I think it’s close to a 50/50 split to pay players beyond their current stipend, swag, meals, scholarship. So how about this proposal: Players get a flat $50k a year, minus the student tuition. For example: let’s say FSU’s tuition is $15k a year, each player few $35k a year, Wake’s tuition is $30k a year, each player for them is $20k a year, etc.
Of course those are not likely real numbers, but using the made up numbers as an example. What this will also do is even the playing field for the G5 schools who’s tuition is likely going to be lower than the typical P5 school thus giving them some recruiting leverage.
So with Title 9, how do you get away with paying male football players and no women sports?
Doing that won't last 1 day with our court system.
(08-15-2019 07:17 AM)Garrettabc Wrote: [ -> ]I think it’s close to a 50/50 split to pay players beyond their current stipend, swag, meals, scholarship. So how about this proposal: Players get a flat $50k a year, minus the student tuition. For example: let’s say FSU’s tuition is $15k a year, each player few $35k a year, Wake’s tuition is $30k a year, each player for them is $20k a year, etc.
Of course those are not likely real numbers, but using the made up numbers as an example. What this will also do is even the playing field for the G5 schools who’s tuition is likely going to be lower than the typical P5 school thus giving them some recruiting leverage.
FSU fan wants a competitive advantage for public universities in recruiting over private universities. Did you notice that your plan would cause out of state recruits to public universities to be paid less than in state recruits?
(08-15-2019 08:21 AM)Hallcity Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2019 07:17 AM)Garrettabc Wrote: [ -> ]I think it’s close to a 50/50 split to pay players beyond their current stipend, swag, meals, scholarship. So how about this proposal: Players get a flat $50k a year, minus the student tuition. For example: let’s say FSU’s tuition is $15k a year, each player few $35k a year, Wake’s tuition is $30k a year, each player for them is $20k a year, etc.
Of course those are not likely real numbers, but using the made up numbers as an example. What this will also do is even the playing field for the G5 schools who’s tuition is likely going to be lower than the typical P5 school thus giving them some recruiting leverage.
FSU fan wants a competitive advantage for public universities in recruiting over private universities. Did you notice that your plan would cause out of state recruits to public universities to be paid less than in state recruits?
Not sure if this is directed at me, but it has 0 to do with the point I made or what I want.
What I want has 0 to do with it. Every time this topic comes up folks ignore title 9. You can't ignore title 9 no matter how much anyone screams.
The ONE thing you can do to get players paid around title 9 is allow players to get paid for their likeness. That is it.
But most players will get close to $0 in that scenerio
The "haves" of the world are never going to agree to anything that is fair and levels the playing field with the "have nots".
How do you think they got to be the "haves" in the first place???
(08-15-2019 09:11 AM)Def Berkkat Wrote: [ -> ]The "haves" of the world are never going to agree to anything that is fair and levels the playing field with the "have nots".
How do you think they got to be the "haves" in the first place???
This is accurate.
Also accurate, FSU is not one of the 'haves.' The 'haves' can buy and sell FSU.
(08-15-2019 09:18 AM)nole Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2019 09:11 AM)Def Berkkat Wrote: [ -> ]The "haves" of the world are never going to agree to anything that is fair and levels the playing field with the "have nots".
How do you think they got to be the "haves" in the first place???
This is accurate.
Also accurate, FSU is not one of the 'haves.' The 'haves' can buy and sell FSU.
If you're in the P5, you're definitely one of the "haves." Try telling UCF that FSU isn't a "have."
(08-15-2019 09:30 AM)Hallcity Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2019 09:18 AM)nole Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2019 09:11 AM)Def Berkkat Wrote: [ -> ]The "haves" of the world are never going to agree to anything that is fair and levels the playing field with the "have nots".
How do you think they got to be the "haves" in the first place???
This is accurate.
Also accurate, FSU is not one of the 'haves.' The 'haves' can buy and sell FSU.
