(01-27-2015 10:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 11:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 10:37 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Be careful how you read something like:
Its possible to read it as saying only men's sport would be under consideration for getting a stipend, but its also possible to read it as saying that there may be a women's sport that would qualify for the stipend.

Sport by sport full cost of attendance scholarships likely complicates Title IX compliance issues, but TitleIX is not an NCAA rule, its Federal law, and surely the general precedents regarding compliance with TitleIX will guide how that is handled. The equality of opportunity standard seems to suggest that if a co-ed school supports one men's program at an "elite" level beyond what the other programs receive, then they must support at least one women's program in a similar way.

Does that actually state that they have to pay the extra money to the women as well or does the law go only so far as to protect equal number of scholarship sports for both sexes? You guys could be the ones making the assumption here as well.

The law says equal opportunities. Good luck in court explaning that giving some male athletes a stipend and no women athletes a stipend provides equal opportunities for participation.

Ok, it was a simple question. So they decide to pay Men for football and basketball. They would have to pay the women's basketball team as well but there is no women's football so how free are they to decide which women's sport they end up giving a stipend to?

They could do it for football and basketball for men and soccer, volleyball and swimming for women. But I don't imagine they would want to face the challenge, so few, if any, would try that. The biggest problem isn't the regulations. Its trying to prove you comply in court.

Then the adverse is true as well, how do you prove one isn't complying?

(01-28-2015 12:31 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 11:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Does that actually state that they have to pay the extra money to the women as well or does the law go only so far as to protect equal number of scholarship sports for both sexes? You guys could be the ones making the assumption here as well.

The law says equal opportunities. Good luck in court explaning that giving some male athletes a stipend and no women athletes a stipend provides equal opportunities for participation.

Ok, it was a simple question. So they decide to pay Men for football and basketball. They would have to pay the women's basketball team as well but there is no women's football so how free are they to decide which women's sport they end up giving a stipend to?

They could do it for football and basketball for men and soccer, volleyball and swimming for women. But I don't imagine they would want to face the challenge, so few, if any, would try that. The biggest problem isn't the regulations. Its trying to prove you comply in court.

Then the adverse is true as well, how do you prove one isn't complying?

Proof would be when the judges decision comes down.

Enough to mount the case would be that some athletes get it and some don't. The idea to increase female scholarships by $X, with $X being the value of the stipends being given to revenue-sport athletes, is interesting. But I think that a safer legal strategy is, if you're giving stipends to 90-odd mens' athletes (basketball, football) figure out how to give stipends to 90-odd women's athletes.

All of this will eventually be solved in court.

(01-28-2015 12:31 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 11:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Does that actually state that they have to pay the extra money to the women as well or does the law go only so far as to protect equal number of scholarship sports for both sexes? You guys could be the ones making the assumption here as well.

The law says equal opportunities. Good luck in court explaning that giving some male athletes a stipend and no women athletes a stipend provides equal opportunities for participation.

Ok, it was a simple question. So they decide to pay Men for football and basketball. They would have to pay the women's basketball team as well but there is no women's football so how free are they to decide which women's sport they end up giving a stipend to?

They could do it for football and basketball for men and soccer, volleyball and swimming for women. But I don't imagine they would want to face the challenge, so few, if any, would try that. The biggest problem isn't the regulations. Its trying to prove you comply in court.

Then the adverse is true as well, how do you prove one isn't complying?

Here's the short answer for you: The courts tend to be very skeptical of attempts by schools to rationalize away differences in outcomes for men and women athletes. Not only do the school's lawyers know this, but school admins know they face bad publicity from media if they try to get away with giving the money to males but not females and there is a lawsuit to begin with. It is not worth fighting over.

Bottom line: if X number of male athletes are getting a COA stipend, then X number of women are going to get it too, and the same amount.

(01-27-2015 10:02 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 04:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Second, there is this important line about federal guidelines, and what the stipend can be:

"...the U.S. Department of Education authorizes financial aid officers to use their professional judgment to assess the cost of attendance on a case-by-case basis."

