are delcared employees, that could be paid through the school as an expense account, similar to an employee having to pay for temporary housing on a TDY assignment and getting reimbursed. That isn't considered income.

Bob, unless you are a CPA, you might want to consider not speculating on tax matters. Athletes wouldn't have to report as income the cost of their hotel rooms and meals while on the road for away games any more than they do now. But their room and board for the rest of the year would be fully taxable. It would not be considered "temporary housing".

I am not a CPA or a tax attorney. I just know that there are often very creative people who can manipulate the loopholes in the tax code to get these sorts of things done. Why else do you think that the major corporations in America pay very little, if any, taxes, even when they report giant profits? The American taxpayers pay a far larger share of the IRS's revenue than corporations do. Undoubtedly, I think there will be someone who would be able to maneuver around the tax consequences of labelling athletes as employees. And also keep in mind that once you reduce the income down to a certain level, the employee can end up being exempt from taxes. There are legal ways to do this, I am sure. Plus, universities are known for cooking their books in creative ways. It probably wouldn't take much effort for them to extend their services to their prized athletes.

(05-09-2014 10:42 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:33 AM)redfan Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 11:27 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 06:02 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  As I see it employees would be required to pay taxes. Is there a way around that?

As of now, college tuition is tax deductible. I'm sure good tax preparers could end up getting most of the rest of the covered expenses as "business expenses" and therefore also tax deductible. They'd end up paying virtually no taxes anyway.

Not even close. There is an annual limit of $4,000 on the deductability of tuition and qualifying fees. There is no deduction available for any other college costs, including room and board. It doesn't matter how good your tax preparer is, unless he encourages you to cheat and risk criminal charges.

If the athlete takes the deduction, then his parents can not claim him as a dependent on their return.

"Annual limit of $4000"?

Qualified education expenses. For purposes of tax-free scholarships and fellowships, these are expenses for:

Tuition and fees required to enroll at or attend an eligible educational institution, and

Course-related expenses, such as fees, books, supplies, and equipment that are required for the courses at the eligible educational institution. These items must be required of all students in your course of instruction.

Expenses that do not qualify. Qualified education expenses do not include the cost of:

Room and board,

Travel,

Research,

Clerical help, or

Equipment and other expenses that are not required for enrollment in or attendance at an eligible educational institution.

The poster wasn't talking about the taxability of scholarships. He was referring to the deduction a taxpayer can take for the tuition that he pays out of his pocket. For that, there is a statutory $4,000 limit. If an athlete is classified as an employee, and his tuition is considered income for services rendered, he would likely be deemed to fall under the out of pocket rules rather than the scholarship rules. The point is, though, that if there were to be such a major change, the entire tax code on the subject would be completely rewritten. There's no telling now how that would play out.

I understand what you are saying, that the law would likely change. I was trying to look at it as it would apply to a athlete,employee at this time. Using the law, as it is now, a college employee receiving a scholarship,that paid the full amount of tuition, could not take the $4000 deduction. The tuition amount would not be taxable. I understand that the treatment of tuition as income is very possible in the future.

(05-09-2014 10:30 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:49 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  FWIW, these departments are totally cooking the books and the AD/presidents should be ashamed of themselves when they pull this crap that not many schools are making money. People rant and rave about corporate greed, but higher education isn't that far behind.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/1...d-revenues

Stop the madness, FBall and Bball drives the bus and the players should be compensated for the millions (billions?) they help produce. Whether that requires labeling them employees, I don't care. They should be able to negotiate, sell their brand and hire representation. To say otherwise is simply totally against the American spirit.

Over-paying the volleyball coach to avoid showing a profit is still money spent.

I love Hugh Freeze but his last raise at Ole Miss was a joke, it was strictly keeping up appearances so his salary would be in line with the rest of the league.

But the money is being spent, not so much hidden.

Obviously the presidents could say "Hey fork over $15 million to renovate the Fine Arts Building" but they don't because the AD and football coach and basketball coach will whine to the media and the big money donors that the president isn't committed to athletics.

