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

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...igh-school

Amen. I'm all for a small cost-of-living stipend, but athletes on full scholarship can still get Pell Grants and other financial aid to pay for extras if the need is there.

(09-26-2013 09:34 AM)UABslant Wrote:  Amen. I'm all for a small cost-of-living stipend, but athletes on full scholarship can still get Pell Grants and other financial aid to pay for extras if the need is there.

Anything more than that just creates separation between the few money making programs and the rest of us.

I'm not sure that the athletes pushing to be paid (aka professional) players have thought through the tax implications of what they are asking. "Here is $2000 a semester. Oh by the way, you now owe taxes on the $60,000 in tuition and other benefits we are paying you. So here is your $2000, you now owe the government $12,000 in taxes, so if you could come up with the other 10k and write that check, you will be back to even."

Except that you get to write off education expenses on your taxes.

Agree 100% Matt. These guys are just too young to understand it.

There is a reason that semi-pro leagues come and go in this country. They are not successful for countless reasons.

What people fail to realize is the name on the front of the jersey is a huge draw to college sports. Any stadium is expensive, and trying to build them would bankrupt any league people tried to start up. It is simple math, but these guys just see all these $$$ floating around and wonder where their cut is, not realizing that a free education is a huge bonus for the rest of their lives.

(09-26-2013 10:09 AM)BlazerMatt Wrote:  I'm not sure that the athletes pushing to be paid (aka professional) players have thought through the tax implications of what they are asking. "Here is $2000 a semester. Oh by the way, you now owe taxes on the $60,000 in tuition and other benefits we are paying you. So here is your $2000, you now owe the government $12,000 in taxes, so if you could come up with the other 10k and write that check, you will be back to even."

Since the Athletic Department writes its checks (tuition, books, room, board, etc.) directly to the University Administration with no funds actually passing through the athlete's hands, how can either level of government claim taxes on that money from the student? They may be responsible for whatever funds actually go into their pocket, but that would be minimal.

The 2010 published figures on annual per athlete expenditures by the median program in each conference stated that the median SEC program spent over $165,000 per athlete. (Imagine how Bama would stack up against that median level) Suppose those athletes had to pay taxes on that kind of money?

(09-26-2013 10:23 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:09 AM)BlazerMatt Wrote:  I'm not sure that the athletes pushing to be paid (aka professional) players have thought through the tax implications of what they are asking. "Here is $2000 a semester. Oh by the way, you now owe taxes on the $60,000 in tuition and other benefits we are paying you. So here is your $2000, you now owe the government $12,000 in taxes, so if you could come up with the other 10k and write that check, you will be back to even."

Since the Athletic Department writes its checks (tuition, books, room, board, etc.) directly to the University Administration with no funds actually passing through the athlete's hands, how can either level of government claim taxes on that money from the student? They may be responsible for whatever funds actually go into their pocket, but that would be minimal.

Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

(09-26-2013 10:23 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:09 AM)BlazerMatt Wrote:  I'm not sure that the athletes pushing to be paid (aka professional) players have thought through the tax implications of what they are asking. "Here is $2000 a semester. Oh by the way, you now owe taxes on the $60,000 in tuition and other benefits we are paying you. So here is your $2000, you now owe the government $12,000 in taxes, so if you could come up with the other 10k and write that check, you will be back to even."

Since the Athletic Department writes its checks (tuition, books, room, board, etc.) directly to the University Administration with no funds actually passing through the athlete's hands, how can either level of government claim taxes on that money from the student? They may be responsible for whatever funds actually go into their pocket, but that would be minimal.

The 2010 published figures on annual per athlete expenditures by the median program in each conference stated that the median SEC program spent over $165,000 per athlete. (Imagine how Bama would stack up against that median level) Suppose those athletes had to pay taxes on that kind of money?

You have to pay taxes on the value of things given to you if it's not cash. That little technicality bites a lot of game show contestants that win $30,000 vacations or cars or whatnot and not a penny of cash.