I suspect that clause will be used to ensure the Jameis Winstons of the world get a bit more thrown in their kitty by the schools that have the money.

And the G5 schools don't have the money.

Not all G5 schools are in the same category.

1) Those who have big money boosters. The UConn's, Boise's, Memphis's, BYU's that have plenty of money to compete even without big TV contracts. They want to arms race the G5 schools without money out of FBS.

Good analysis, but as a nit, I'd eliminate Memphis from that first category, as they don't have big money from anywhere, boosters or otherwise.

But, the key thing here isn't that many G5 schools won't try to keep up by matching P5 COAs. Many will, and for the reasons you give. The point is, it will hurt to do so. Few if any of them have an extra million annually lying around to pay for this, all of their money is tied up and spent. They will have to cut in other areas to keep up, whereas P5 schools by and large won't.

It will thus widen an already large gap.

(01-27-2015 11:05 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  OK. Housing is $1k/month in many college towns and covered by the athlete's scholarship (I assume that on campus housing + meal is at least comparable, if not more). That's taxable and worth $10k over the course of a school year (August, September, October, November, December, January, February, March, April, and May). Throw in a $1k because of the stipend and I just found $11k without factoring *any* additional income (i.e. an in-school job).
Also, your question as you literally asked it is stupid. Watch the (insert sport here) draft to find out why.
In fact, while you're waiting for the draft to come around, watch late night TV. Every other commercial begins with "Do you have tax problems?" or "Is the IRS giving you trouble?." I can promise you that the average late night TV viewer isn't rollin' in the dough. The IRS goes after non-millionaires, too. The fact of the matter is busting Johnny Football for back taxes during his freshman year would, in all likelihood, spike tax payments from other people skimming the system. You apparently can't seem to wrap your head around that concept, but I assure you that it exists. And, how you magically conclude that such an act would be "bad publicity" is beyond me.
Also, FWIW, only one person can claim someone as a dependent. Given that most kid's parents are in a higher tax bracket than the kid, the kid would not be the one claiming dependent (assuming that the parent could find a way to claim +50% support for the given year). The kid could very well be taking a standard deduction, which is $6,200.
Finally, you're making it sound like I'm saying that the IRS is planning to end the deficit by taxing college athletes. I'm not. I'm simply saying that part of the stipend will likely be taxable income. That was the initial question asked. A poster randomly took issue with that by making the irrelevant claim that the IRS would never tax college athletes to which I more or less replied "never say never" as there are reasons to go after some of these kids. The effort/cost would be minimal and the upside would be a ton of publicity, which would likely boost revenues from other tax payers. How any of that is even remotely controversial is beyond me, unless you're one of these guys. If so, then that explains a lot.

The generalizations you make about the IRS are laughable. Do you know what the tax rate is on even $20,000 of income? In this day and age I've never seen anyone who made that amount of money get anything other than a refund for dollars withheld from their income. And tax returns are audited at less than 1% of the overall returns rec'd with a heavy weighting to those well in excess of $100k. Did you hear a big media splash around the IRS when USC gave Reggie Bush's parents a new home; I didn't.

These 'stipends', like all other collegiate athletic concerns, will be overseen and monitered by an NCAA governing body....and we all know who runs that. The tax consequences around this matter are a non-issue and should be dropped.

It will be very interesting to see what the G5 privates (Rice, Tulane, Tulsa, and SMU) all do. All four are of a similar-ish profile - but have different "views".

My guess is that all four do it - with Tulsa maybe sweating just a little bit more about it.

Tulsa - despite what people on boards think - is not going to let their program fall into irrelevance. Money is tight there - but it's always been tight and they do a good job of not screwing themselves over. Tulsa values being on a competitive level with their peer institutions (and even beating them up from time to time!).

Tulane has dumped over $100M in facilities. The administration is ridiculous, but they aren't stupid. They'll gladly pay FCOA so that they can keep their legacy intact. Tulane were a bit iffy about a decade ago - but they as a school have made up their mind and want to stay in the top flight.

Rice aspires to be Stanford. They have the money to pay up, and will do so just as Stanford will.

