(10-22-2014 11:28 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 09:55 PM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 04:56 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  Lol , really suspended for not paying taxes ? Do they currently suspend players for not paying their credit card debt ?

UT makes 82 million a year closely in profit, that 6 million dollar hit is not that much for them.

The problem with college football is that not all athletes want a college education, people need to realize that. Is a college degree a great tool for life , yes. Do all people feel the need to attend college ........no. So essentially the NCAA has been mandating athletes who want to play pro to attend college.

I think this is great , except for the schools who cant afford it like JMU.

UT made 19 million in profit last year, not 82 million. There are few schools that would not have to come up with additional revenue, even at the major school level, to make up for these costs.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...ll-on-top/

Why are you pointing to a 2012 article that talks about FOOTBALL REVENUE and VALUATIONS when Dolley just showed that the UT athletics department as a whole, which is what's important here if we're talking about paying all college athletes, only generates $19M in PROFITS. Profit is the key metric here, as that's what the school pockets after all expenses are incurred to operate the program. If UT generates the highest profit of any athletic department and only generated a profit of $19M, then that means, as Dolley suggested, that most colleges are going to have to find new sources of revenue (ticket prices, donations, tv, merchandise or student fees) or cut existing expenses (salaries, travel, facilities, etc) to be able to offset the additional costs of paying athletes. This is not a football only discussion, as the profit generated from football at a lot of universities offsets the losses from other programs to allow them to operate. Because of equal opportunity laws and regs (eg, title IX) schools can't just cut or defund those other sports that lose money. There is a lot more complexity and problems with this whole situation that you clearly are unable to see but feel free to keep posting links to articles that do nothing to support your position.

(10-23-2014 05:49 AM)atljmualum Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 11:28 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 09:55 PM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 04:56 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  Lol , really suspended for not paying taxes ? Do they currently suspend players for not paying their credit card debt ?

UT makes 82 million a year closely in profit, that 6 million dollar hit is not that much for them.

The problem with college football is that not all athletes want a college education, people need to realize that. Is a college degree a great tool for life , yes. Do all people feel the need to attend college ........no. So essentially the NCAA has been mandating athletes who want to play pro to attend college.

I think this is great , except for the schools who cant afford it like JMU.

UT made 19 million in profit last year, not 82 million. There are few schools that would not have to come up with additional revenue, even at the major school level, to make up for these costs.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...ll-on-top/

Why are you pointing to a 2012 article that talks about FOOTBALL REVENUE and VALUATIONS when Dolley just showed that the UT athletics department as a whole, which is what's important here if we're talking about paying all college athletes, only generates $19M in PROFITS. Profit is the key metric here, as that's what the school pockets after all expenses are incurred to operate the program. If UT generates the highest profit of any athletic department and only generated a profit of $19M, then that means, as Dolley suggested, that most colleges are going to have to find new sources of revenue (ticket prices, donations, tv, merchandise or student fees) or cut existing expenses (salaries, travel, facilities, etc) to be able to offset the additional costs of paying athletes. This is not a football only discussion, as the profit generated from football at a lot of universities offsets the losses from other programs to allow them to operate. Because of equal opportunity laws and regs (eg, title IX) schools can't just cut or defund those other sports that lose money. There is a lot more complexity and problems with this whole situation that you clearly are unable to see but feel free to keep posting links to articles that do nothing to support your position.

I think football and basketball is how this discussion and decision started. So when I think of them paying athletes , my first thought is that thier football and basketball recruiting has an advantage. I wasnt able to access his link on my phone. But this link made the "profit" more clear to me.
http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-lon...013-9?op=1

(10-22-2014 09:11 PM)Mad victory Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 08:49 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 08:37 PM)Mad victory Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 08:25 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 08:15 PM)atljmualum Wrote:  Bingo.

Is the 7-8 figure CEO's job on the line based on the unpaid/low paid intern's performance?

You can't seriously be making the argument that we need to pay these kids more because the coaches are being paid more. Maybe we should start paying kids with academic scholarships as well, and if the president or dean gets paid a bunch of money, then the scholarship student should get paid a bunch because their level of learning is tied to his/her performance. No one has made a good case for how taking these athletes "pay" to the next level is going to be a GOOD thing.

