As much of a mess as it is going to be, I don't have a real problem with admitting it is what it always has been, and more so recently. The interesting part to watch will be the consequences of getting more of it out in the open.

Pretending that the current "amateurism" in NCAA sports, especially Div I, is anything like the "amateur ideal" of 50 years ago is myopic at best, and lunacy at worst.

One thing I feel is constantly lost in these discussions is that, while the players are going to get a little money here (and for almost all of them, it will only amount to a little money in the grand scheme of things) the majority of that extra money is limited to being used to pay for school-related expenses. While I realize that "bright minds" will be figuring out work-arounds, the stipends are just NOT at all the same a paying players a salary, or giving them money free-and clear.

I think players are risking a lot more in lifetime injuries and chronic problems playing most of the big-time college sports these days than 40 years ago (bigger players, more and specialized training, "enhancers vis-a-vis hgh, drugs, etc...), and throwing a few of the billions of dollars they directly help generate their way, seems like a very tiny gesture for the services they provide.

I agree that they should take away the tax-exempt status of the schools. Also the same for pro sports leagues who seem to be making money under their exempt status as well.

(01-18-2015 09:52 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(01-18-2015 02:40 AM)redfan Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 10:10 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 05:14 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

Any grant or scholarship money used for other purposes (like housing, for example) is considered taxable and needs to be reported, as would a "stipend".

This is way overblown. The players will have to pay for the tax, not the school. and players who can't work end up with 2 to 5k per year in income, and really will have 0 or very close to that owed to federal govt.

It likely is a $$$ loser for the Gov't, as doing the returns will cost more than the $$ coming in.

I hate to tell you but you are wrong. They will have to pay the 15% or so self-employment tax on the stipend (SS and medicare). The players parents currently get a 1099 for the scholarship and report the taxable income for non-tuition expenses. The stipend will be a separate line that will be subject to the self employment tax.

Paying the stipend will also make them contractor or employees. In a right to work state, they can transfer at will and will not be held out for a year. This could also cost the university its tax exempt status as Sports revenue should be taxed since the players are now semipro. This will create an interesting legal and tax situation.

Anybody that thinks this is some new development or that most revenue athletes are in fact, legitimate students hasn't been paying attention at all. This crap has been going on for a long, long time - under the table / back room dealings, $100 handshakes, deals on cars, housing... etc, etc, etc. and "GASP" it's probably happening at every one of our schools to some degree or another. The biggest difference is that Ohio State, Texas and Alabama has a lot more people willing to throw $$$$ at these kids. If you're one of the kids would YOU say... "no thanks"? Probably not.

The only reason people like us say it's "not fair" or "sad" is because our schools' boosters don't have that kind of money to throw around. The big boys have always had a big advantage and they always by mass of their fan bases. G5 fans (ECU especially included) need to deal with that fact. It's not some grand conspiracy to screw the little guy over. If anything, the big boys are just protecting their own asses from lawsuits.

At the end of the day the "Full Cost" amounts to less than $2M per year for MOST athletic programs. That's assuming every scholarship athlete gets the ballpark figure ~$2,500-3,000 spending money.

I say congrats to the kids. At least they can get a little spending money "legally."

(01-18-2015 08:47 AM)ShoreBuc Wrote:  

(01-18-2015 08:10 AM)Theflash Wrote:  Only gonna get worse. What's next?

95+ Scholarships to deepen the rosters for a 8 team or 16 team playoff. With additional football games and plenty of money the cartel will look to crush the G5 with more scholarships. They will take those fringe 3 star players to develop and use on the practice squads. They might even look to change the transfer rules making it easier for talented football players that emerge in the G5 to transfer to P5 schools. I also imagine they will tweak acceptance exceptions to the point of being able to take kids with the IQ of a tree stump.

Like the Southern Miss poster said, I am just glad I was able to watch ECU Football the past 25yrs especially during the Independent years. Not sure what the future holds for those of us left behind in the G5 but hopefully we do not spiral into a FCS/JUCO level of play.

If ECU can't come up with another $1.5M to remain at the highest level, we don't belong, period.

EDIT - Don't misconstrue these last 2 posts. I do think that this will have a lot of unintended consequences over time. It should be interesting to watch.

(01-17-2015 07:11 PM)shyminer Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 06:46 PM)leapinggazelle Wrote:  You only can blame yourself for lousy attendance and viewership in your confernece.

Say's the Temple fan.

Remember what happened to UAB. I've said ad nauseam that what happened to us can and might happen to another G5 competitor in football if we don't show strong support for our teams NOW. Just when things started to get better for us here was when they decided to take the shot from Tuscaloosa and used a Birmingham native to do so. Beware if the term "fiscal responsibility" become household words on your campus during or before football season. Don't want to see this happen to anyone else. Don't give them an excuse,, because the words of Pablo Torre are still echoing in my head about this being the harsh realities of today's college football world if you're not in a "Power Conference."