SMU is a non-issue. They're the biggest spender of the four and are one of the biggest spenders in all of the G5. The money they put down on coaching alone is a signal of clear intent.

(01-27-2015 05:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 04:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 01:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 01:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 12:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The idea that the stipend will drive a stake through the heart of the G5 is uninformed.

It won't drive a stake through the heart of the G5, but it sure does stack the deck further against it. Any fan of schools like Houston, San Diego State, UCF, or Utah State who think their schools can in any way "match" whatever the Alabamas and Texases decide to spend are fooling themselves. They simply do not have the money to do so.

The upshot: The main way the USFs and Houstons of the world are able to get the occasional 2-3 star players over P5 schools is by telling them "you will start from Day One here, whereas you will be buried on the depth chart at Virginia Tech".

But if VT is now offering more money to spend a year or two on the depth chart than Houston can afford (and they can and will), then sitting at VT becomes a much more viable option for that recruit.

The bolded part simply isn't true.

From an ESPN article on the passage of stipends

Quote:Stipends, determined by institutions under federally created guidelines, have been estimated at $2,000 to $4,000 annually.

At the high end ($4000) the increase in guaranteed CFP money vs guaranteed BCS is more than $800,000 per school (except in CUSA where it is $715,000) is equal to award 200 stipends.

If stipends are only offered in headcount sports, a school with FBS football, men's basketball, women's basketball, volleyball and gymnastics awarding the high end estimate would spend around a half million.

If the stipend doesn't come in at the high estimate but rather $3500, the new CFP revenue covers 228 stipends.

First, Clemson is already saying their cost will be $800,000, not half-million. That's a lot of money to a G5 school making peanuts from media and CFP deals:

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/sp.../22395243/

Second, there is this important line about federal guidelines, and what the stipend can be:

"...the U.S. Department of Education authorizes financial aid officers to use their professional judgment to assess the cost of attendance on a case-by-case basis."

I suspect that clause will be used to ensure the Jameis Winstons of the world get a bit more thrown in their kitty by the schools that have the money.

And the G5 schools don't have the money.

Clemson offers three more sports than AState and their pessimistic estimate is $800k which is still less than the difference in BCS money and CFP money for AState. Remember also that Pell Grants are going to count against the amount that can be paid. For players with financial need who qualify for Pell, the amount ranges from $573 to $5730. For instate athletes in Arkansas most are initial qualifiers will qualify for Arkansas Challenge which ranges from $2000 for a freshman to $5000 a year for a senior.

Other states have similar programs that they will tap into to divert the cost out of athletics.

I'm not sure the BCS --> CFP money is all that relevant. Chances are, most schools already budgeted that money for other things this past year, before the COA got ratified.

Bottom line seems to be that G5 schools by and large make peanuts from media and CFP, and they probably already lose money on their athletics. Coming up with another $500k to $1m annually is gonna hurt. Those that are all-in on trying to become the next Big 12 invite will swallow hard and absorb it, but cuts will be made elsewhere. It will widen the already huge G5/P5 gap.

(01-28-2015 11:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm not sure the BCS --> CFP money is all that relevant. Chances are, most schools already budgeted that money for other things this past year, before the COA got ratified.
Bottom line seems to be that G5 schools by and large make peanuts from media and CFP, and they probably already lose money on their athletics. Coming up with another $500k to $1m annually is gonna hurt. Those that are all-in on trying to become the next Big 12 invite will swallow hard and absorb it, but cuts will be made elsewhere. It will widen the already huge G5/P5 gap.

All True. These decisions are going to be made on a conference by conference basis as far as the G5 is concerned. They will probably come up with a ceiling and floor on how much the stipend can be per scholarshiped athlete per school based on overall conference revenue and schools ability to fund. This band will probably be negotiated at the conference's annual meeting (I think C-USA's is going on now) and adjusted annually based on some type of cola metric.

Schools will then go home and figure out how to fund the requirements given the new conference stipulations. This is where you'll begin to see programs/available scholarships cut to meet these new budgetary demands. The 'haves' will get another selling point for their programs and the 'have-nots' will have to do more with less.....as usual.