No, I'm just saying we have 2 problems here. As long as you have multi million dollar coaches with huge $$ at stake on games there's always going to be widespread academic fraud, corruption, and cheating.

We'd be better off if the NFL and NBA had it like MLB does with different levels of minor leagues, and/or like Europe has it with Club Soccer. Then we'd have no more pretend amateur student athletes with powerhouse P5 football and basketball programs.

I agree that the whole thing is too big, when you placed your comment in a thread about students getting paid, it was subject to belief that you were arguing in favor of these new steps.
It is not a coincidence that one of the wealthiest athletics department in the country is starting the trend. It's not like they have the highest cost of living for students in the country. This is simply a way for them one up the competition.

It's just that I view major P5 football and basketball as rife with cheatin, corruption, and academic fraud. So they are sort of going to give their pretend amateur pretend student athletes 10k. My reaction is meh...

I know if you polled people on here and JMU fans in general asking them would you like JMU to move into a P5 conference the reaction from most would be HELL YEAH! I realize that JMU has outgrown I-AA ball, but I wouldn't be eager for JMU to jump into that cesspool. Maybe the G5 is a somewhat of a happy medium. Not nearly as much $$ involved, not as much corruption..

(10-22-2014 08:25 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 08:15 PM)atljmualum Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 07:45 PM)Mad victory Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 07:16 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  So is this the deal: players at P5 getting paid 10 grand a year over their regular scholly (tuitition/board) is a bad thing, but their coaches getting millions a year is no big deal?

If I accept an internship at a Fortune 500 company with the notion that I am there to learn and better my future, then what they are paying the CEO should not matter.

Bingo.

Is the 7-8 figure CEO's job on the line based on the unpaid/low paid intern's performance?

Are college football coaches and basketball coaches at most of the traditional powers, YES. But what does that have to do with paying college athletes on top of the @$20k they get for free each year that everyone else pays for. That is their salary and with it all the other inherent benefits. Also only a very small % of these students ever play pro ball of any kind.

(10-22-2014 08:37 PM)Mad victory Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 08:25 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 08:15 PM)atljmualum Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 07:45 PM)Mad victory Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 07:16 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  So is this the deal: players at P5 getting paid 10 grand a year over their regular scholly (tuitition/board) is a bad thing, but their coaches getting millions a year is no big deal?

If I accept an internship at a Fortune 500 company with the notion that I am there to learn and better my future, then what they are paying the CEO should not matter.

Bingo.

Is the 7-8 figure CEO's job on the line based on the unpaid/low paid intern's performance?

You can't seriously be making the argument that we need to pay these kids more because the coaches are being paid more. Maybe we should start paying kids with academic scholarships as well, and if the president or dean gets paid a bunch of money, then the scholarship student should get paid a bunch because their level of learning is tied to his/her performance. No one has made a good case for how taking these athletes "pay" to the next level is going to be a GOOD thing.

That is actually a very good point -- schools also very aggressively pursue kids on the top 5% of the HS graduating classes to enhance their student body profile and academic standings. They are often offerred very impressive scholarships and you make a good arguement that they should be 'paid' as well b/c they actually help the primary mission of the college or university.

(10-22-2014 08:49 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 08:37 PM)Mad victory Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 08:25 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 08:15 PM)atljmualum Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 07:45 PM)Mad victory Wrote:  If I accept an internship at a Fortune 500 company with the notion that I am there to learn and better my future, then what they are paying the CEO should not matter.

Bingo.

Is the 7-8 figure CEO's job on the line based on the unpaid/low paid intern's performance?

You can't seriously be making the argument that we need to pay these kids more because the coaches are being paid more. Maybe we should start paying kids with academic scholarships as well, and if the president or dean gets paid a bunch of money, then the scholarship student should get paid a bunch because their level of learning is tied to his/her performance. No one has made a good case for how taking these athletes "pay" to the next level is going to be a GOOD thing.

