The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

The Haves are going to do what they damn well please, as usual.

(01-29-2014 12:35 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 12:24 PM)blazerwkr Wrote:  Well when they start paying taxes on the money they're being paid (scholly/room/board/etc)as well as having to pay union dues, I wonder how they'll like it at that point?

Me too.

ALL money paid for scholarships including (out of state) tuition, room, books, food, etc. is not paid TO the student, but to the school's administration on their behalf. Since the money goes directly from the AD's office into the school's pocket, it could be argued that the school should pay any taxes on that income. The individual athlete may still get the token "laundry money" as it used to be known for him/her self, but they never see a dime of the rest.

The NCAA is essentially a "company union" itself made up of the member institutions (the school's Presidents, ADs and a few others) and the coaches and athletes are not members. That is why the NCAA can only punish schools for wrongs committed by coaches &/or players (or "boosters") who may be long gone by the time punishments are handed down by the NCAA. The only punishment for coaches is the "show cause" provision which is directed at the schools, not the coach. In regard to "boosters", it is the school who must "fire" the booster for inappropriate conduct.

(01-29-2014 12:11 PM)iam4uab Wrote:  How about the NFL just loosening restrictions and create a developmental league like all other pro leagues do and let them go pro if they want to make money.

It's called the Southeastern Conference.

(01-29-2014 11:57 AM)the_blazerman Wrote:  There are some legitimate issues that need to be addressed.

Forming a union to do that wouldn't be the best way to get the issues addressed.

The solution to unions being formed would be to drop most, if not all of athletics, thereby leaving athletes without educational opportunities.

What would you suggest? I have a feeling the reason you think a union is a bad idea for them is political.

& why do you hate Spann may I ask?

I happen to believe that the athletes are getting quite a bit of opportunities with a scholarship.

Detroit, look it up.

It always amazes me that we basically worship our athletes, always singing their praises, and calling our team "we". But when one of these threads about paying them comes up, it's "they" should lose their scholarships and "they" should pay taxes.

So we only like them when they are free labor??? And don't give me the crap about the fact that they are paid thru scholarship. They bring a lot more income to the schools (mainly the big ones) than a scholarship is worth.

If the athletes unionize, you would see a lot of schools closing up shop thereby eliminating a ton of scholarships.

So they should just put up with being exploited and sit down and shut up and say yes sir, may I have another?

In the end I think it is the athletes that should decide if they unionize, and if that results in the dissolution of their departments, that's on them. Since they're the ones, you know, playing and we are not. It's amazing how many people talk about a union yes or no in a situation in which they have zero stake.

Who knows, if the rules change and universities are allowed to pay players, it might be in UAB's best interest. If we can figure out a way to create some relationships between the medical side and athletics I would think that we would have the booster money to create some really competitive compensation packages. I would be pretty confident in our alumni in terms of wealth. The challenge is turning alumni into boosters.

What am I thinking, they'll set a cap just outside of the reach of the have-nots, but within comfortable investment range for the haves.

(01-29-2014 12:26 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  I think it would be hard to try and make a living in a developmental league.

Most would at best be in it for 1 year & then be looking for a job doing something else.

Exactly, the alternative routes would not look to attractive. Only when a second less appealing option is offered does the first option look like a great deal.

I don't think paying atheletes is a good thing, but a stipend to offset the true cost of attendance is a good thing.

(01-29-2014 08:42 PM)BhamSnap Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 12:26 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  I think it would be hard to try and make a living in a developmental league.

Most would at best be in it for 1 year & then be looking for a job doing something else.

Exactly, the alternative routes would not look to attractive. Only when a second less appealing option is offered does the first option look like a great deal.

I don't think paying atheletes is a good thing, but a stipend to offset the true cost of attendance is a good thing.

What is the "true cost of attendance" that is not being paid? I'm confused, I thought they got room & board, books, food, and tuition?

To be clear, I don't think athletes should be paid by the schools. Title iX makes that a tricky situation. However, I do think that athletes should be allowed to earn money based on their celebrity. They should be allowed to capitalize on their fame, just as the schools are allowed to.

(01-29-2014 09:32 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  To be clear, I don't think athletes should be paid by the schools. Title iX makes that a tricky situation. However, I do think that athletes should be allowed to earn money based on their celebrity. They should be allowed to capitalize on their fame, just as the schools are allowed to.

I think this is the best possible compromise. Keep whatever veneer of amateurism through the schools, but let them get paid by Collegiate Licensing and EA Sports for using their likeness.

(01-29-2014 08:46 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 08:42 PM)BhamSnap Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 12:26 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  I think it would be hard to try and make a living in a developmental league.

Most would at best be in it for 1 year & then be looking for a job doing something else.

Exactly, the alternative routes would not look to attractive. Only when a second less appealing option is offered does the first option look like a great deal.

I don't think paying atheletes is a good thing, but a stipend to offset the true cost of attendance is a good thing.

What is the "true cost of attendance" that is not being paid? I'm confused, I thought they got room & board, books, food, and tuition?