Nice work plucking out the one example that isn't too egregious. They consider the scholarships an expense, that's just next level absurd and arguably not in line with GAAP. They spend on volleyball coaches and other nonsense just to continue the perception that they are losing money or breaking even. It's a joke. I listened to a president on PBS whining about schools not making much money when it's a farce. Not to mention, it's absurd that a volleyball or softball coach get paid so much when they add so little. I can understand spending big in the revenue sports, but spending on non-revenue doesn't seem like the right way to spend student/alums money.

The fact is that this shows how they are using smoke and mirrors to continue on with this farce. it's a joke and we should al lbe ashamed that we have let it go on for this long.

They are "overpaying" on non-revs coaches to hide that they are actually making money?

I'm sorry, but that is one of the most idiotic posts I've seen on this board and there have been some whoppers.

The colleges are not just about football and basketball, although they bring in the most revenue. Track was one of the biggest sports at one point in time.

No matter how much you don't want to believe it, colleges lose money on sports, even most of the P5.

That money the football and basketball programs bring in subsidizes the rest of the programs so that the university doesn't have to subsidize them so much.

And most of FBS loses money on football, not just overall sports.

(05-09-2014 10:55 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:30 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:49 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  FWIW, these departments are totally cooking the books and the AD/presidents should be ashamed of themselves when they pull this crap that not many schools are making money. People rant and rave about corporate greed, but higher education isn't that far behind.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/1...d-revenues

Stop the madness, FBall and Bball drives the bus and the players should be compensated for the millions (billions?) they help produce. Whether that requires labeling them employees, I don't care. They should be able to negotiate, sell their brand and hire representation. To say otherwise is simply totally against the American spirit.

Over-paying the volleyball coach to avoid showing a profit is still money spent.

I love Hugh Freeze but his last raise at Ole Miss was a joke, it was strictly keeping up appearances so his salary would be in line with the rest of the league.

But the money is being spent, not so much hidden.

Obviously the presidents could say "Hey fork over $15 million to renovate the Fine Arts Building" but they don't because the AD and football coach and basketball coach will whine to the media and the big money donors that the president isn't committed to athletics.

Nice work plucking out the one example that isn't too egregious. They consider the scholarships an expense, that's just next level absurd and arguably not in line with GAAP. They spend on volleyball coaches and other nonsense just to continue the perception that they are losing money or breaking even. It's a joke. I listened to a president on PBS whining about schools not making much money when it's a farce. Not to mention, it's absurd that a volleyball or softball coach get paid so much when they add so little. I can understand spending big in the revenue sports, but spending on non-revenue doesn't seem like the right way to spend student/alums money.

The fact is that this shows how they are using smoke and mirrors to continue on with this farce. it's a joke and we should al lbe ashamed that we have let it go on for this long.

To quote an old friend.

"If we were in it to make money we wouldn't have track and field and softball as sports."

No they could make a profit if they wanted to. They don't want to and never have wanted to. If they wanted to make money they wouldn't drop $7 million on who they perceive to be the nation's best coach.

But they are mostly NOT trying to hide money. Trying to hide money means you sock it away to spend on something you really want later.

Instead they spend like drunken sailors in order to prove to the fans they are committed to winning.

If Texas buys walnut lockers, Alabama believes they need to buy mahagony to show they are more committed than Texas.

If Alabama buys leather chairs with iPhone charging stations built in then Texas believes they have to prove they are more committed by spending the extra to have the school logo stitched on the headrest.

This isn't calculated to hide that they are profitable, it is US vs. USSR 1946-1989.

The Russians launch a satellite, we have to match, they put a man in space, we have to match. US lands on the moon, Soviets scrub their moon program since they can't win the battle to be first or somehow do it more impressively.

No one has the stones to say $3 million for a coach is ridiculous, we refuse to keep up. The current weight room serves its purpose, we refuse to keep up.