Players like Johnny Manziel could generate enough revenue to pay for their entire team's scholarships. Texas A&M got $300,000,000 in additional donations, more than at any point in their history, largely because of JM. But JM is suppose to grateful for a measly scholarship? I don't think so. These kids should be able to generate as much income as they can as long as it's by legal means. Schools can go from irrelevant to relevant based on the performance of student athletes which in turn help the schools out immensely from increased enrollment to an increase in the all important category of revenue.

(09-26-2013 10:49 AM)UAB?IAB Wrote:  Players like Johnny Manziel could generate enough revenue to pay for their entire team's scholarships. Texas A&M got $300,000,000 in additional donations, more than at any point in their history, largely because of JM. But JM is suppose to grateful for a measly scholarship? I don't think so. These kids should be able to generate as much income as they can as long as it's by legal means. Schools can go from irrelevant to relevant based on the performance of student athletes which in turn help the schools out immensely from increased enrollment to an increase in the all important category of revenue.

How do you seperate Manziel from the 7 guys blocking for him, the 3 trying to catch the ball he threw and the 33 other guys on defense and special teams ? Not including their backups ?

(09-26-2013 10:54 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:49 AM)UAB?IAB Wrote:  Players like Johnny Manziel could generate enough revenue to pay for their entire team's scholarships. Texas A&M got $300,000,000 in additional donations, more than at any point in their history, largely because of JM. But JM is suppose to grateful for a measly scholarship? I don't think so. These kids should be able to generate as much income as they can as long as it's by legal means. Schools can go from irrelevant to relevant based on the performance of student athletes which in turn help the schools out immensely from increased enrollment to an increase in the all important category of revenue.

How do you seperate Manziel from the 7 guys blocking for him, the 3 trying to catch the ball he threw and the 33 other guys on defense and special teams ? Not including their backups ?

Maybe he meant from outside sources like selling his autographs?

At the very least they could get compensation for their likenesses being used in video games and on ESPN, etc.

I think direct payments from the university are a little over the top, though. What expenses do these guys have? They get their room and board paid for, they are provided meals, they are provided books, they are provided tuition. What else are required expenditures that aren't covered? You don't *have* to have a car. You don't *have* to have a cell phone. Give 'em a laptop, ok, fine. I think every university could probably come up with the funds for that.

(09-26-2013 10:54 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:49 AM)UAB?IAB Wrote:  Players like Johnny Manziel could generate enough revenue to pay for their entire team's scholarships. Texas A&M got $300,000,000 in additional donations, more than at any point in their history, largely because of JM. But JM is suppose to grateful for a measly scholarship? I don't think so. These kids should be able to generate as much income as they can as long as it's by legal means. Schools can go from irrelevant to relevant based on the performance of student athletes which in turn help the schools out immensely from increased enrollment to an increase in the all important category of revenue.

How do you seperate Manziel from the 7 guys blocking for him, the 3 trying to catch the ball he threw and the 33 other guys on defense and special teams ? Not including their backups ?

(09-26-2013 09:34 AM)UABslant Wrote:  Amen. I'm all for a small cost-of-living stipend, but athletes on full scholarship can still get Pell Grants and other financial aid to pay for extras if the need is there.

Amen +1

(09-26-2013 10:56 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:54 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:49 AM)UAB?IAB Wrote:  Players like Johnny Manziel could generate enough revenue to pay for their entire team's scholarships. Texas A&M got $300,000,000 in additional donations, more than at any point in their history, largely because of JM. But JM is suppose to grateful for a measly scholarship? I don't think so. These kids should be able to generate as much income as they can as long as it's by legal means. Schools can go from irrelevant to relevant based on the performance of student athletes which in turn help the schools out immensely from increased enrollment to an increase in the all important category of revenue.

How do you seperate Manziel from the 7 guys blocking for him, the 3 trying to catch the ball he threw and the 33 other guys on defense and special teams ? Not including their backups ?

Maybe he meant from outside sources like selling his autographs?