(01-28-2015 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 12:31 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  The law says equal opportunities. Good luck in court explaning that giving some male athletes a stipend and no women athletes a stipend provides equal opportunities for participation.

Ok, it was a simple question. So they decide to pay Men for football and basketball. They would have to pay the women's basketball team as well but there is no women's football so how free are they to decide which women's sport they end up giving a stipend to?

They could do it for football and basketball for men and soccer, volleyball and swimming for women. But I don't imagine they would want to face the challenge, so few, if any, would try that. The biggest problem isn't the regulations. Its trying to prove you comply in court.

Then the adverse is true as well, how do you prove one isn't complying?

Here's the short answer for you: The courts tend to be very skeptical of attempts by schools to rationalize away differences in outcomes for men and women athletes. Not only do the school's lawyers know this, but school admins know they face bad publicity from media if they try to get away with giving the money to males but not females and there is a lawsuit to begin with. It is not worth fighting over.

Bottom line: if X number of male athletes are getting a COA stipend, then X number of women are going to get it too, and the same amount.

And that's why they fold. Texas had the best situation for women athletes in the country in the 90s and they got sued (suit led by a group headed by their former women's AD Donna Lopiano). They quickly settled.

(01-27-2015 03:07 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Just as the W2 is reported to the IRS, the 1040 is also reported. The IRS will match the info they received from the University to what you put on the tax form. The may not 'go after' them as you say, but they adjust the amount from the info the IRS received.

There won't be any W2. They won't have any time to work an actual job.

So if the W2 is zero and the athlete reports zero income ... why would the IRS have reasonable cause to audit them?

(01-27-2015 03:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1. ...unless they get a job.
2. No. These people do have income period They are *all* getting scholarship money and stipends in excess of qualified education expenses.
3. The IRS very well might if it scares X people into paying $Y in taxes and X * $Y is in excess of what the IRS would have to spend to collect, which should be pretty cheap, given the information is readily available and nearly impossible to dispute.

So yes, I would imagine the IRS will look, especially if you're any good and have a following.

1) they don't have time to do that, hence no W2.

2) As the laws are written, I guess it's technically correct that the scholarship will amount to some positive income for the year.

There won't be any stipends. The NCAA does not allow schools to pay salaries to athletes.

3) Then why isn't the IRS going after people below the cutoff line? You know, the line that says "if you earned less than $X this year, you don't owe any taxes"?

(01-27-2015 04:16 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  LOL. Maybe if a Repub' were President, and even then I doubt they would want the bad publicity. As I stated earlier, you need not even file until your income exceeds the stand. ded. + pers. exemption $10,650. These "stipends" (for lack of a better term) are earmarked in the $2-4,000 range. No student needs to declare this kind of income (unless it's taxed as income and only then to get the taxes paid back).

Please try to come up with a scenario where these dollars cross any kind of threshold that would interest the IRS. LOL

p.s. I haven't heard anything about the IRS going after all those UM players who rec'd illegal "gifts" from Shapiro; not even the one who got the two Escalades.

Is it that low?? $10,650?

I was thinking it was like $25k where you didn't owe any income taxes.


Regardless, even with FCOA - the nonqualifying expenses are going to be probably in the range of $5k per year for the room item, $2-3k per year for the board item** and another $2-5k for the FCOA item. So it could be close.

** - food might be taken out of the equation, now that schools are allowed to provide unlimited food to their athletes. In other words, if the school is going to provide every ounce of nutrition that the athlete needs to consume - why would they be including money in their scholarships to cover meal expenses?

(01-27-2015 11:05 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  OK. Housing is $1k/month in many college towns and covered by the athlete's scholarship (I assume that on campus housing + meal is at least comparable, if not more). That's taxable and worth $10k over the course of a school year (August, September, October, November, December, January, February, March, April, and May). Throw in a $1k because of the stipend and I just found $11k without factoring *any* additional income (i.e. an in-school job).

