CSNbbs

(01-21-2021 11:41 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-21-2021 09:44 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2021 03:22 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2021 03:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2021 01:56 PM)46566 Wrote: [ -> ]Well it really started with the expansion of the obscene tv deals and video game revenue.(the conferences and schools had to be making something from the NCAA games) I'm sure some radio makes a small amount of money for schools. It's been a money thing for awhile. If it wasn't a money or ratings game then the Sun Belt would have the same tv time and revenue as any SEC school.

I don't mind this as long as everything is above the board. I actually don't think it's going to change much. While the big names could shop around I think most recruiting stays the same. Some 3 or 4 stars might go to a smaller school so they could market themselves better as a star of the team. They could make money appearing at a car dealership or local commericals. The farce of Amateur sports at least in football and basketball will finally end.

My guess is it cant really be controlled. You'll go from "bagmen" to a group of well heeled alums with commercial enterprises that can offer players varying levels of NIL income based on the value of the player to the team.

This is why I am for pay for play. It's the only viable way to clean up the sport. Pay them under contract and let them pay taxes. This cleans up much of the bag man problem because boosters would rather get a tax break by donating to the University. It also keeps players obligated to play all games. If they want to depart early it also provides the school remedy in that the Professional team wanting them would have to buy out the remainder of the contract.

Pretending that amateurism exists has been the greatest cover for illegal activity around college sports from point shaving to payola, to tax evasion. It's beyond absurd that we keep this farce up.

I fully support the idea of pay for play, as long as there is an alternative for schools for whom that’s simply not financially feasible. The question is, how do we get there from here?

Many fans are philosophically opposed to giving the federal government any say in college athletics. What most of them don’t understand is that the government is already heavily involved, and have been for more than a century. When they first became involved, that involvement was critical to ensuring that college athletics, especially football, had a future. Fifty years ago their involvement was benign, and still made some sense.

That was when money didn’t play nearly as great a role in sports as it does today. Now the landscape has changed, and federal policies which exempt college sports from tax laws that govern every other enterprise are now part of the problem rather than the solution. The federal government, mostly through the IRS, is going to be involved. IMO, those tax laws need to be completely rethought.

I believe that collegiate revenue sports should be deemed “unrelated business activities” with respect to their sponsoring institutions. But in making this determination, it’s not necessary or desirable that all sports be lumped together. I think there should be a safe haven for non-revenue sports and for revenue sports at individual schools where the gross revenues fall below some reasonable threshold.

I have no problem with the idea that ULM’s football program would have a safe harbor while Purdue’s doesn’t. Or that Valparaiso’s basketball program is exempt but Wake Forest’s is not. For those schools who exceed the threshold, their profits should be taxed like any corporation and their athletes should be consider employees and their compensation taxed the same way yours and mine are.

There is a threshold now for non-profits below which they can obtain revenue from activities not related to their tax-exempt purpose without being subject to tax. Why can’t there be one specifically for collegiate sports, with a higher threshold more fitting to the nature of that activity?

I don't have a problem with classifying revenue and non revenue sports differently, because they are. But if you are to have the two there must be no point of intersection. Revenue athletes are paid and under contract. Non-revenue athletes aren't paid in any form, including scholarships. The problem all along has been that with amateurism you can't be half pregnant. You are either rewarded for your contribution or you are not. Scholarships are really a bartered form of compensation. As are room and board, and full cost of education. Tennis, Golf, Volleyball, Track & Field (indoor & outdoor), swimming and diving, wrestling, etc. could have separate classifications as well. True Olympic sports could be under the auspices of the AOC (not the House member by the same initials). Country club sports could be either club level or also under the AOC, but non revenue to the school, meaning Corporate Olympic Sponsors could cover them as feeder programs or they would be up to the student to participate at their own expense. So if we have pay for play for revenue sports, let's either put Olympic sports under the American Olympic Committee's governance (not the NCAA) or make them club level in nature. Schools would administer all non revenue sports and the Athletic Department all revenue sports.