Its marketing. Commit millions to athletics because it keeps fans happy and coming to campus and hey maybe they dont hang up when fundraisers call to ask for money for the general fund or the new "I post on CSNbbs and am a Superfan Law School Building". As Arkstfan states, it has never been about making money except in the sense of what that money can buy to get better players, better coaches, more publicity and more attention directed towards the university.

The other thing to remember that Athletics budgets even at the big time P5 schools pale in comparison to the University Operating Budget. There comes a point where the university will no longer allow the tail to wag the dog.

(05-09-2014 10:55 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  To quote an old friend.

"If we were in it to make money we wouldn't have track and field and softball as sports."

If you were in it to make money you would most certainly have track and field and softball as sports ... they are cheaper ways to meet NCAA sports and TitleIX commitments than a number of other sports.

Quote: No they could make a profit if they wanted to. They don't want to and never have wanted to. If they wanted to make money they wouldn't drop $7 million on who they perceive to be the nation's best coach.

Many athletic departments can't make a profit if they wanted to, since any surplus would go straight back to the University, so the only way to grab a larger share of the revenues they generate is to increase their costs. A salary arms-race is an excellent cost center to avoid an excessive amount of revenue flowing back to the University as a whole.

The problem is that the arms race between those top rank departments in the revenue sports that would otherwise generate substantial profits filters down to departments that would otherwise break even at best, and so they have to subsidize their sports if they want to stay in the game.

(05-09-2014 02:22 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:55 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  To quote an old friend.

"If we were in it to make money we wouldn't have track and field and softball as sports."

If you were in it to make money you would most certainly have track and field and softball as sports ... they are cheaper ways to meet NCAA sports and TitleIX commitments than a number of other sports.

Quote: No they could make a profit if they wanted to. They don't want to and never have wanted to. If they wanted to make money they wouldn't drop $7 million on who they perceive to be the nation's best coach.

Many athletic departments can't make a profit if they wanted to, since any surplus would go straight back to the University, so the only way to grab a larger share of the revenues they generate is to increase their costs. A salary arms-race is an excellent cost center to avoid an excessive amount of revenue flowing back to the University as a whole.

The problem is that the arms race between those top rank departments in the revenue sports that would otherwise generate substantial profits filters down to departments that would otherwise break even at best, and so they have to subsidize their sports if they want to stay in the game.

And they can't "pay" more (at least not officially although some do it), so they compete by having weight rooms and locker facilities that would make the poshest health club jealous.

Nothing out there prevent Congress from saying, "Hey if you want to spend more than $100 million (or pick a number) on athletics, we are going to deny you tax deductibility." or "Look if you spend more than $100 million (or again pick a number) we will reduce Federal financial aid available on your campus by an amount equal to the number of dollars you spend in excess".

Will that happen, not likely.

If he did happen, presidents would go beserk trying to make sure athletics generates well in excess of the number of the cap.

(05-09-2014 10:56 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:39 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 11:27 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  As of now, college tuition is tax deductible. I'm sure good tax preparers could end up getting most of the rest of the covered expenses as "business expenses" and therefore also tax deductible. They'd end up paying virtually no taxes anyway.

Not even close. There is an annual limit of $4,000 on the deductability of tuition and qualifying fees. There is no deduction available for any other college costs, including room and board. It doesn't matter how good your tax preparer is, unless he encourages you to cheat and risk criminal charges.

If the athlete takes the deduction, then his parents can not claim him as a dependent on their return.

There are other tax credits you can claim as well. And as for the room and board, since they are delcared employees, that could be paid through the school as an expense account, similar to an employee having to pay for temporary housing on a TDY assignment and getting reimbursed. That isn't considered income.

Bob, unless you are a CPA, you might want to consider not speculating on tax matters. Athletes wouldn't have to report as income the cost of their hotel rooms and meals while on the road for away games any more than they do now. But their room and board for the rest of the year would be fully taxable. It would not be considered "temporary housing".