If you don't have a seat at the dinner table, you are probably on the menu...

(01-20-2015 02:57 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  As much of a mess as it is going to be, I don't have a real problem with admitting it is what it always has been, and more so recently. The interesting part to watch will be the consequences of getting more of it out in the open.

Pretending that the current "amateurism" in NCAA sports, especially Div I, is anything like the "amateur ideal" of 50 years ago is myopic at best, and lunacy at worst.

One thing I feel is constantly lost in these discussions is that, while the players are going to get a little money here (and for almost all of them, it will only amount to a little money in the grand scheme of things) the majority of that extra money is limited to being used to pay for school-related expenses. While I realize that "bright minds" will be figuring out work-arounds, the stipends are just NOT at all the same a paying players a salary, or giving them money free-and clear.

I think players are risking a lot more in lifetime injuries and chronic problems playing most of the big-time college sports these days than 40 years ago (bigger players, more and specialized training, "enhancers vis-a-vis hgh, drugs, etc...), and throwing a few of the billions of dollars they directly help generate their way, seems like a very tiny gesture for the services they provide.

I agree that they should take away the tax-exempt status of the schools. Also the same for pro sports leagues who seem to be making money under their exempt status as well.

you just took it to another level....

they didn't just get 'bigger and faster' overnight....

sometimes you can't be that 'good'.....it's 'roid heaven at the right hand of the father that becomes a ghost....

there are ways to slow the game down....

it's the fact that nobody has asked yet....(not in the right way)....(((they don't want 'that')))

fk that premise.....ain't buyin' that 'good' as a patron....

(01-19-2015 09:51 PM)LR Eagle Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 04:05 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:Allow athletes to borrow against future earnings to purchase so-called loss-of-value insurance

I mean uhm... how do they determine their "future" earnings?

Agents have been doing it for years, in violation of the rules and without any legal recourse against guys that don't pay it back. The idea being you do a guy in favor in college, maybe he remembers when he leaves school and needs an agent to sign his first deal, an agent who gets a nice piece of the action.

nailed

(01-20-2015 04:29 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Anybody that thinks this is some new development or that most revenue athletes are in fact, legitimate students hasn't been paying attention at all. This crap has been going on for a long, long time - under the table / back room dealings, $100 handshakes, deals on cars, housing... etc, etc, etc. and "GASP" it's probably happening at every one of our schools to some degree or another. The biggest difference is that Ohio State, Texas and Alabama has a lot more people willing to throw $$$$ at these kids. If you're one of the kids would YOU say... "no thanks"? Probably not.

The only reason people like us say it's "not fair" or "sad" is because our schools' boosters don't have that kind of money to throw around. The big boys have always had a big advantage and they always by mass of their fan bases. G5 fans (ECU especially included) need to deal with that fact. It's not some grand conspiracy to screw the little guy over. If anything, the big boys are just protecting their own asses from lawsuits.

At the end of the day the "Full Cost" amounts to less than $2M per year for MOST athletic programs. That's assuming every scholarship athlete gets the ballpark figure ~$2,500-3,000 spending money.

I say congrats to the kids. At least they can get a little spending money "legally."

there is nothing new once data becomes 'researched'

edit: ...finally made it to the 'spoil the kids thingy'......jfc fk me

(01-18-2015 09:34 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Two evenly matched FCS teams playing each other, for the love of the game, not money, is still pretty fun. If ODU can't keep up and the G5 stay relatively even in terms of competition, it'll still be football on a beautiful fall afternoon. I say F the P5, let's go our own way. I love ODU and I love ODU football. 10,000 at a game or 50,000. I'll still be there.

Excellent post.

(01-21-2015 10:46 PM)TheEastisPurple Wrote:  

(01-18-2015 09:34 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Two evenly matched FCS teams playing each other, for the love of the game, not money, is still pretty fun. If ODU can't keep up and the G5 stay relatively even in terms of competition, it'll still be football on a beautiful fall afternoon. I say F the P5, let's go our own way. I love ODU and I love ODU football. 10,000 at a game or 50,000. I'll still be there.

Excellent post.

sorry....can't pull a punch at the moment....

fk me with that sentiment....

if it plays out that way....so be it......I never gave a shite about the ribbin.....I just wanted to rip if off the fkrs neck.....

just a;ldskgfaj;alkfjl

p5 = neckbone

I suspect there will be some "interesting" accounting to get the players at Silver Spoon Conferences even more money. Housing listed at one price, when it's acutally a third of what they are reporting.