At a theoretical level, this makes sense in a vacuum where college athletics can participate a true free market.

However, I think the practical and, more importantly, legal reality is that college athletics aren't in a true free market. For example, Title IX exists and it applies to universities and other educational institutions in a way that it doesn't apply to other industries. Universities can try to label sports as revenue or non-revenue or attempt to move Olympic sports under another umbrella organization, but the fact of the matter is that if colleges pay football and men's basketball players (who are generally the only real revenue generators at Division I universities with the very few exceptions where men's hockey, baseball and women's basketball programs might turn a profit), then they're going to have to pay an equivalent number of women's athletes in the same manner or else they're going to run afoul of the equal opportunity compliance requirements under Title IX.

To be clear, I personally have no issue with such equal payments and fully support direct pay for play at a theoretical level. However, once we go down that road, we also get away from the free market purpose for pay for play in the first place (as the core impetus of pay for play is to compensate the revenue generating athletes). NIL endorsements actually address this issue much better in practicality (as I'll get to in a moment).

At the same time, let's remember that each scholarship dollar is MUCH "cheaper" for everyone involved (the universities and the athletes) than each direct payment dollar. From the university's perspective, a scholarship for the university generally means a transfer of tuition and cost of attendance amount from the athletic department bank account to the general university bank account. Effectively, it's a zero dollar transaction for the university with a self-supporting athletic department - they're simply shifting bank accounts. In contrast, a direct payment to an athlete isn't a zero dollar transaction at all: that money is *gone* once it leaves the athletic department bank account and they need to make tax withholdings and other employment considerations on top of it.

On the flip side, a scholarship isn't deemed to be income to an athlete. As much as we want to call it "compensation" to an athlete, the fact of the matter is that the federal government doesn't consider a scholarship to be income at all. It's a completely tax free exercise. In contrast, athletes need to pay taxes on any direct payments.

Now, if you told me that there was a legal way for universities to only pay football and men's basketball players without having to pay non-revenue athletes, then I think direct payments would have happened already. I don't think universities would ultimately have an issue with paying more dollars for the sports that make a lot of money. The point is, though, no university can do it without violating Title IX (and pretty clearly without much of a defense). Direct payments ultimately requires direct payments to *all* athletes in compliance with Title IX.

Interestingly, I think that's the best defense for universities for avoiding direct payments in the first place. They can state that the fact that the football and men's basketball players generate so much money doesn't matter because they legally *can't* provide different payments to superstars in those sports without violating the law.

That's where NIL endorsement money comes in. Nike, adidas, Coke, Pepsi and any other non-educational enterprise isn't subject to Title IX at all. They are perfectly able to engage in true free market contracts with only such superstars without having to deal with non-revenue athletes.

As much as the universities were dragged kicking and screaming into the NIL world, it's honestly the best thing that could have happened to them. They can essentially continue running their athletic departments as-is while allowing third parties to compensate their superstars (warding off any unionization demands and other lawsuits) in a way that the universities aren't allowed to directly under Title IX even if they wanted to do so.

I believe that no athlete should be paid. It will change the way that players play.
If a kid wants money instead of an education, let him go pro at any age somebody will write him a contract, but he then could never play college athletics.

However, the way sports are headed, NIL may be the only way to save collegiate sports, and return to amateur competition at the collegiate level at schools that choose not to participate in NIL.
Let the people that want to pay play in one league and the folks that don't play in another.
I would continue to support my school if the opted out of the NIL crowd and participated in sports in the traditional collegiate since. If they joined the payers, I'd never send them another dime and cease to continue to buy season tickets to multiple sports.

(01-21-2021 03:26 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]I believe that no athlete should be paid. It will change the way that players play.
If a kid wants money instead of an education, let him go pro at any age somebody will write him a contract, but he then could never play college athletics.

However, the way sports are headed, NIL may be the only way to save collegiate sports, and return to amateur competition at the collegiate level at schools that choose not to participate in NIL.
Let the people that want to pay play in one league and the folks that don't play in another.
I would continue to support my school if the opted out of the NIL crowd and participated in sports in the traditional collegiate since. If they joined the payers, I'd never send them another dime and cease to continue to buy season tickets to multiple sports.