No, I'm just saying we have 2 problems here. As long as you have multi million dollar coaches with huge $$ at stake on games there's always going to be widespread academic fraud, corruption, and cheating.

We'd be better off if the NFL and NBA had it like MLB does with different levels of minor leagues, and/or like Europe has it with Club Soccer. Then we'd have no more pretend amateur student athletes with powerhouse P5 football and basketball programs.

They do have that in basketball --- they can go straight to Europe and play out of HS if that is their desire. ALso you do have the D-League and the CBA in basketball as a sort of minor league. Those leagues are horrible and attendance is awful -- not sure how they stay in business.

(10-22-2014 09:55 PM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 04:56 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  Lol , really suspended for not paying taxes ? Do they currently suspend players for not paying their credit card debt ?

UT makes 82 million a year closely in profit, that 6 million dollar hit is not that much for them.

The problem with college football is that not all athletes want a college education, people need to realize that. Is a college degree a great tool for life , yes. Do all people feel the need to attend college ........no. So essentially the NCAA has been mandating athletes who want to play pro to attend college.

I think this is great , except for the schools who cant afford it like JMU.

UT made 19 million in profit last year, not 82 million. There are few schools that would not have to come up with additional revenue, even at the major school level, to make up for these costs.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

Thanks for doing some fact checking on that statement --- I knew that did not sound right. There is a big difference in Revenue and Profit.

Last time i looked it up there were only about 10 athletic departments in the country that actually made a profit. Football and/or basketball has to make A LOT of $$$ to pay for everything else. Additionally this would involve paying ALL athletes across all sports and should be scholarship and non-scholarship.

If we are going to start paying athletes "what they are worth" (i.e. the market value of their skill), then lets start taking away scholarships for non-revenue generating sports. Let's also take away scholarships for FCS football and mid-major basketball. For example, AJ Davis and Denzel Bowels were getting paid more as a student-athlete at JMU than when they took their talents to the private sector in the NBA D-League. What about all of our baseball players getting free tuition and then go to the minor leagues where they get paid only a few thousand dollars to continue their sport. Clearly if some student-athletes are getting under paid, we need to address the over payment of other student-athletes.

That's why this whole argument is ridiculous. We want to pay athlete's "what they are worth" if that number exceeds the cost of tuition. However, we don't want to apply that same principle if their worth to the university is less than that of a college scholarship.

(10-23-2014 08:15 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 09:55 PM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  

(10-22-2014 04:56 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  Lol , really suspended for not paying taxes ? Do they currently suspend players for not paying their credit card debt ?

UT makes 82 million a year closely in profit, that 6 million dollar hit is not that much for them.

The problem with college football is that not all athletes want a college education, people need to realize that. Is a college degree a great tool for life , yes. Do all people feel the need to attend college ........no. So essentially the NCAA has been mandating athletes who want to play pro to attend college.

I think this is great , except for the schools who cant afford it like JMU.

UT made 19 million in profit last year, not 82 million. There are few schools that would not have to come up with additional revenue, even at the major school level, to make up for these costs.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

Thanks for doing some fact checking on that statement --- I knew that did not sound right. There is a big difference in Revenue and Profit.

Last time i looked it up there were only about 10 athletic departments in the country that actually made a profit. Football and/or basketball has to make A LOT of $$$ to pay for everything else. Additionally this would involve paying ALL athletes across all sports and should be scholarship and non-scholarship.

Yea I was thinking specfically about when I read UT football alone bring aside from anything other sports or costs. I think UT football'sworth is about 100 million. I'm not going to lie , when i think of UT i think about Football and Track and field. So my first thought was football. My thoughts were strickly football , thats my mistake.

Not that it really matters...but since the players would be employed by the school that they attend, I believe they can be exempt from the 1.45% medicare tax.

(10-23-2014 09:00 AM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  If we are going to start paying athletes "what they are worth" (i.e. the market value of their skill), then lets start taking away scholarships for non-revenue generating sports. Let's also take away scholarships for FCS football and mid-major basketball. For example, AJ Davis and Denzel Bowels were getting paid more as a student-athlete at JMU than when they took their talents to the private sector in the NBA D-League. What about all of our baseball players getting free tuition and then go to the minor leagues where they get paid only a few thousand dollars to continue their sport. Clearly if some student-athletes are getting under paid, we need to address the over payment of other student-athletes.

