How long will it be, and what would it take, for the government to declare that beyond some budget threshhold, college FB and MBB are activities substantially unrelated to the tax exempt purpose of universities?

Is the very fact that those schools also engage in sports that are not revenue positive enough to maintain the fiction that they are educational in nature?

Private equity taking a stake or ownership otherwise diverging from strictly being the school and nothing else.

As far as money goes, that has nothing to do with it, if you're in for a penny you're in for a pound.

Is there enough overlap between college boosters and political donors to prevent it from ever happening?

(10-16-2025 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  How long will it be, and what would it take, for the government to declare that beyond some budget threshhold, college FB and MBB are activities substantially unrelated to the tax exempt purpose of universities?

Is the very fact that those schools also engage in sports that are not revenue positive enough to maintain the fiction that they are educational in nature?

They're students still.

They entertain donors.

Its marketing to potential students.

Its not anywhere near the line at this point.

(10-16-2025 02:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  Is there enough overlap between college boosters and political donors to prevent it from ever happening?

They would have to drastically change their interpretation of UBTI for it to be at risk. You have to really be outside of what you are doing for it to be UBTI. I worked at a not for profit that had outside activities, so we looked at the issue.

I'm sure schools monitor all their activities for that.

IMO, the A4 universities all want to broadly maintain the same existing model. A few scenarios that could result in government oversight changing:

1) Profit generating sports (such as basketball and/or football) are treated substantially different than money-losing sports. For example, D1 participation forces universities to sponsor a minimum number of sports. Yet most sports need subsidies, which helps justify keeping football and MBB in the larger NCAA D1 model.

2) Athletes no longer have to be students. That cuts the direct tie to the universities’ educational mission.

3) For profit investors enter collegiate athletics with gain share schemes. This is the private equity concern.

(10-16-2025 02:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  How long will it be, and what would it take, for the government to declare that beyond some budget threshhold, college FB and MBB are activities substantially unrelated to the tax exempt purpose of universities?

Is the very fact that those schools also engage in sports that are not revenue positive enough to maintain the fiction that they are educational in nature?

They're students still.

They entertain donors.

Its marketing to potential students.

Its not anywhere near the line at this point.

Is it really targeting to potential students? I mean, I can see 'student'-athletes. Duh. But can it be shown that the other students with the high SAT/ACT are bigger sports fans?
Probably the opposite. I dunno

(10-16-2025 06:16 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 02:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  How long will it be, and what would it take, for the government to declare that beyond some budget threshhold, college FB and MBB are activities substantially unrelated to the tax exempt purpose of universities?

Is the very fact that those schools also engage in sports that are not revenue positive enough to maintain the fiction that they are educational in nature?

They're students still.

They entertain donors.

Its marketing to potential students.

Its not anywhere near the line at this point.

Is it really targeting to potential students? I mean, I can see 'student'-athletes. Duh. But can it be shown that the other students with the high SAT/ACT are bigger sports fans?
Probably the opposite. I dunno

Yes. George Mason's applications more than doubled after their 2005 MM run, IIRC.

(10-16-2025 06:16 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 02:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  How long will it be, and what would it take, for the government to declare that beyond some budget threshhold, college FB and MBB are activities substantially unrelated to the tax exempt purpose of universities?

Is the very fact that those schools also engage in sports that are not revenue positive enough to maintain the fiction that they are educational in nature?

They're students still.

They entertain donors.

Its marketing to potential students.

Its not anywhere near the line at this point.

Is it really targeting to potential students? I mean, I can see 'student'-athletes. Duh. But can it be shown that the other students with the high SAT/ACT are bigger sports fans?
Probably the opposite. I dunno

Its absolutely clear that big time sports is a magnet for a lot of students. I know with my son he wasn't interested in schools like Georgia Southern. He looked at mostly SEC schools.

(10-16-2025 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  How long will it be, and what would it take, for the government to declare that beyond some budget threshhold, college FB and MBB are activities substantially unrelated to the tax exempt purpose of universities?

Is the very fact that those schools also engage in sports that are not revenue positive enough to maintain the fiction that they are educational in nature?

I don't think mbb's crossed that line.

but I think football likely crossed it ages ago.

It's part of why courts couldn't look the other way anymore, and we're already starting to see the results of that.

I've been suggesting that fbs football should leave the ncaa, and create a new umbrella organization for itself.

Otherwise, football is going to bring down all of college sports, as football's issues are going to continue to plague college sports as courts, regulators, and legislators, all continue to paint with a broad brush, and affect all of college sports in their dragnet.

It's a case of where keeping the golden egg inside will kill the goose...

(10-16-2025 02:52 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  IMO, the A4 universities all want to broadly maintain the same existing model. A few scenarios that could result in government oversight changing:

1) Profit generating sports (such as basketball and/or football) are treated substantially different than money-losing sports. For example, D1 participation forces universities to sponsor a minimum number of sports. Yet most sports need subsidies, which helps justify keeping football and MBB in the larger NCAA D1 model.

2) Athletes no longer have to be students. That cuts the direct tie to the universities’ educational mission.

3) For profit investors enter collegiate athletics with gain share schemes. This is the private equity concern.

Solid, informative response.

About the third item: it is not only in the area of athletics that university leaders are considering possibilities involving private capital these days.

Universities operate under strict legal restrictions, though, on the kinds of risks they can take. The proposals university leaders can hear out are fiercely conservative by open-market standards.

None of which automatically makes any one proposal a great idea. In any proposal there are many details to consider.

(10-16-2025 06:46 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-16-2025 06:16 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  Is it really targeting to potential students? I mean, I can see 'student'-athletes. Duh. But can it be shown that the other students with the high SAT/ACT are bigger sports fans?
Probably the opposite. I dunno

Yes. George Mason's applications more than doubled after their 2005 MM run, IIRC.

The value of athletics as marketing is well established by data. This would be easy for institutions to show.

It applies here. How did 9 out 10 people on this board first learn about the existence of the AAU? It’s a STEM research organisation—one of many academic associations. People learned about the AAU because a college sports conference gave it free publicity.