If you're in the P5, you're definitely one of the "haves." Try telling UCF that FSU isn't a "have."
lol.
No. That is cute. The haves are the Texas, Michigans, Ohio State, Bama, etc.
(08-15-2019 09:39 AM)nole Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2019 09:30 AM)Hallcity Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2019 09:18 AM)nole Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2019 09:11 AM)Def Berkkat Wrote: [ -> ]The "haves" of the world are never going to agree to anything that is fair and levels the playing field with the "have nots".
How do you think they got to be the "haves" in the first place???
This is accurate.
Also accurate, FSU is not one of the 'haves.' The 'haves' can buy and sell FSU.
If you're in the P5, you're definitely one of the "haves." Try telling UCF that FSU isn't a "have."
lol.
No. That is cute. The haves are the Texas, Michigans, Ohio State, Bama, etc.
You named the four top teams - and I agree with you - but the "etc." part... FSU is in the top 10 to 15. So if you say FSU is not a "have" then your list must be very, very short indeed. For instance, no way UF is a "have" if FSU isn't - they are very close in most every way. Even compared to Alabama, it's $177M vs. $168M AD budget - not much difference (only 5% more).
(08-15-2019 09:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2019 09:39 AM)nole Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2019 09:30 AM)Hallcity Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2019 09:18 AM)nole Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2019 09:11 AM)Def Berkkat Wrote: [ -> ]The "haves" of the world are never going to agree to anything that is fair and levels the playing field with the "have nots".
How do you think they got to be the "haves" in the first place???
This is accurate.
Also accurate, FSU is not one of the 'haves.' The 'haves' can buy and sell FSU.
If you're in the P5, you're definitely one of the "haves." Try telling UCF that FSU isn't a "have."
lol.
No. That is cute. The haves are the Texas, Michigans, Ohio State, Bama, etc.
You named the four top teams - and I agree with you - but the "etc." part... FSU is in the top 10 to 15. So if you say FSU is not a "have" then your list must be very, very short indeed. For instance, no way UF is a "have" if FSU isn't - they are very close in most every way. Even compared to Alabama, it's $177M vs. $168M AD budget - not much difference (only 5% more).
Schools budget and show their money in different ways. It is not an apples to apples.
The UF vs FSU comparison is interesting. But UF has MUCH more money than FSU. FSU has a $600 million endowment. UF is approaching $2 Billion. FSU does $220 million in research, UF over $800 million. Yes those aren't athletic, but they show some of the hidden money variance there is with FSU.
FSU which is a BIG baseball school is watching UF build a brand new $50 million baseball stadium while FSU insiders admit FSU's facility is falling behind even average teams.
UF is much more of a have than FSU.
When I say have, I think $$$ first.
If you are paying them $50k, they are employees. So says the IRS. As employees they would not be subject to Title IX. Removing football from the equation may bring schools into compliance or at least get them a lot closer.
What ever the the amount the actual cost is going to be approximately twice that with social security, insurance, etc. So a school with a full 85 scholarships is looking at $8.5 million in payroll expenses (85 athletes @ $100k). That's a lot to add to already strapped athletic budgets.
Why bother with the tuition? Let the booster clubs continue to pay the tuition.
BTW, NC schools are likely going back to charging the booster clubs in-state rates.
(08-15-2019 10:28 AM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]If you are paying them $50k, they are employees. So says the IRS. As employees they would not be subject to Title IX. Removing football from the equation may bring schools into compliance or at least get them a lot closer.
What ever the the amount the actual cost is going to be approximately twice that with social security, insurance, etc. So a school with a full 85 scholarships is looking at $8.5 million in payroll expenses (85 athletes @ $100k). That's a lot to add to already strapped athletic budgets.
Why bother with the tuition? Let the booster clubs continue to pay the tuition.
BTW, NC schools are likely going back to charging the booster clubs in-state rates.
That is interesting.
