(06-01-2013 06:24 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 06:11 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 04:54 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Dude, the IRS can be dissolved by congress. The House controls all money. You liberals.

Dude I am not a liberal and you have lost control of your senses if you think Congress will dissolve the IRS.

I'd say it would depend on how many Congressmen are getting audited...

How many of them identify as "Tea Party" republicans?




Sorry, had to.

Yes, its a valid point.

(06-01-2013 03:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 03:07 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  What's with all the midmajor fans trying to create rules/scenarios to benefit themselves as if the P5 would ever accept them

lutz...read the OP. Wow. Arrogant much?

It wouldnt matter if the P-5 "accepts" new laws and guidelines any more that it would matter if I accpet the constitutionality of the income tax. Rules on Title 9 and tax exempt status would come from congress, not the NCAA. The P-5 doesnt have a blocking vote and doesnt matter if the P-5 leaves the NCAA--they would still be bound by the rules/laws that were passed. The P-5 would have to leave the country to avoid congressional mandates. At some point congress will be pushed to act---wheather thier actions (or inaction) helps the mid-majors is a total unknown.

Arrogance and greed is their main problem.

Tax them. They can always leave the NCAA and play with themselves. I think they would enjoy it.

Who are you going to tax? I don't know for a fact but I don't believe the FEDs can tax a state. So this would not affect the public universities. Business pay taxes on profits not revenue. Private universities are going to adjust expenses so they pay little or no taxes. See Apple. See GE. See Exxon.

You can't single out a department (like athletics or dining) and say they made a profit so they have to pay taxes. You have to include all of the departments within the organization. Overall most public universities get half (WAG) of their funding from the state. That means a university like NC State looses ~$600,000,000 plus per year.

You could tax the booster clubs but they operate on very little, if any, profit. The overwhelming majority of their budget goes to the university in the form of tuition and facilities (i.e. donations).

If you take away tax exempt status from universities and booster clubs, donations will dry up. Not just athletics donations either.

You guys do realize the athletic programs would just donate the money back to the University

(06-03-2013 03:10 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  You guys do realize the athletic programs would just donate the money back to the University

I actually think this would be a good thing - actually giving money back the universities. However, I would go a step further. The state legislatures should set a general rule that any state school receiving more than $10 million from their conference give half of it to the state's general education fund. In this sense, it would be kind of like research grants at universities where a significant chunk goes back to the university for "overhead."

I think this kind of idea would gain a bunch of traction among "soccer moms." It would also keep the over-reaching athletic departments in balance, and keep the universities focused on what should be their core mission.

Go Cougs!!!!!!

(06-03-2013 02:44 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Who are you going to tax? I don't know for a fact but I don't believe the FEDs can tax a state. So this would not affect the public universities. Business pay taxes on profits not revenue. Private universities are going to adjust expenses so they pay little or no taxes. See Apple. See GE. See Exxon.

You can't single out a department (like athletics or dining) and say they made a profit so they have to pay taxes. You have to include all of the departments within the organization. Overall most public universities get half (WAG) of their funding from the state. That means a university like NC State looses ~$600,000,000 plus per year.

You could tax the booster clubs but they operate on very little, if any, profit. The overwhelming majority of their budget goes to the university in the form of tuition and facilities (i.e. donations).

If you take away tax exempt status from universities and booster clubs, donations will dry up. Not just athletics donations either.

Exactly. Even if Congress were to pass laws to this effect (and they won't - if you actually think all of those Southern and Midwestern Senators and Congressmen are going to vote support the notion of actually taking money *from* their popular state public flagship schools in order to send that money OUT OF STATE to be divided up in bad old Washington, DC, then you seriously have little clue as to how either politics work and/or have grossly misjudged the influence that the Gang of Five schools could possibly have here), then it just becomes a shell game for schools to show that they're make no profits or are losing money from athletics... which is what they are doing already, anyway! Look at the income statements and balance sheets for the vast majority of athletic departments and you'll see this to be the case.

I'm all for going the complete opposite direction: let the money flow OPENLY. Artificial caps on entities earning revenue is pretty much a bad idea no matter what the industry might be (and that includes college sports) - they ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS backfire. (I know that the populist faction in society will often cause people to continue to attempt to ignore or override free market economics to try to get the desired outcome that they want, but such people will always f**k it up no matter how well-intentioned they might be.) Of course, letting that money flow openly means also means paying players their fair market value from my perspective (which I know is a no-no for schools both powerful and small alike).

(06-03-2013 02:44 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Who are you going to tax? I don't know for a fact but I don't believe the FEDs can tax a state. So this would not affect the public universities. Business pay taxes on profits not revenue. Private universities are going to adjust expenses so they pay little or no taxes. See Apple. See GE. See Exxon.