Its a term that has been used alot when discussing giving athletes additional compensation, but relative to actual expenses for the local of the school, so it can vary greatly from NYU to Auburn.
I found this link with good info
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...g-traction

The "full cost of attendance" is bureaucratic jargon. It includes tuition, fees, room, board, books, personal expenses and travel home. The idea dates to the Great Society, President Lyndon B. Johnson's expansion of domestic programs in the mid-1960s, and to the establishment of the Pell Grant in 1972. It came to life in federal regulations. Congress wrote it into law for campus-based aid in 1986.

Those dates are important because paying for the full cost of attendance didn't occur until long after the NCAA members began awarding athletic scholarships.

In 1956, the membership approved a model to cover "commonly accepted educational expenses" that included tuition, room, board, books, fees and a stipend of $15 per month for the nine-month academic calendar. That stipend came as close to covering personal expenses as the NCAA cared to tread.

The stipend turned out to be an uncharacteristic, and lone, gesture of generosity. The NCAA members never adjusted the laundry money for inflation. In the early 1970s, when the cost of living had reached half again what it had been in 1956 (thank you, American Institute of Economic Research), the NCAA eliminated what was still a $15 monthly stipend. Suffice it to say that athletic departments are stingier than the feds.

The NCAA membership has never come close to adopting the full cost of attendance, not when Congress wrote it into law in 1986, not when late NCAA president Myles Brand advocated for it in 2003, and not now.

"It is important to note," Mullin said, "that NCAA rules currently permit a student-athlete to receive non-athletically related financial aid up to the cost of attendance. There are several student-athletes at Syracuse University that are already receiving financial aid up to the cost of attendance."

My thinking is that an association is a good thing to advocate for certain things, but if they truely become a union, then they become employees and that is effectively an end to college athletics as we know it. I think schools will go to Div II or Div III or change to the European model where club sports are affiliated with a college, but aren't students. If this happens then they aren't held to Title IX, and I think this will end women's sports since they produce so little revenue, surely not enough to be self supporting for enough schools to continue to field teams, and have enough other teams to play. We barely have a WNBA that survives, in major cities.

I understand the reasons for the movement, but I think the unintended conseqences overly outweight the benefits.

And Bingo was his Name-O.

If athletes were allowed to make money off of their name, I suspect there would be an added advantage for them to score 30 points versus dishing the ball off to a teammate.

(01-29-2014 10:35 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  If athletes were allowed to make money off of their name, I suspect there would be an added advantage for them to score 30 points versus dishing the ball off to a teammate.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

(01-29-2014 10:39 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 10:35 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  If athletes were allowed to make money off of their name, I suspect there would be an added advantage for them to score 30 points versus dishing the ball off to a teammate.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

That can't be true...you're on Blazertalk every day.

(01-29-2014 09:43 PM)BhamSnap Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 08:46 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 08:42 PM)BhamSnap Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 12:26 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  I think it would be hard to try and make a living in a developmental league.

Most would at best be in it for 1 year & then be looking for a job doing something else.

Exactly, the alternative routes would not look to attractive. Only when a second less appealing option is offered does the first option look like a great deal.

I don't think paying atheletes is a good thing, but a stipend to offset the true cost of attendance is a good thing.

What is the "true cost of attendance" that is not being paid? I'm confused, I thought they got room & board, books, food, and tuition?

Its a term that has been used alot when discussing giving athletes additional compensation, but relative to actual expenses for the local of the school, so it can vary greatly from NYU to Auburn.
I found this link with good info
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...g-traction

The "full cost of attendance" is bureaucratic jargon. It includes tuition, fees, room, board, books, personal expenses and travel home. The idea dates to the Great Society, President Lyndon B. Johnson's expansion of domestic programs in the mid-1960s, and to the establishment of the Pell Grant in 1972. It came to life in federal regulations. Congress wrote it into law for campus-based aid in 1986.

Those dates are important because paying for the full cost of attendance didn't occur until long after the NCAA members began awarding athletic scholarships.

In 1956, the membership approved a model to cover "commonly accepted educational expenses" that included tuition, room, board, books, fees and a stipend of $15 per month for the nine-month academic calendar. That stipend came as close to covering personal expenses as the NCAA cared to tread.

The stipend turned out to be an uncharacteristic, and lone, gesture of generosity. The NCAA members never adjusted the laundry money for inflation. In the early 1970s, when the cost of living had reached half again what it had been in 1956 (thank you, American Institute of Economic Research), the NCAA eliminated what was still a $15 monthly stipend. Suffice it to say that athletic departments are stingier than the feds.

The NCAA membership has never come close to adopting the full cost of attendance, not when Congress wrote it into law in 1986, not when late NCAA president Myles Brand advocated for it in 2003, and not now.

"It is important to note," Mullin said, "that NCAA rules currently permit a student-athlete to receive non-athletically related financial aid up to the cost of attendance. There are several student-athletes at Syracuse University that are already receiving financial aid up to the cost of attendance."

Ok, so if we don't want to give them cash, why not give them all the things that "full cost of living" is supposed to cover? Why not cover their laundry services? Why not arrange for their travel home X weekends out of an academic term? Why not give them a cell phone?

I think there are ways to achieve what they are trying to achieve without putting an overwhelming financial burden on non-BCS schools, which is what paying $2000 or whatever to every athlete would do.