I am not a CPA or a tax attorney. I just know that there are often very creative people who can manipulate the loopholes in the tax code to get these sorts of things done. Why else do you think that the major corporations in America pay very little, if any, taxes, even when they report giant profits? The American taxpayers pay a far larger share of the IRS's revenue than corporations do. Undoubtedly, I think there will be someone who would be able to maneuver around the tax consequences of labelling athletes as employees. And also keep in mind that once you reduce the income down to a certain level, the employee can end up being exempt from taxes. There are legal ways to do this, I am sure. Plus, universities are known for cooking their books in creative ways. It probably wouldn't take much effort for them to extend their services to their prized athletes.

There are times when a person just has to quit while he's behind. This is one of them.

Corporations pay little in taxes because they successfully lobby congress to pass laws favorable to them, not because they are good at cheating. The CPAs hired by the IRS are pretty smart people, too. And catching athletic departments that are trying to bend the rules to reduce the tax liability of their players would be ridiculously easy. You may be sure there are legal ways to make ordinary income tax-exempt, but you would be wrong. Unless schools can persuade congress to change the rules, there aren't any loopholes. And university CFO's aren't going to risk jail conjuring up their own.

(05-09-2014 03:42 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:56 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:39 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  Not even close. There is an annual limit of $4,000 on the deductability of tuition and qualifying fees. There is no deduction available for any other college costs, including room and board. It doesn't matter how good your tax preparer is, unless he encourages you to cheat and risk criminal charges.

If the athlete takes the deduction, then his parents can not claim him as a dependent on their return.

There are other tax credits you can claim as well. And as for the room and board, since they are delcared employees, that could be paid through the school as an expense account, similar to an employee having to pay for temporary housing on a TDY assignment and getting reimbursed. That isn't considered income.

Bob, unless you are a CPA, you might want to consider not speculating on tax matters. Athletes wouldn't have to report as income the cost of their hotel rooms and meals while on the road for away games any more than they do now. But their room and board for the rest of the year would be fully taxable. It would not be considered "temporary housing".

I am not a CPA or a tax attorney. I just know that there are often very creative people who can manipulate the loopholes in the tax code to get these sorts of things done. Why else do you think that the major corporations in America pay very little, if any, taxes, even when they report giant profits? The American taxpayers pay a far larger share of the IRS's revenue than corporations do. Undoubtedly, I think there will be someone who would be able to maneuver around the tax consequences of labelling athletes as employees. And also keep in mind that once you reduce the income down to a certain level, the employee can end up being exempt from taxes. There are legal ways to do this, I am sure. Plus, universities are known for cooking their books in creative ways. It probably wouldn't take much effort for them to extend their services to their prized athletes.

There are times when a person just has to quit while he's behind. This is one of them.

Corporations pay little in taxes because they successfully lobby congress to pass laws favorable to them, not because they are good at cheating. The CPAs hired by the IRS are pretty smart people, too. And catching athletic departments that are trying to bend the rules to reduce the tax liability of their players would be ridiculously easy. You may be sure there are legal ways to make ordinary income tax-exempt, but you would be wrong. Unless schools can persuade congress to change the rules, there aren't any loopholes. And university CFO's aren't going to risk jail conjuring up their own.

State auditors are already looking universities over fairly closely. In states with a tax code that incorporates federal law, you'd have two sets of auditors looking over your shoulder.

(05-09-2014 10:55 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:30 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:49 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  FWIW, these departments are totally cooking the books and the AD/presidents should be ashamed of themselves when they pull this crap that not many schools are making money. People rant and rave about corporate greed, but higher education isn't that far behind.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/1...d-revenues

Stop the madness, FBall and Bball drives the bus and the players should be compensated for the millions (billions?) they help produce. Whether that requires labeling them employees, I don't care. They should be able to negotiate, sell their brand and hire representation. To say otherwise is simply totally against the American spirit.