You can't single out a department (like athletics or dining) and say they made a profit so they have to pay taxes. You have to include all of the departments within the organization. Overall most public universities get half (WAG) of their funding from the state. That means a university like NC State looses ~$600,000,000 plus per year.

You could tax the booster clubs but they operate on very little, if any, profit. The overwhelming majority of their budget goes to the university in the form of tuition and facilities (i.e. donations).

If you take away tax exempt status from universities and booster clubs, donations will dry up. Not just athletics donations either.

I'm assuming that they are implying to have the athletic programs as a separate entity from the University... but other than the first post, and yours right now I haven't read any other post.

It's funny that posters are so mad at the power conferences that they think it is a good idea to figure out a spiteful way to have a tax impact on the 10's of millions of $$$ some schools can get in revenue for college sports.

Meanwhile, colleges have raised tuition for decades well beyond the rate of inflation, the government subsidizes this with reduced student loan rates, the total student loan debt that can't be discharged in bankruptcy is approaching $1 TRILLION and the colleges are laughing all of the way as they continue to build up their endowments that range from hundreds of millions to double digit billions, ALL FREE FROM TAXATION.

The universities would love it if Congress wasted their energy on the tax exempt status of college sports, as it would continue to deflect from the real issue that the current system of tuition-financial aid-student loans is a total mess and 100X bigger than sports.

(06-03-2013 04:59 PM)krup Wrote:  It's funny that posters are so mad at the power conferences that they think it is a good idea to figure out a spiteful way to have a tax impact on the 10's of millions of $$$ some schools can get in revenue for college sports.

Meanwhile, colleges have raised tuition for decades well beyond the rate of inflation, the government subsidizes this with reduced student loan rates, the total student loan debt that can't be discharged in bankruptcy is approaching $1 TRILLION and the colleges are laughing all of the way as they continue to build up their endowments that range from hundreds of millions to double digit billions, ALL FREE FROM TAXATION.

The universities would love it if Congress wasted their energy on the tax exempt status of college sports, as it would continue to deflect from the real issue that the current system of tuition-financial aid-student loans is a total mess and 100X bigger than sports.

Very fair point. It might be a penny-wise and pound foolish approach for the non-power schools. It is theoretically possible for a number of top flagships to shift to private status (or something close to it) where they aren't very reliant on any type of government funding. UVA has already started doing this and schools like Michigan are exploring the same. It's the non-flagships that would get killed if Congress started cracking down on student loans. Granted, I don't see that occurring as a political realist since the student loan program is one of the handful of government programs that has widespread support from even the wealthiest segment of Americans along with the other 99%.

(06-03-2013 02:44 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Who are you going to tax? I don't know for a fact but I don't believe the FEDs can tax a state. So this would not affect the public universities. Business pay taxes on profits not revenue. Private universities are going to adjust expenses so they pay little or no taxes. See Apple. See GE. See Exxon.

You can't single out a department (like athletics or dining) and say they made a profit so they have to pay taxes. You have to include all of the departments within the organization. Overall most public universities get half (WAG) of their funding from the state. That means a university like NC State looses ~$600,000,000 plus per year.

You could tax the booster clubs but they operate on very little, if any, profit. The overwhelming majority of their budget goes to the university in the form of tuition and facilities (i.e. donations).

If you take away tax exempt status from universities and booster clubs, donations will dry up. Not just athletics donations either.

Most of the money spent by the major athletic programs comes from their "foundations" or "booster clubs" which are separate from the University and are considered non-profits.

(06-03-2013 05:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 04:59 PM)krup Wrote:  It's funny that posters are so mad at the power conferences that they think it is a good idea to figure out a spiteful way to have a tax impact on the 10's of millions of $$$ some schools can get in revenue for college sports.

Meanwhile, colleges have raised tuition for decades well beyond the rate of inflation, the government subsidizes this with reduced student loan rates, the total student loan debt that can't be discharged in bankruptcy is approaching $1 TRILLION and the colleges are laughing all of the way as they continue to build up their endowments that range from hundreds of millions to double digit billions, ALL FREE FROM TAXATION.

The universities would love it if Congress wasted their energy on the tax exempt status of college sports, as it would continue to deflect from the real issue that the current system of tuition-financial aid-student loans is a total mess and 100X bigger than sports.