At the very least they could get compensation for their likenesses being used in video games and on ESPN, etc.

I think direct payments from the university are a little over the top, though. What expenses do these guys have? They get their room and board paid for, they are provided meals, they are provided books, they are provided tuition. What else are required expenditures that aren't covered? You don't *have* to have a car. You don't *have* to have a cell phone. Give 'em a laptop, ok, fine. I think every university could probably come up with the funds for that.

So they should stay on campus 24/7, only use landlines, and not have any spending money to have a life? How would you fair under those circumstances, forget about the scholarship? These guys do A LOT more than just show up and play a sport.

Better yet what if your employer never gave you a raise because you make enough to meet your basic needs? But you excel at your job and you have increased revenue significantly for the company.

(09-26-2013 10:59 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 09:34 AM)UABslant Wrote:  Amen. I'm all for a small cost-of-living stipend, but athletes on full scholarship can still get Pell Grants and other financial aid to pay for extras if the need is there.

Amen +1

Do you pay contractors based on the other jobs that they can bid on and possibly get? Or do you pay them on consideration of the job that needs to be done and the quality that's expected?

(09-26-2013 10:49 AM)UAB?IAB Wrote:  Players like Johnny Manziel could generate enough revenue to pay for their entire team's scholarships. Texas A&M got $300,000,000 in additional donations, more than at any point in their history, largely because of JM. But JM is suppose to grateful for a measly scholarship? I don't think so. These kids should be able to generate as much income as they can as long as it's by legal means. Schools can go from irrelevant to relevant based on the performance of student athletes which in turn help the schools out immensely from increased enrollment to an increase in the all important category of revenue.

Largely because of Manziel? I'm sure the move to the SEC had absolutely nothing to do with it. Just some football player nobody had ever heard of until he took college football by storm last year.

I can ask the question, what is Manziel without A&M? It isn't a one way street. Without A&M Manziel is still unknown. Now, he gets to play on national television weekly, and essentially prove what he can do to future employers. As somebody who graduated in 2008 and had to search for a year to find a crappy paying job in my field, I would have killed for that opportunity. All I know is if Manziel leaves after this season, Texas A&M will still be there.

(09-26-2013 11:04 AM)UAB?IAB Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:56 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:54 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:49 AM)UAB?IAB Wrote:  Players like Johnny Manziel could generate enough revenue to pay for their entire team's scholarships. Texas A&M got $300,000,000 in additional donations, more than at any point in their history, largely because of JM. But JM is suppose to grateful for a measly scholarship? I don't think so. These kids should be able to generate as much income as they can as long as it's by legal means. Schools can go from irrelevant to relevant based on the performance of student athletes which in turn help the schools out immensely from increased enrollment to an increase in the all important category of revenue.

How do you seperate Manziel from the 7 guys blocking for him, the 3 trying to catch the ball he threw and the 33 other guys on defense and special teams ? Not including their backups ?

Maybe he meant from outside sources like selling his autographs?

At the very least they could get compensation for their likenesses being used in video games and on ESPN, etc.

I think direct payments from the university are a little over the top, though. What expenses do these guys have? They get their room and board paid for, they are provided meals, they are provided books, they are provided tuition. What else are required expenditures that aren't covered? You don't *have* to have a car. You don't *have* to have a cell phone. Give 'em a laptop, ok, fine. I think every university could probably come up with the funds for that.

So they should stay on campus 24/7, only use landlines, and not have any spending money to have a life? How would you fair under those circumstances, forget about the scholarship? These guys do A LOT more than just show up and play a sport.

Better yet what if your employer never gave you a raise because you make enough to meet your basic needs? But you excel at your job and you have increased revenue significantly for the company.

Then let them get a job elsewhere or let them take out loans and pell grants like everyone else. Pay them for things like using them in video games or TV shows or advertising, but just for showing up and playing football is stupid. The baseball team is never going to get it, but I see them practicing just as much as the football team. Don't people have to pay to be in the band?