Over-paying the volleyball coach to avoid showing a profit is still money spent.

I love Hugh Freeze but his last raise at Ole Miss was a joke, it was strictly keeping up appearances so his salary would be in line with the rest of the league.

But the money is being spent, not so much hidden.

Obviously the presidents could say "Hey fork over $15 million to renovate the Fine Arts Building" but they don't because the AD and football coach and basketball coach will whine to the media and the big money donors that the president isn't committed to athletics.

Nice work plucking out the one example that isn't too egregious. They consider the scholarships an expense, that's just next level absurd and arguably not in line with GAAP. They spend on volleyball coaches and other nonsense just to continue the perception that they are losing money or breaking even. It's a joke. I listened to a president on PBS whining about schools not making much money when it's a farce. Not to mention, it's absurd that a volleyball or softball coach get paid so much when they add so little. I can understand spending big in the revenue sports, but spending on non-revenue doesn't seem like the right way to spend student/alums money.

The fact is that this shows how they are using smoke and mirrors to continue on with this farce. it's a joke and we should al lbe ashamed that we have let it go on for this long.

To quote an old friend.

"If we were in it to make money we wouldn't have track and field and softball as sports."

No they could make a profit if they wanted to. They don't want to and never have wanted to. If they wanted to make money they wouldn't drop $7 million on who they perceive to be the nation's best coach.

But they are mostly NOT trying to hide money. Trying to hide money means you sock it away to spend on something you really want later.

Instead they spend like drunken sailors in order to prove to the fans they are committed to winning.

If Texas buys walnut lockers, Alabama believes they need to buy mahagony to show they are more committed than Texas.

If Alabama buys leather chairs with iPhone charging stations built in then Texas believes they have to prove they are more committed by spending the extra to have the school logo stitched on the headrest.

This isn't calculated to hide that they are profitable, it is US vs. USSR 1946-1989.

The Russians launch a satellite, we have to match, they put a man in space, we have to match. US lands on the moon, Soviets scrub their moon program since they can't win the battle to be first or somehow do it more impressively.

No one has the stones to say $3 million for a coach is ridiculous, we refuse to keep up. The current weight room serves its purpose, we refuse to keep up.

They are counting schlorships as an expense, i can't think of a bigger way to hide money.

(05-10-2014 10:53 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:55 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:30 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:49 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  FWIW, these departments are totally cooking the books and the AD/presidents should be ashamed of themselves when they pull this crap that not many schools are making money. People rant and rave about corporate greed, but higher education isn't that far behind.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/1...d-revenues

Stop the madness, FBall and Bball drives the bus and the players should be compensated for the millions (billions?) they help produce. Whether that requires labeling them employees, I don't care. They should be able to negotiate, sell their brand and hire representation. To say otherwise is simply totally against the American spirit.

Over-paying the volleyball coach to avoid showing a profit is still money spent.

I love Hugh Freeze but his last raise at Ole Miss was a joke, it was strictly keeping up appearances so his salary would be in line with the rest of the league.

But the money is being spent, not so much hidden.

Obviously the presidents could say "Hey fork over $15 million to renovate the Fine Arts Building" but they don't because the AD and football coach and basketball coach will whine to the media and the big money donors that the president isn't committed to athletics.

Nice work plucking out the one example that isn't too egregious. They consider the scholarships an expense, that's just next level absurd and arguably not in line with GAAP. They spend on volleyball coaches and other nonsense just to continue the perception that they are losing money or breaking even. It's a joke. I listened to a president on PBS whining about schools not making much money when it's a farce. Not to mention, it's absurd that a volleyball or softball coach get paid so much when they add so little. I can understand spending big in the revenue sports, but spending on non-revenue doesn't seem like the right way to spend student/alums money.

The fact is that this shows how they are using smoke and mirrors to continue on with this farce. it's a joke and we should al lbe ashamed that we have let it go on for this long.

To quote an old friend.

"If we were in it to make money we wouldn't have track and field and softball as sports."