Very fair point. It might be a penny-wise and pound foolish approach for the non-power schools. It is theoretically possible for a number of top flagships to shift to private status (or something close to it) where they aren't very reliant on any type of government funding. UVA has already started doing this and schools like Michigan are exploring the same. It's the non-flagships that would get killed if Congress started cracking down on student loans. Granted, I don't see that occurring as a political realist since the student loan program is one of the handful of government programs that has widespread support from even the wealthiest segment of Americans along with the other 99%.

I am not even talking about direct government aid to universities, which is a whole different huge pot of money. I am talking about the idea that colleges can charge people $40,000 a year to get a degree with either little job prospects or a chance at a job making $35,000 a year. Then, if the student can't pay the loans the college has no exposure and neither do the lenders because you can't get rid of it in bankruptcy.

There is a simple fix to this mess which, because it is simple, will never be adopted by the colleges and government.

Here's my fix-
If someone with student loans declares bankruptcy, they are still on the hook for 1/3 of the student loan balance.
The university becomes liable for another 1/3
The lending bank eats the final 1/3

Watch how quick the banks start paying attention whether the person borrowing will actually have the ability to gain a career to pay it back, and watch how quickly the university starts preparing students for actual careers, instead of collecting $$ from them to get worthless "XXXX Studies" degrees.

1) Wolfman's post is on-point.

2) What's the ultimate purpose of all this "tax them mulafackas!!!" talk? To get back at the P5 leagues because they've seemingly left the others behind?

3) Tax the coaches -- wait, they're already being taxed.

A lot of nonsense in this thread... gang of 5 fans, there will not be taxation on college athletics, because it is too easy to circumnavigate. Pack of 5 fans, get over yourselves, your TV viewership would drop by a large amount with out the pack of 5.

(06-03-2013 07:52 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  A lot of nonsense in this thread... gang of 5 fans, there will not be taxation on college athletics, because it is too easy to circumnavigate. Pack of 5 fans, get over yourselves, your TV viewership would drop by a large amount with out the pack of 5.

There is a way to tax college athletics - tax the revenue, not the profit. If the state legislatures made a rule that every team that receives more than $10 million/year from their conference has to split that money with the state general education fund. That would be an effective tax that could not be dodged, and it would be similar to the way research grants are already handled, where part of the grant goes to "university overhead."

The nice part about this proposal is that it has a chance to get passed. It would not be nonBCS vs BCS. It would be soccer moms and teachers unions vs. the BCS, and that makes it a completely different animal. People would have skin in the game, and the money stream is enough to make the legislature take notice. How would your state legislator answer if publically asked whether he would rather fund Playstations for football players or a better educational system for the state?

Go Cougs!!!!!!!!

(06-03-2013 08:25 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 07:52 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  A lot of nonsense in this thread... gang of 5 fans, there will not be taxation on college athletics, because it is too easy to circumnavigate. Pack of 5 fans, get over yourselves, your TV viewership would drop by a large amount with out the pack of 5.

There is a way to tax college athletics - tax the revenue, not the profit. If the state legislatures made a rule that every team that receives more than $10 million/year from their conference has to split that money with the state general education fund. That would be an effective tax that could not be dodged, and it would be similar to the way research grants are already handled, where part of the grant goes to "university overhead."

The nice part about this proposal is that it has a chance to get passed. It would not be nonBCS vs BCS. It would be soccer moms and teachers unions vs. the BCS, and that makes it a completely different animal. People would have skin in the game, and the money stream is enough to make the legislature take notice. How would your state legislator answer if publically asked whether he would rather fund Playstations for football players or a better educational system for the state?

Go Cougs!!!!!!!!

Tax revenue? Now I've heard it all. Research grants go to "university overhead" because buildings don't heat themselves, janitors don't volunteer to sweep the halls, and the person coordinating all of these services and employees has to be payed as well.

Where is the justification for the 10 million from a conference nonsense? Just because you don't like successful schools you want to penalize them? This reminds me of all the proposals to tax the 1% "because they can afford it". Everyone is more focused on equality of results instead of equality of opportunity.

There is a difference between a grant and athletic revenue received from a conference. Grants, are moneys that is given without having to incur hardly any expenses (A lot of grant writers aren't even paid unless they are successful in receiving the grant.) The revenue generated by athletics is incurred through means of expenses. I guess you could tax revenues from booster donations to the athletic program, but that would be a small drop in a big bucket

(06-03-2013 08:55 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 08:25 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  There is a way to tax college athletics - tax the revenue, not the profit. If the state legislatures made a rule that every team that receives more than $10 million/year from their conference has to split that money with the state general education fund. That would be an effective tax that could not be dodged, and it would be similar to the way research grants are already handled, where part of the grant goes to "university overhead."