That said, the Obama administration felt so strong about title 9, they pushed back on due process.........I would be SHOCKED if anyone ever got around title 9. Political forces just too strong.
I think they could make it work if they wanted to.
(08-15-2019 07:17 AM)Garrettabc Wrote: [ -> ]What this will also do is even the playing field for the G5 schools who’s tuition is likely going to be lower than the typical P5 school thus giving them some recruiting leverage.
I think you need to separate "fair compensation" and "leveling the playing field". There is nothing anyone will be able to do regarding compensation that is going to help G5 programs vs the P5.
(08-15-2019 10:28 AM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]If you are paying them $50k, they are employees. So says the IRS. As employees they would not be subject to Title IX. Removing football from the equation may bring schools into compliance or at least get them a lot closer.
What ever the the amount the actual cost is going to be approximately twice that with social security, insurance, etc. So a school with a full 85 scholarships is looking at $8.5 million in payroll expenses (85 athletes @ $100k). That's a lot to add to already strapped athletic budgets.
Why bother with the tuition? Let the booster clubs continue to pay the tuition.
BTW, NC schools are likely going back to charging the booster clubs in-state rates.
The IRS doesn't set a compensation threshold for determining whether someone is an employee. Whether you pay someone $50,000 a year or minimum wage, if they are performing a service for pay and don't meet the criteria for independent contractor status they are employees. Many student-athletes are also employees of their schools if they have part time jobs at the university. If they also have scholarships they are involved in Title IX compliance calculations.
Now, if football at the FBS level were to be separate from the NCAA entirely, and players only receive compensation for playing football as employees of the school, then perhaps the schools wouldn't have to include their rosters for Title IX purposes. That would likely have to be settled by the courts, or by Congress (which could simply specify they aren't subject to Title IX).
(08-16-2019 10:38 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2019 10:28 AM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]If you are paying them $50k, they are employees. So says the IRS. As employees they would not be subject to Title IX. Removing football from the equation may bring schools into compliance or at least get them a lot closer.
What ever the the amount the actual cost is going to be approximately twice that with social security, insurance, etc. So a school with a full 85 scholarships is looking at $8.5 million in payroll expenses (85 athletes @ $100k). That's a lot to add to already strapped athletic budgets.
Why bother with the tuition? Let the booster clubs continue to pay the tuition.
BTW, NC schools are likely going back to charging the booster clubs in-state rates.
The IRS doesn't set a compensation threshold for determining whether someone is an employee. Whether you pay someone $50,000 a year or minimum wage, if they are performing a service for pay and don't meet the criteria for independent contractor status they are emplyees. Many student-athletes are also employees of their schools if they have part time jobs at the university. If they also have scholarships they are involved in Title IX compliance calculations.
Now, if football at the FBS level were to be separate from the NCAA entirely, and players only receive compensation for playing football as employees of the school, then perhaps the schools wouldn't have to include their rosters for Title IX purposes. That would likely hve to settled by the courts, or by Congress (which could simply specify they aren't subject to Title IX).
I agree there is no specific compensation threshold for determining if someone is an employee. While schools may get away with paying athletes $5,000 and calling it cost of tuition, they are not going to be able to use that argument for $50,000. Whether you call them employees or sub contractors the IRS will want their cut.
I have not read Title IX. It is my understanding that it applies to opportunities for student-athletes, not employees or contractors. It would not apply to this category any more than it would to the janitor or the company they hire to wash windows.
A big problem for schools when it comes to football players (and basketball players as well) is that not all recruits are as valuable as others. Maybe at Alabama there isn't that much difference between the players throughout their roster. But for most schools, where they get no more than a few four star players and no five stars, you don't want to be paying that 3rd or 4th stringer the same as your star.
Does recruiting then just develop into a bidding war (more so than it already is under the table)? And what happens when the recruit you got for $20K moves ahead of the $40K recruit on the depth chart? Does one get a raise and the other a pay cut?
I don't see much good coming out of a process like that.