No they could make a profit if they wanted to. They don't want to and never have wanted to. If they wanted to make money they wouldn't drop $7 million on who they perceive to be the nation's best coach.

But they are mostly NOT trying to hide money. Trying to hide money means you sock it away to spend on something you really want later.

Instead they spend like drunken sailors in order to prove to the fans they are committed to winning.

If Texas buys walnut lockers, Alabama believes they need to buy mahagony to show they are more committed than Texas.

If Alabama buys leather chairs with iPhone charging stations built in then Texas believes they have to prove they are more committed by spending the extra to have the school logo stitched on the headrest.

This isn't calculated to hide that they are profitable, it is US vs. USSR 1946-1989.

The Russians launch a satellite, we have to match, they put a man in space, we have to match. US lands on the moon, Soviets scrub their moon program since they can't win the battle to be first or somehow do it more impressively.

No one has the stones to say $3 million for a coach is ridiculous, we refuse to keep up. The current weight room serves its purpose, we refuse to keep up.

They are counting schlorships as an expense, i can't think of a bigger way to hide money.

Nickles and dimes. No public is spending much more than around $6 million on scholies and someplace between $4 million to $5 million would be the P5 median.

(05-10-2014 11:00 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 10:53 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:55 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:30 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Over-paying the volleyball coach to avoid showing a profit is still money spent.

I love Hugh Freeze but his last raise at Ole Miss was a joke, it was strictly keeping up appearances so his salary would be in line with the rest of the league.

But the money is being spent, not so much hidden.

Obviously the presidents could say "Hey fork over $15 million to renovate the Fine Arts Building" but they don't because the AD and football coach and basketball coach will whine to the media and the big money donors that the president isn't committed to athletics.

Nice work plucking out the one example that isn't too egregious. They consider the scholarships an expense, that's just next level absurd and arguably not in line with GAAP. They spend on volleyball coaches and other nonsense just to continue the perception that they are losing money or breaking even. It's a joke. I listened to a president on PBS whining about schools not making much money when it's a farce. Not to mention, it's absurd that a volleyball or softball coach get paid so much when they add so little. I can understand spending big in the revenue sports, but spending on non-revenue doesn't seem like the right way to spend student/alums money.

The fact is that this shows how they are using smoke and mirrors to continue on with this farce. it's a joke and we should al lbe ashamed that we have let it go on for this long.

To quote an old friend.

"If we were in it to make money we wouldn't have track and field and softball as sports."

No they could make a profit if they wanted to. They don't want to and never have wanted to. If they wanted to make money they wouldn't drop $7 million on who they perceive to be the nation's best coach.

But they are mostly NOT trying to hide money. Trying to hide money means you sock it away to spend on something you really want later.

Instead they spend like drunken sailors in order to prove to the fans they are committed to winning.

If Texas buys walnut lockers, Alabama believes they need to buy mahagony to show they are more committed than Texas.

If Alabama buys leather chairs with iPhone charging stations built in then Texas believes they have to prove they are more committed by spending the extra to have the school logo stitched on the headrest.

This isn't calculated to hide that they are profitable, it is US vs. USSR 1946-1989.

The Russians launch a satellite, we have to match, they put a man in space, we have to match. US lands on the moon, Soviets scrub their moon program since they can't win the battle to be first or somehow do it more impressively.

No one has the stones to say $3 million for a coach is ridiculous, we refuse to keep up. The current weight room serves its purpose, we refuse to keep up.

They are counting schlorships as an expense, i can't think of a bigger way to hide money.

Nickles and dimes. No public is spending much more than around $6 million on scholies and someplace between $4 million to $5 million would be the P5 median.

Actually, Ohio State spends about $16 million a year. In the ACC, UVa and UNC aren't far behind that pace. The smallest scholarship cost in the ACC is Florida State, and they are over $9 million. Boston College is in Stanford's class at about $22 million a year.

And why wouldn't scholarships be counted as an expense?