The nice part about this proposal is that it has a chance to get passed. It would not be nonBCS vs BCS. It would be soccer moms and teachers unions vs. the BCS, and that makes it a completely different animal. People would have skin in the game, and the money stream is enough to make the legislature take notice. How would your state legislator answer if publically asked whether he would rather fund Playstations for football players or a better educational system for the state?

Go Cougs!!!!!!!!

Tax revenue? Now I've heard it all. Research grants go to "university overhead" because buildings don't heat themselves, janitors don't volunteer to sweep the halls, and the person coordinating all of these services and employees has to be payed as well.

Where is the justification for the 10 million from a conference nonsense? Just because you don't like successful schools you want to penalize them? This reminds me of all the proposals to tax the 1% "because they can afford it". Everyone is more focused on equality of results instead of equality of opportunity.

The Virginia Legislature, representing the taxpayer, got VT into the ACC by leaning on UVA. VT fans, of all people, should realize there should be some payback. Why should the investment of my tax dollars not see a return on investment?

As a transplant, I am much more interested in the overall health of the education system in Virginia (which is declining somewhat) than I am interesting in seeing VT put up luxury football facilities. I think the soccer moms and teachers unions agree with me.

Why shouldn't the Commonwealth receive a return on our investment of tax dollars? All those millions flowing in every year should be going to the state, to help pay for the lights, heating, and janitors of the entire school system, not to mention the teachers as well.

Go Cougs!!!!!!

(06-03-2013 08:59 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  There is a difference between a grant and athletic revenue received from a conference. Grants, are moneys that is given without having to incur hardly any expenses (A lot of grant writers aren't even paid unless they are successful in receiving the grant.) The revenue generated by athletics is incurred through means of expenses. I guess you could tax revenues from booster donations to the athletic program, but that would be a small drop in a big bucket

Actually, there is a fair amount of effort and acquisition of preliminary results that go into successful grant applications.

A schools athletic expenses can easily be met if their conference outlay is reduced by half. Plenty of other revenue streams exist. Part of the problem in college sports is too much money, which leads to waste and lack of administrative focus on education.

Taxing booster donations would probably be unwise as it would get other nonprofits on edge, and would not be sound policy. However, conference revenues are clearly commercial revenues, and thus are a good candidate for profit sharing - just like any good business. It is simply a dividend on the State's long-term investment in the institution. By putting the level at $10 mill, you also coordinate your threshold with California, and avoid unduly taxing schools that aren't getting much money anyway, simplifying the overall process.

Go Cougs!!!!!!!

(06-03-2013 09:01 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 08:55 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 08:25 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  There is a way to tax college athletics - tax the revenue, not the profit. If the state legislatures made a rule that every team that receives more than $10 million/year from their conference has to split that money with the state general education fund. That would be an effective tax that could not be dodged, and it would be similar to the way research grants are already handled, where part of the grant goes to "university overhead."

The nice part about this proposal is that it has a chance to get passed. It would not be nonBCS vs BCS. It would be soccer moms and teachers unions vs. the BCS, and that makes it a completely different animal. People would have skin in the game, and the money stream is enough to make the legislature take notice. How would your state legislator answer if publically asked whether he would rather fund Playstations for football players or a better educational system for the state?

Go Cougs!!!!!!!!

Tax revenue? Now I've heard it all. Research grants go to "university overhead" because buildings don't heat themselves, janitors don't volunteer to sweep the halls, and the person coordinating all of these services and employees has to be payed as well.

Where is the justification for the 10 million from a conference nonsense? Just because you don't like successful schools you want to penalize them? This reminds me of all the proposals to tax the 1% "because they can afford it". Everyone is more focused on equality of results instead of equality of opportunity.

The Virginia Legislature, representing the taxpayer, got VT into the ACC by leaning on UVA. VT fans, of all people, should realize there should be some payback. Why should the investment of my tax dollars not see a return on investment?

As a transplant, I am much more interested in the overall health of the education system in Virginia (which is declining somewhat) than I am interesting in seeing VT put up luxury football facilities. I think the soccer moms and teachers unions agree with me.

Why shouldn't the Commonwealth receive a return on our investment of tax dollars? All those millions flowing in every year should be going to the state, to help pay for the lights, heating, and janitors of the entire school system, not to mention the teachers as well.

Go Cougs!!!!!!

The state is seeing a huge return on their investment. The hotels from Wytheville to Roanoke are full every weekend there is a home game. The state doesn't pay for any of the athletic expenditures. Athletic facilities are funded through donations and athletic revenues. The athletic department acts as a huge advertising arm of the Univeristy as well. After the national championship game in 99 the applications soared.

All of the schools in Virginia are climbing the national rankings so I don't know where you got the notion that education is slipping.