Also, your question as you literally asked it is stupid. Watch the (insert sport here) draft to find out why.

In fact, while you're waiting for the draft to come around, watch late night TV. Every other commercial begins with "Do you have tax problems?" or "Is the IRS giving you trouble?." I can promise you that the average late night TV viewer isn't rollin' in the dough. The IRS goes after non-millionaires, too. The fact of the matter is busting Johnny Football for back taxes during his freshman year would, in all likelihood, spike tax payments from other people skimming the system. You apparently can't seem to wrap your head around that concept, but I assure you that it exists. And, how you magically conclude that such an act would be "bad publicity" is beyond me.

Also, FWIW, only one person can claim someone as a dependent. Given that most kid's parents are in a higher tax bracket than the kid, the kid would not be the one claiming dependent (assuming that the parent could find a way to claim +50% support for the given year). The kid could very well be taking a standard deduction, which is $6,200.

Finally, you're making it sound like I'm saying that the IRS is planning to end the deficit by taxing college athletes. I'm not. I'm simply saying that part of the stipend will likely be taxable income. That was the initial question asked. A poster randomly took issue with that by making the irrelevant claim that the IRS would never tax college athletes to which I more or less replied "never say never" as there are reasons to go after some of these kids. The effort/cost would be minimal and the upside would be a ton of publicity, which would likely boost revenues from other tax payers. How any of that is even remotely controversial is beyond me, unless you're one of these guys. If so, then that explains a lot.

They aren't getting $10k a year in their scholarships for rent payments. Try $350/mo. That's only $4200. It's college. You're not supposed to be living in a luxury apartment. If you want that, then get your parents to pay for it.

$5k for rent, take food out of the equation and $5k for FCOA keeps them under the cutoff. No income taxes. No IRS involvement.


And once more for posterity: there are no stipends. That's a salary. Not allowed. We're only talking about expanding the monetary value of a scholarship to match what the school reports to FAFSA as the full cost of attendance (ie, to prevent excessive borrowing on federal loans).

(01-28-2015 03:37 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 11:05 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  OK. Housing is $1k/month in many college towns and covered by the athlete's scholarship (I assume that on campus housing + meal is at least comparable, if not more). That's taxable and worth $10k over the course of a school year (August, September, October, November, December, January, February, March, April, and May). Throw in a $1k because of the stipend and I just found $11k without factoring *any* additional income (i.e. an in-school job).

Also, your question as you literally asked it is stupid. Watch the (insert sport here) draft to find out why.

In fact, while you're waiting for the draft to come around, watch late night TV. Every other commercial begins with "Do you have tax problems?" or "Is the IRS giving you trouble?." I can promise you that the average late night TV viewer isn't rollin' in the dough. The IRS goes after non-millionaires, too. The fact of the matter is busting Johnny Football for back taxes during his freshman year would, in all likelihood, spike tax payments from other people skimming the system. You apparently can't seem to wrap your head around that concept, but I assure you that it exists. And, how you magically conclude that such an act would be "bad publicity" is beyond me.

Also, FWIW, only one person can claim someone as a dependent. Given that most kid's parents are in a higher tax bracket than the kid, the kid would not be the one claiming dependent (assuming that the parent could find a way to claim +50% support for the given year). The kid could very well be taking a standard deduction, which is $6,200.

Finally, you're making it sound like I'm saying that the IRS is planning to end the deficit by taxing college athletes. I'm not. I'm simply saying that part of the stipend will likely be taxable income. That was the initial question asked. A poster randomly took issue with that by making the irrelevant claim that the IRS would never tax college athletes to which I more or less replied "never say never" as there are reasons to go after some of these kids. The effort/cost would be minimal and the upside would be a ton of publicity, which would likely boost revenues from other tax payers. How any of that is even remotely controversial is beyond me, unless you're one of these guys. If so, then that explains a lot.

They aren't getting $10k a year in their scholarships for rent payments. Try $350/mo. That's only $4200. It's college. You're not supposed to be living in a luxury apartment. If you want that, then get your parents to pay for it.