Unlimited meals will be a HUGE expense, as well.

Wait until Oregon and the like builds that dining hall made of gold-- with 5-star chefs, unlimited Kobe steak/seafood, and pretty young waitresses. Try recruiting against that, especially when the scholie numbers expand. I'm talking about the marginal $EC players that a Marshall or any C-USA program has a chance to get.

Don't have the energy to make it to the gold-plated dining hall ? Well, the $3 million food truck is a'waiting outside your dorm.

I wonder what affect this will have on academics ? Do your homework in high school ? Hell, naw-- gotta get bigger and faster so I can get that Bammer offer. More dumbing down of America.

On a local sports radio show here in Hattiesburg they discussed the ramifications of this change yesterday. They seemed to think it might help CUSA distance themselves from the other G5 conferences. CUSA is sitting on a pile of cash from exit fees and unpaid NCAA tourney credits and their belief was that the conference would initially use some of this surplus to subsidize some of the cost of attendance increases.

(01-20-2015 04:10 PM)Cscollis Wrote:  I hate to tell you but you are wrong. They will have to pay the 15% or so self-employment tax on the stipend (SS and medicare). The players parents currently get a 1099 for the scholarship and report the taxable income for non-tuition expenses. The stipend will be a separate line that will be subject to the self employment tax.

Paying the stipend will also make them contractor or employees. In a right to work state, they can transfer at will and will not be held out for a year. This could also cost the university its tax exempt status as Sports revenue should be taxed since the players are now semipro. This will create an interesting legal and tax situation.

Lots of tax questions to be worked out imho. Will the stipends be cosidered unearned/earned income? If earned, I don't believe for a minute that the schools would even consider pulling the old tax dodge that the athletes are contractors rather than employees, and would have to withhold it.

Beyond taxes, in most states non-compete contracts could preclude a transfer.

(01-22-2015 12:50 PM)USMSTUD Wrote:  On a local sports radio show here in Hattiesburg they discussed the ramifications of this change yesterday. They seemed to think it might help CUSA distance themselves from the other G5 conferences. CUSA is sitting on a pile of cash from exit fees and unpaid NCAA tourney credits and their belief was that the conference would initially use some of this surplus to subsidize some of the cost of attendance increases.

I think it will help the G5 distance themselves further from FCS and non-football Division 1 conferences for sure. I'd exclude Big East and A-10 from that though.

I think the potential scholarship roster spot expansion potentially hurts the G5 schools more than paying the stipends for cost of attendance. If each P5 can add another 10-15 players, that's a LOT of current G5 players gone, and reduces opportunities for competitiveness far more IMO.

(01-22-2015 03:40 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I think the potential scholarship roster spot expansion potentially hurts the G5 schools more than paying the stipends for cost of attendance. If each P5 can add another 10-15 players, that's a LOT of current G5 players gone, and reduces opportunities for competitiveness far more IMO.

That is easily my biggest concern....

(01-22-2015 12:50 PM)USMSTUD Wrote:  On a local sports radio show here in Hattiesburg they discussed the ramifications of this change yesterday. They seemed to think it might help CUSA distance themselves from the other G5 conferences. CUSA is sitting on a pile of cash from exit fees and unpaid NCAA tourney credits and their belief was that the conference would initially use some of this surplus to subsidize some of the cost of attendance increases.

I'm not sure how exit fees could help CUSA (as a whole) as that money is earmarked for certain members in the event of a decrease in media contract value. *IF* that situation comes about, those members will be made whole for 3 years. Two years with money from UH, SMU, UCF, Tulsa, Tulane, ECU and redirected Memphis tournament credits. Any remaining balances will be returned to UH, SMU, and UCF at that time. Memphis BB credits would then revert to normal conference distribution. The third year money from Tulsa, Tulane and ECU would be used to offset any discrepancies with any remaining balances returned to said schools. The first group, UH, SMU, UCF, and Memphis, are liable for any CUSA2 shortcomings for a five year period after departure. Hence, the two year draw. The others would be for three years and may or may not include CUSA3 with the exception of WKU. Someone more knowledgeable would have to answer that question. Do CUSA2 members get all or a bigger piece of that pie? Meaning are Tulsa, Tulane and ECU responsible for CUSA2 or CUSA3 shortcomings if a decrease comes about? I really don't know.

The above doesn't account for the $500,000 fee. CUSA2 got $1.5M + $500K internal transfer (BB credits)...so an extra $400,000 per team. I assumed that was distributed last year, but it could be over a period of years. Again, I'm not sure if the following $1.5M (TUs and ECU) gets split evenly between 5 or 14 teams...or by using a weighted formula. At any rate, not a pile of cash, but every little bit helps.