(04-30-2013 10:19 AM)mufanatehc Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 10:11 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 09:52 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  MAC would quickly affiliate with the no-pay.

Actually a lot of MAC presidents voted for the stipend the last time around.

I think he was saying if the B1G goes non-pay, and there is a legitimate split within FBS, the MAC will follow the B1G.

Yea and if Bruce Willis saves us from an asteroid we will name a school after him... Stories are great but in reality there is no way the power five breaks up.

(04-30-2013 09:56 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  It is time for the IRS to make these collegiate enterprises taxable. Either they are a professional league or they are not. If they are a professional league, then they need to be taxed like all of the other professional leagues.

The NFL is non profit. Only the teams get taxed.

You will have a hard time finding any profit left to tax after the universities lease their logos and real estate to their athletic arms.

(04-30-2013 11:05 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 09:56 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  It is time for the IRS to make these collegiate enterprises taxable. Either they are a professional league or they are not. If they are a professional league, then they need to be taxed like all of the other professional leagues.

The NFL is non profit. Only the teams get taxed.

You will have a hard time finding any profit left to tax after the universities lease their logos and real estate to their athletic arms.

The schools themselves and the athletes should be taxed on this portion of their enterprise. This talk is becoming more and more like a professional league and as such the schools like the individual teams in professional sports leagues need to be taxed on their earnings.

Moreover, the schools are looking more and more like employers and as such they should be subjected to employment taxes and for that matter the students (atheletes) as employees need to be taxed too.

(04-29-2013 08:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Very few schools actually make money on sports, even football. And how would you get away with giving the stipend only to "money-making" sports? Sounds like a lawsuit.

I don't think so. This isn't a Title IX issue. The official text of Title IX states:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance"

This financial assistance isn't tied to sex, it is tied to money. Student athletes that make money for their university would receive a certain amount of money as an allowance. If women's basketball is a money-making sport, the athletes would be guaranteed the same allowance as football or basketball would. The stipend is intended to make up for the choice to forgo playing that sport at a professional level, not to act solely for the benefits of education or athletics.

Obviously, standards would have to be set, but I think this is something that could and should be enacted. There are even precedents for doing so: university marching/pep bands. These groups get paid for their efforts and no one makes a fuss about it; why should small allowances for athletes (that make the university money instead of pursuing professional cash) be a big issue?

(04-30-2013 01:03 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 08:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Very few schools actually make money on sports, even football. And how would you get away with giving the stipend only to "money-making" sports? Sounds like a lawsuit.

I don't think so. This isn't a Title IX issue. The official text of Title IX states:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance"

This financial assistance isn't tied to sex, it is tied to money. Student athletes that make money for their university would receive a certain amount of money as an allowance. If women's basketball is a money-making sport, the athletes would be guaranteed the same allowance as football or basketball would. The stipend is intended to make up for the choice to forgo playing that sport at a professional level, not to act solely for the benefits of education or athletics.

Obviously, standards would have to be set, but I think this is something that could and should be enacted. There are even precedents for doing so: university marching/pep bands. These groups get paid for their efforts and no one makes a fuss about it; why should small allowances for athletes (that make the university money instead of pursuing professional cash) be a big issue?

If a football player is getting a benefit of getting paid but not women's soccer, then I think a case could be made that they are being denied benefits under Title IX.

(04-30-2013 02:11 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  If a football player is getting a benefit of getting paid but not women's soccer, then I think a case could be made that they are being denied benefits under Title IX.

Again, it wouldn't be sexual discrimination. It would be financial, and it would apply to men's lacrosse just as much as it applies to women's soccer. Of course, it would have to be held to a standard so that women's soccer would get the same amount of money if they were a net profit for the school (or make the money based around family income).

However, remember that these athletes are risking their potential incomes by playing in college. A football player is risking injury that could cost them a professional contract in the NFL (or CFL, USFL, USFL, etc.), and thus they are making money for the school while hurting their own income potential. A basketball player could be playing in the D-League or Europe or the NBA after their freshmen year. Etc.

The point is that these stipends are supposed to offset the potential loss that the players could make in the same field, accounting for the fact their potential salaries are being given up in favor of the school's profits. A women's soccer player is not necessarily making the same sacrifice.

(04-30-2013 02:37 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 02:11 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  If a football player is getting a benefit of getting paid but not women's soccer, then I think a case could be made that they are being denied benefits under Title IX.

Again, it wouldn't be sexual discrimination. It would be financial, and it would apply to men's lacrosse just as much as it applies to women's soccer. Of course, it would have to be held to a standard so that women's soccer would get the same amount of money if they were a net profit for the school (or make the money based around family income).

However, remember that these athletes are risking their potential incomes by playing in college. A football player is risking injury that could cost them a professional contract in the NFL (or CFL, USFL, USFL, etc.), and thus they are making money for the school while hurting their own income potential. A basketball player could be playing in the D-League or Europe or the NBA after their freshmen year. Etc.

The point is that these stipends are supposed to offset the potential loss that the players could make in the same field, accounting for the fact their potential salaries are being given up in favor of the school's profits. A women's soccer player is not necessarily making the same sacrifice.

Actually the justification for the stipend if you read what the commissioners and NCAA president said was to make it so athletic aid covered the full cost of attendance so student-athletes would have no reason to borrow money to attend college.

No one involved in the decision making process ever suggested it is as a replacement for income waived by remaining in college.

(04-30-2013 02:11 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 01:03 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 08:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Very few schools actually make money on sports, even football. And how would you get away with giving the stipend only to "money-making" sports? Sounds like a lawsuit.