There's no "opt out" choice here. That's the whole point of the legislation that you're seeing in many states and likely at the federal level shortly. You could have an athlete playing at the Division III or JUCO levels and they're entitled the exact same NIL rights as those in the Power Five. The legislation effectively states that every person has the right to their own likeness regardless of where they're playing. The NCAA and their members ultimately can't do anything about it, which is why they're so scared of it (even though I think they were handed a gift since NIL endorsements are a heck of lot easier to deal with than direct payments to players or unionization of teams). Any restrictions on NIL money that the NCAA would attempt would be a prima facie antitrust violation and they couldn't really enforce such restrictions without allowing unions, which would be the worst outcome of all for the schools.

Just Google "Trevor Lawrence autograph" and you'll pull up 713,000 results (not a typo). Online sellers are cashing in on hundreds and even thousands of dollars for Trevor Lawrence autographs that he isn't allowed to make any money off of himself. The NIL legislation is designed to end that ridiculousness and it has nothing to do with whether a school wants to opt in or out of the system. It will be the system for *everyone* whether they like it or not by law.

Outside of the SEC, the number of student-athletes who could make anything off NIL is a very limited number.

(01-21-2021 03:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-21-2021 11:41 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-21-2021 09:44 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2021 03:22 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2021 03:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]My guess is it cant really be controlled. You'll go from "bagmen" to a group of well heeled alums with commercial enterprises that can offer players varying levels of NIL income based on the value of the player to the team.

This is why I am for pay for play. It's the only viable way to clean up the sport. Pay them under contract and let them pay taxes. This cleans up much of the bag man problem because boosters would rather get a tax break by donating to the University. It also keeps players obligated to play all games. If they want to depart early it also provides the school remedy in that the Professional team wanting them would have to buy out the remainder of the contract.

Pretending that amateurism exists has been the greatest cover for illegal activity around college sports from point shaving to payola, to tax evasion. It's beyond absurd that we keep this farce up.

I fully support the idea of pay for play, as long as there is an alternative for schools for whom that’s simply not financially feasible. The question is, how do we get there from here?

Many fans are philosophically opposed to giving the federal government any say in college athletics. What most of them don’t understand is that the government is already heavily involved, and have been for more than a century. When they first became involved, that involvement was critical to ensuring that college athletics, especially football, had a future. Fifty years ago their involvement was benign, and still made some sense.

That was when money didn’t play nearly as great a role in sports as it does today. Now the landscape has changed, and federal policies which exempt college sports from tax laws that govern every other enterprise are now part of the problem rather than the solution. The federal government, mostly through the IRS, is going to be involved. IMO, those tax laws need to be completely rethought.

I believe that collegiate revenue sports should be deemed “unrelated business activities” with respect to their sponsoring institutions. But in making this determination, it’s not necessary or desirable that all sports be lumped together. I think there should be a safe haven for non-revenue sports and for revenue sports at individual schools where the gross revenues fall below some reasonable threshold.

I have no problem with the idea that ULM’s football program would have a safe harbor while Purdue’s doesn’t. Or that Valparaiso’s basketball program is exempt but Wake Forest’s is not. For those schools who exceed the threshold, their profits should be taxed like any corporation and their athletes should be consider employees and their compensation taxed the same way yours and mine are.

There is a threshold now for non-profits below which they can obtain revenue from activities not related to their tax-exempt purpose without being subject to tax. Why can’t there be one specifically for collegiate sports, with a higher threshold more fitting to the nature of that activity?

