Vice Sports is once again, like the UAB scandal, on point about this. Two solid reads well worth the time investment.

The first is direct commenry on the USA Today story abiut the NCAA seeking an antitrust exemption from the govt.

https://sports.vice.com/article/dear-whi...-scam-you/

The 2nd is about colleges playing poor by using transfer accounting:

https://sports.vice.com/article/college-...ting-scam/

This is a good thing for the college athlete. They deserve to be compensated.

(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.

Just like for anybody the amount of the money owed may not be as important as the failure to report this taxable income. It will be interesting to see how this is handled. I do believe that housing,food and this new misc. money would be much more than 5k at most schools.

Only a select few of the Pay 5 will be left satisfied with this in 10 years while the rest will rue the day they got into a pay race with their larger and more well-funded Pay 5 brethren. There will be a clear division in the Pay 5 conference and lots of money spent trying to keep up with the joneses. If the G5 were smart, we would essentially break away and form a 16 team playoff and advertise ourselves as true amateur sport "for love of the game". We won't do that though because we are all chasing to be a Pay 5 school one day and that carrot is too juicy for us to ignore.

Here is the real problem and the reason student-athletes believe they should be paid (more).

(01-18-2015 10:40 AM)redfan Wrote:  

(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.

Just like for anybody the amount of the money owed may not be as important as the failure to report this taxable income. It will be interesting to see how this is handled. I do believe that housing,food and this new misc. money would be much more than 5k at most schools.

If anything the Government should at least deny Pell Grant request for athletes who are being compensated. It was a huge waste of tax payer money before having FB and BB players who have no real academic aspirations blowing through tax payer Pell Grant funds when there are plenty of legitimate students who could use it.

(01-18-2015 10:36 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is a good thing for the college athlete. They deserve to be compensated.

This will be good for the P5 athlete. I wish they would take away the tax exempt status from the P5 schools. They are now a for profit minor league for the NFL. I guess this will speed up the college loan bubble also. As schools increase fees for athletics and students borrow more from the federal government to attend these schools, boom it will burst and the bottom of the P5 will drop football like a lot of the G5. Once these changes are in place, the G5 show not play the P5. **** them and you will see the same top teams every year but the middle and bottom P5 will have losing records and will be irrelevant like the G5. The middle and lower P5 teams will not be able to compete.

I don't really care about the P5 and haven't for 10 years. I only care how this will effect CUSA and La Tech and this will make playing body bag games even worse and not worth the money they bring in which may be a good thing. No more bad loses to semi-pro paid players.

(01-17-2015 10:53 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  this is as wrong as what happend to UAB.....

I'm almost at the point where I wish I was UAB alum (not meaning to offend any uab alum).....at least they won't have to suffer through the future torture of degradation....

Um, no.

Tellya what. I'll trade you. We'll have a football team and you won't have to suffer watching yours anymore.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

(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.

(01-17-2015 05:14 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  That makes them pro teams. I'd say take away their tax exempt status. NOW!

This.

Won't happen, but still…

(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.

He's a Villanova troll...

(01-17-2015 07:33 PM)wh49er Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 05:14 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  That makes them pro teams. I'd say take away their tax exempt status. NOW!

Pretty much, I would love to see drug testing like the NFL.

I'm pretty sure the IRS loves cases like this.

Correct I can see it now a few years down the road you will have former college players getting audited by the IRS. Room and board and transportation cost is not a write off and neither are the other things in the article.

I can see a IRS agent that's a huge Bama fan looking over the tx return of a former Aub. player and calls him in to explain why he didn't file a return for the 4 years he was a college student.

I can't see this lasting over a two to three years without more across the board rules than leaving it up to the school to set a cost. If that's the case Northern schools will start to get more of the players the SEC are getting because ...
those players will get thousands more because it's more expensive.

Here's the thing.. while I'm opposed to the increase money for the scholarship... it's the second note that interest me more:

Quote:In another significant change, the schools and the reps narrowly approved legislation that will prevent schools and coaches from choosing not to renew an athlete's scholarship for athletic reasons. Under the system that has been in place, most athletic scholarships are subject to annual renewal.

Basically, if you offer the kid the 4 year scholarship, you're stuck with him if he stinks it up... This one I think is a good one that sort of evens things out. (I'm sure they'll try to find a way around it)..

I'm still not sure _how_ they're going to get this one to work though:

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?

(01-19-2015 04:05 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Here's the thing.. while I'm opposed to the increase money for the scholarship... it's the second note that interest me more:

Quote:In another significant change, the schools and the reps narrowly approved legislation that will prevent schools and coaches from choosing not to renew an athlete's scholarship for athletic reasons. Under the system that has been in place, most athletic scholarships are subject to annual renewal.

Basically, if you offer the kid the 4 year scholarship, you're stuck with him if he stinks it up... This one I think is a good one that sort of evens things out. (I'm sure they'll try to find a way around it)..

I'm still not sure _how_ they're going to get this one to work though:

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?

...would guess it would be about cya preemptive legalese.....

this ruling makes them an employee....

....just a shot it the dark....

I've said it too many times.....i'm gonna laugh (already finished crying) watching this bs play out......

the courts are going to me mcenroe vs conners with nastase as ump and line judges....

(01-18-2015 12:51 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 10:53 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  this is as wrong as what happend to UAB.....

I'm almost at the point where I wish I was UAB alum (not meaning to offend any uab alum).....at least they won't have to suffer through the future torture of degradation....

Um, no.

Tellya what. I'll trade you. We'll have a football team and you won't have to suffer watching yours anymore.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

fair enough....but I did state, "almost"....

it was a failed attempt to compare/contrast/sympathize.....

(01-18-2015 02:40 AM)redfan Wrote:  The way the IRS looks at it, only money used toward tuition, fees, books, supplies and equipment required for your courses is considered non-taxable.
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".

Yes, however, you don't even have to file until your income reaches the aggregation of your standard decution and personal exemption; which for 2014 is $10,150. That's a lot of wiggle-room for these "stipends".

(01-19-2015 05:36 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(01-18-2015 02:40 AM)redfan Wrote:  The way the IRS looks at it, only money used toward tuition, fees, books, supplies and equipment required for your courses is considered non-taxable.
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".

Yes, however, you don't even have to file until your income reaches the aggregation of your standard decution and personal exemption; which for 2014 is $10,150. That's a lot of wiggle-room for these "stipends".

somebody is starting to get it.....

time for 'upward and forward' or was it 'onward and upward'.....never cared about rah rah (six sigma).....lmfao....

Will they have to pay for obamacare or will the schools pay for their health insurance? I really don't know that's why I'm axing.

(01-19-2015 08:25 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Will they have to pay for obamacare or will the schools pay for their health insurance? I really don't know that's why I'm axing.

Most college students are likely either still on their parents/guardians' plans or are already poor enough to qualify for Medicaid or something similar.

(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.