I don't think so. This isn't a Title IX issue. The official text of Title IX states:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance"

This financial assistance isn't tied to sex, it is tied to money. Student athletes that make money for their university would receive a certain amount of money as an allowance. If women's basketball is a money-making sport, the athletes would be guaranteed the same allowance as football or basketball would. The stipend is intended to make up for the choice to forgo playing that sport at a professional level, not to act solely for the benefits of education or athletics.

Obviously, standards would have to be set, but I think this is something that could and should be enacted. There are even precedents for doing so: university marching/pep bands. These groups get paid for their efforts and no one makes a fuss about it; why should small allowances for athletes (that make the university money instead of pursuing professional cash) be a big issue?

If a football player is getting a benefit of getting paid but not women's soccer, then I think a case could be made that they are being denied benefits under Title IX.

You are right...his scheme wouldn't pass muster.

I think for most schools, whether the sport is "Money-making" is debatable, depending on what expenses you include.

If stipends are granted it will be for all athletes at a given school. End of story.

(04-30-2013 03:39 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think for most schools, whether the sport is "Money-making" is debatable, depending on what expenses you include.

Once the athletic departments of schools are deemed taxable, federal audits of accounting practices within those athletic departments would be eye opening, imo.

(04-30-2013 03:58 PM)krux Wrote:  If stipends are granted it will be for all athletes at a given school. End of story.

I should clarify; I am speaking what I feel "should" happen, not necessarily what will happen because of the way the Presidents and ADs have to deal with it.

Personally, I don't think women's soccer (since that is the popular example right now) deserves a stipend in the same way that the money-making sports do. There is no opportunity cost to play women's soccer, while basketball/football players are giving up anything from tens of thousands to millions of dollars to play for a university, which in turn makes money from their sacrifice.

That said, I could see a stipend going out to all athletes, on the condition that it is based on family income.

(04-30-2013 06:32 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 03:58 PM)krux Wrote:  If stipends are granted it will be for all athletes at a given school. End of story.

That said, I could see a stipend going out to all athletes, on the condition that it is based on family income.

What are you a pinko commie?? Either you give it or you don't. I don't care what players families make.

(04-30-2013 06:32 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 03:58 PM)krux Wrote:  If stipends are granted it will be for all athletes at a given school. End of story.

I should clarify; I am speaking what I feel "should" happen, not necessarily what will happen because of the way the Presidents and ADs have to deal with it.

Personally, I don't think women's soccer (since that is the popular example right now) deserves a stipend in the same way that the money-making sports do. There is no opportunity cost to play women's soccer, while basketball/football players are giving up anything from tens of thousands to millions of dollars to play for a university, which in turn makes money from their sacrifice.

That said, I could see a stipend going out to all athletes, on the condition that it is based on family income.

I agree with you, but there is a problem for all of us who feel tis way. Tese are not minor league franchises; they are educational institutions. At least in theory, these athletic opportunities are activities available to students so they can have a well rounded education.

Obviously colleges and universities have strayed far from this original intent. But that doesn't change who and what they are. As a result of what they are, once they start including stipends as part of the program, if they make it available to one, then they have to make it available to all. Whatever wiggle room they have in this area is quickly restricted by Title IX. They simply can't provide stipends for male athletes and not do the same for women.

Once educational institutions compromised their mission by making athletics money making enterprises, they crossed a line. They should have been reined in long ago, but weren't. However, paying athletes will be something that they simply can't do and still maintain any semblance of academic integrity. Title IX will see to that.

Frankly the Ivy League got it right 60 years ago when they decided to get their priorities right and to put athletics in the proper perspective within an academic institution. Only the Patriot League has followed suit. Everyone else is paying the price to one degree or another for a deal they've made with the devil.

(05-01-2013 07:56 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 06:32 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(04-30-2013 03:58 PM)krux Wrote:  If stipends are granted it will be for all athletes at a given school. End of story.

I should clarify; I am speaking what I feel "should" happen, not necessarily what will happen because of the way the Presidents and ADs have to deal with it.

Personally, I don't think women's soccer (since that is the popular example right now) deserves a stipend in the same way that the money-making sports do. There is no opportunity cost to play women's soccer, while basketball/football players are giving up anything from tens of thousands to millions of dollars to play for a university, which in turn makes money from their sacrifice.

That said, I could see a stipend going out to all athletes, on the condition that it is based on family income.

I agree with you, but there is a problem for all of us who feel tis way. Tese are not minor league franchises; they are educational institutions. At least in theory, these athletic opportunities are activities available to students so they can have a well rounded education.

Obviously colleges and universities have strayed far from this original intent. But that doesn't change who and what they are. As a result of what they are, once they start including stipends as part of the program, if they make it available to one, then they have to make it available to all. Whatever wiggle room they have in this area is quickly restricted by Title IX. They simply can't provide stipends for male athletes and not do the same for women.

Once educational institutions compromised their mission by making athletics money making enterprises, they crossed a line. They should have been reined in long ago, but weren't. However, paying athletes will be something that they simply can't do and still maintain any semblance of academic integrity. Title IX will see to that.

Frankly the Ivy League got it right 60 years ago when they decided to get their priorities right and to put athletics in the proper perspective within an academic institution. Only the Patriot League has followed suit. Everyone else is paying the price to one degree or another for a deal they've made with the devil.

No offense, but I'm siding with the devil in this case. Can't imagine my life without college athletics at the highest level, something the Ivy schools simply do not provide on a consistent basis.

Cheers,
Neil

The "highest level" is a moving target.

Used to be the highest level meant unlimited scholarships, then it meant 100 in football then 95 then 85.

Used to mean it meant football and basketball players completing four years to be eligible for pro service.

Used to mean freshmen don't play at all.

If the highest level were need based and academic achievement based aid the talent level wouldn't be that different unless the NBA and NFL changed their draft structure.