I don't have a problem with classifying revenue and non revenue sports differently, because they are. But if you are to have the two there must be no point of intersection. Revenue athletes are paid and under contract. Non-revenue athletes aren't paid in any form, including scholarships. The problem all along has been that with amateurism you can't be half pregnant. You are either rewarded for your contribution or you are not. Scholarships are really a bartered form of compensation. As are room and board, and full cost of education. Tennis, Golf, Volleyball, Track & Field (indoor & outdoor), swimming and diving, wrestling, etc. could have separate classifications as well. True Olympic sports could be under the auspices of the AOC (not the House member by the same initials). Country club sports could be either club level or also under the AOC, but non revenue to the school, meaning Corporate Olympic Sponsors could cover them as feeder programs or they would be up to the student to participate at their own expense. So if we have pay for play for revenue sports, let's either put Olympic sports under the American Olympic Committee's governance (not the NCAA) or make them club level in nature. Schools would administer all non revenue sports and the Athletic Department all revenue sports.

At a theoretical level, this makes sense in a vacuum where college athletics can participate a true free market.

However, I think the practical and, more importantly, legal reality is that college athletics aren't in a true free market. For example, Title IX exists and it applies to universities and other educational institutions in a way that it doesn't apply to other industries. Universities can try to label sports as revenue or non-revenue or attempt to move Olympic sports under another umbrella organization, but the fact of the matter is that if colleges pay football and men's basketball players (who are generally the only real revenue generators at Division I universities with the very few exceptions where men's hockey, baseball and women's basketball programs might turn a profit), then they're going to have to pay an equivalent number of women's athletes in the same manner or else they're going to run afoul of the equal opportunity compliance requirements under Title IX.

To be clear, I personally have no issue with such equal payments and fully support direct pay for play at a theoretical level. However, once we go down that road, we also get away from the free market purpose for pay for play in the first place (as the core impetus of pay for play is to compensate the revenue generating athletes). NIL endorsements actually address this issue much better in practicality (as I'll get to in a moment).

At the same time, let's remember that each scholarship dollar is MUCH "cheaper" for everyone involved (the universities and the athletes) than each direct payment dollar. From the university's perspective, a scholarship for the university generally means a transfer of tuition and cost of attendance amount from the athletic department bank account to the general university bank account. Effectively, it's a zero dollar transaction for the university with a self-supporting athletic department - they're simply shifting bank accounts. In contrast, a direct payment to an athlete isn't a zero dollar transaction at all: that money is *gone* once it leaves the athletic department bank account and they need to make tax withholdings and other employment considerations on top of it.

On the flip side, a scholarship isn't deemed to be income to an athlete. As much as we want to call it "compensation" to an athlete, the fact of the matter is that the federal government doesn't consider a scholarship to be income at all. It's a completely tax free exercise. In contrast, athletes need to pay taxes on any direct payments.

Now, if you told me that there was a legal way for universities to only pay football and men's basketball players without having to pay non-revenue athletes, then I think direct payments would have happened already. I don't think universities would ultimately have an issue with paying more dollars for the sports that make a lot of money. The point is, though, no university can do it without violating Title IX (and pretty clearly without much of a defense). Direct payments ultimately requires direct payments to *all* athletes in compliance with Title IX.

Interestingly, I think that's the best defense for universities for avoiding direct payments in the first place. They can state that the fact that the football and men's basketball players generate so much money doesn't matter because they legally *can't* provide different payments to superstars in those sports without violating the law.

That's where NIL endorsement money comes in. Nike, adidas, Coke, Pepsi and any other non-educational enterprise isn't subject to Title IX at all. They are perfectly able to engage in true free market contracts with only such superstars without having to deal with non-revenue athletes.

As much as the universities were dragged kicking and screaming into the NIL world, it's honestly the best thing that could have happened to them. They can essentially continue running their athletic departments as-is while allowing third parties to compensate their superstars (warding off any unionization demands and other lawsuits) in a way that the universities aren't allowed to directly under Title IX even if they wanted to do so.

As I said earlier, if there is going to be pay for play, the game has to change through legislation. And if there is legislation of this magnitude, it could also permit paying athletes in revenue sports as an exception to Title IX.

I don't think any school is going to be willing to give equal pay to every scholarship athlete, including the last player off the bench on the women's field hockey team or the bowling team.