$5k for rent, take food out of the equation and $5k for FCOA keeps them under the cutoff. No income taxes. No IRS involvement.


And once more for posterity: there are no stipends. That's a salary. Not allowed. We're only talking about expanding the monetary value of a scholarship to match what the school reports to FAFSA as the full cost of attendance (ie, to prevent excessive borrowing on federal loans).

$4.2/yr for food and lodging? You clearly haven't gone to college.

(01-28-2015 03:33 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 04:16 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  LOL. Maybe if a Repub' were President, and even then I doubt they would want the bad publicity. As I stated earlier, you need not even file until your income exceeds the stand. ded. + pers. exemption $10,650. These "stipends" (for lack of a better term) are earmarked in the $2-4,000 range. No student needs to declare this kind of income (unless it's taxed as income and only then to get the taxes paid back).

Please try to come up with a scenario where these dollars cross any kind of threshold that would interest the IRS. LOL

p.s. I haven't heard anything about the IRS going after all those UM players who rec'd illegal "gifts" from Shapiro; not even the one who got the two Escalades.

Is it that low?? $10,650?

I was thinking it was like $25k where you didn't owe any income taxes.


Regardless, even with FCOA - the nonqualifying expenses are going to be probably in the range of $5k per year for the room item, $2-3k per year for the board item** and another $2-5k for the FCOA item. So it could be close.

** - food might be taken out of the equation, now that schools are allowed to provide unlimited food to their athletes. In other words, if the school is going to provide every ounce of nutrition that the athlete needs to consume - why would they be including money in their scholarships to cover meal expenses?

You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The IRS makes the rules, not individual schools. Other than through lobbying, individual schools have zero say in the tax code. And no, the std deduction + dependent deduction is nowhere near $25k.

(01-28-2015 03:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  $4.2/yr for food and lodging? You clearly haven't gone to college.

I said rent. That's $350/mo for 12 months.

Apparently I didn't live in the same luxury apartments that your parents paid for you, while in undergrad.

(01-28-2015 03:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 03:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1. ...unless they get a job.
2. No. These people do have income period They are *all* getting scholarship money and stipends in excess of qualified education expenses.
3. The IRS very well might if it scares X people into paying $Y in taxes and X * $Y is in excess of what the IRS would have to spend to collect, which should be pretty cheap, given the information is readily available and nearly impossible to dispute.

So yes, I would imagine the IRS will look, especially if you're any good and have a following.

1) they don't have time to do that, hence no W2.

2) As the laws are written, I guess it's technically correct that the scholarship will amount to some positive income for the year.

There won't be any stipends. The NCAA does not allow schools to pay salaries to athletes.

3) Then why isn't the IRS going after people below the cutoff line? You know, the line that says "if you earned less than $X this year, you don't owe any taxes"?

1) There are athletes with jobs as is. In fact, you *have* to have one at least one summer to graduate from Syracuse's business school. So no. You're 100% making things up.
2) Semantics. Additional scholarship money = stipend for all practical purposes that I can see, and the additional money is commonly referred to as a stipend, even if there is technically some minute difference.
3) That's a dumb question with an obvious answer: the IRS isn't going after them because unlike many future college athletes, they don't owe the IRS money.

(01-28-2015 03:52 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The IRS makes the rules, not individual schools. Other than through lobbying, individual schools have zero say in the tax code. And no, the std deduction + dependent deduction is nowhere near $25k.

If the schools are paying for every ounce of nutrition that each athlete consumes via a separate food budget, then they no longer need to include food expenses in the scholarships.

That means less non-qualifying income for each athlete.

Very clearly a scenario that the schools' control, not the IRS.

(01-28-2015 03:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 03:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  $4.2/yr for food and lodging? You clearly haven't gone to college.

I said rent. That's $350/mo for 12 months.

Apparently I didn't live in the same luxury apartments that your parents paid for you, while in undergrad.

OK. Call is just rent (why you're excluding food is beyond me). Either way, good luck finding housing that cheap in any college town, especially if you plan on living on campus (like athletes). You are laughably low.