If we're going to throw amateurism out the window then we need to disassociate the teams from universities and take away the tax exempt status. If we're going to use the universities to build this crap up to the levels we have, then the money should flow back and help the rest of the student body with reduced tuition.

(09-26-2013 11:09 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:49 AM)UAB?IAB Wrote:  Players like Johnny Manziel could generate enough revenue to pay for their entire team's scholarships. Texas A&M got $300,000,000 in additional donations, more than at any point in their history, largely because of JM. But JM is suppose to grateful for a measly scholarship? I don't think so. These kids should be able to generate as much income as they can as long as it's by legal means. Schools can go from irrelevant to relevant based on the performance of student athletes which in turn help the schools out immensely from increased enrollment to an increase in the all important category of revenue.

Largely because of Manziel? I'm sure the move to the SEC had absolutely nothing to do with it. Just some football player nobody had ever heard of until he took college football by storm last year.

I can ask the question, what is Manziel without A&M? It isn't a one way street. Without A&M Manziel is still unknown. Now, he gets to play on national television weekly, and essentially prove what he can do to future employers. As somebody who graduated in 2008 and had to search for a year to find a crappy paying job in my field, I would have killed for that opportunity. All I know is if Manziel leaves after this season, Texas A&M will still be there.

How relevant, on the national scene, was aTm before JM? I believe they were too busy firing coaches every 4 years to be relevant. JM could take his talents to another school and still produce at a high level, aTm didn't do it the 30 years prior to his arrival but are now in better position to recruit better athletes because of him. Now put a value on that.

Your skill set must not be as valued as those of a high performing athlete and in this country that's how it works. That seems to be the root issue, "if I had to" then they should.

(09-26-2013 11:17 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 11:04 AM)UAB?IAB Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:56 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:54 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 10:49 AM)UAB?IAB Wrote:  Players like Johnny Manziel could generate enough revenue to pay for their entire team's scholarships. Texas A&M got $300,000,000 in additional donations, more than at any point in their history, largely because of JM. But JM is suppose to grateful for a measly scholarship? I don't think so. These kids should be able to generate as much income as they can as long as it's by legal means. Schools can go from irrelevant to relevant based on the performance of student athletes which in turn help the schools out immensely from increased enrollment to an increase in the all important category of revenue.

How do you seperate Manziel from the 7 guys blocking for him, the 3 trying to catch the ball he threw and the 33 other guys on defense and special teams ? Not including their backups ?

Maybe he meant from outside sources like selling his autographs?

At the very least they could get compensation for their likenesses being used in video games and on ESPN, etc.

I think direct payments from the university are a little over the top, though. What expenses do these guys have? They get their room and board paid for, they are provided meals, they are provided books, they are provided tuition. What else are required expenditures that aren't covered? You don't *have* to have a car. You don't *have* to have a cell phone. Give 'em a laptop, ok, fine. I think every university could probably come up with the funds for that.

So they should stay on campus 24/7, only use landlines, and not have any spending money to have a life? How would you fair under those circumstances, forget about the scholarship? These guys do A LOT more than just show up and play a sport.

Better yet what if your employer never gave you a raise because you make enough to meet your basic needs? But you excel at your job and you have increased revenue significantly for the company.

Then let them get a job elsewhere or let them take out loans and pell grants like everyone else. Pay them for things like using them in video games or TV shows or advertising, but just for showing up and playing football is stupid. The baseball team is never going to get it, but I see them practicing just as much as the football team. Don't people have to pay to be in the band?

If we're going to throw amateurism out the window then we need to disassociate the teams from universities and take away the tax exempt status. If we're going to use the universities to build this crap up to the levels we have, then the money should flow back and help the rest of the student body with reduced tuition.

Come on man, find another job? They were recruited to the university because of the value that they bring to the table. If they choose to leave a school for another they have to sit out a year. If it is about amateurism, then why are coaches making $4,000,000 a year and everyone else associated can make money except for the ones that actually generate the revenue.

Just because you work as hard or harder than another doesn't mean you deserve the same pay, see society.