That's why this whole argument is ridiculous. We want to pay athlete's "what they are worth" if that number exceeds the cost of tuition. However, we don't want to apply that same principle if their worth to the university is less than that of a college scholarship.

Touche`!! And then we they have a sub-par season - do we reduce their pay b/c they are no longer earning it??

(10-23-2014 09:05 AM)NYJMUPIKE Wrote:  Not that it really matters...but since the players would be employed by the school that they attend, I believe they can be exempt from the 1.45% medicare tax.

Every W-2 employee pays medicare tax. Its just that his employer pays half of it. As a 1099 contract labor then the person has to pay the entire amount.

(10-23-2014 09:59 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 09:05 AM)NYJMUPIKE Wrote:  Not that it really matters...but since the players would be employed by the school that they attend, I believe they can be exempt from the 1.45% medicare tax.

Every W-2 employee pays medicare tax. Its just that his employer pays half of it. As a 1099 contract labor then the person has to pay the entire amount.

That is if the payment is deemed to be "earned" income vs "unearned" income. Could the payment be characterized as a royalty to a player or some kind of player athletic license that contributes to the overall goodwill or brand name of the school the player represents. In that case, no payroll taxes. It would be unearned income.

Also, if the amount is only $5,000 then wouldn't the standard deduction offset this amount (assuming this is the only income) if the player is not claimed as a dependent on another's tax return. Also, I am not sure but would this nominal amount allow a player to qualify for the earned income credit (if the amount is deemed to be "earned"). I don't know the threshold for this, though, and do not have time right now to look up.

Appears the quote was taken out of context...
http://thebiglead.com/2014/10/22/texas-i...-in-court/

@Dirty -- So, to summarize, you are ok with dipping your toe in the cesspool, just not your whole body, correct?

For everyone else -- a fundamental part of the problem is the lunacy of NCAA rules. Because we can all have rational discussions about opportunity and the value of a scholarship vs pay. You an argue that they are being compensated, and that they have the choice not to take the compensation and enter the pro leagues directly -- which is not a good option for most players because in addition to the scholly, they NEED the exposure college sports provides them. All of this debate is well and good.

The place where it becomes absurd is that we also tell the athletes that while the school is out there trading on your name for millions, you may not sign your own name on a photo and make a single dollar. To me, that is the biggest exposure of the whole sham, that for all of the BS talk about student athletes, and the value of this and that... that a player ultimately is given no power to monetize their own name until the university has finished profiting from them.

Fix that and a lot of this discussion goes away.

i still want to know why they can't leave the situation as is but allow the athletes to market themselves and make license revenue on their own.

if Jameis Winston can get a local car dealership to pay him to be in a TV commercial, so be it. Good for him. if a jersey with his number sells, good for him. give him his share of the royalties.

it may open up problems in recruiting when said car dealership is promising a commercial to some hotsot freshmen, but that is a dangerous game that will blow up in the businessman's face more often than that. they will learn not to offer anything that isn't a sure thing. that's why they are businessman.

so the athletes that TRULY have a Q rating will get theirs. And those that don't? you are still getting your free education and a whole lot of other perks that go with being a collegiate athlete.

(10-23-2014 11:34 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  i still want to know why they can't leave the situation as is but allow the athletes to market themselves and make license revenue on their own.

if Jameis Winston can get a local car dealership to pay him to be in a TV commercial, so be it. Good for him. if a jersey with his number sells, good for him. give him his share of the royalties.

it may open up problems in recruiting when said car dealership is promising a commercial to some hotsot freshmen, but that is a dangerous game that will blow up in the businessman's face more often than that. they will learn not to offer anything that isn't a sure thing. that's why they are businessman.

so the athletes that TRULY have a Q rating will get theirs. And those that don't? you are still getting your free education and a whole lot of other perks that go with being a collegiate athlete.

I very much like your idea!