(05-15-2019 11:51 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:01 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 10:34 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 08:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Again---its a public supported institution---not a business.

Then why does every athletic department, including Houston's, have someone directing business operations?

By that rational all nonprofits and government agencies are considered businesses. Anybody that sets a budget and pays bills and complies with local, state and federal laws is now a "business"

I'm cool with that. Start taxing them, including churches and the government.

Far too often there are state and federal facilities in local county or municipalities that pull tax funded resources yet pay no taxes to support those resources, putting the burden solely on the taxpayers of said county or municipality. They should pay their fair share.

You're getting off into lala land. Most local government funding comes from state and federal transfers and your worried about a SSA or federal courthouse building not paying local real estate tax? Should localities start paying their fair share and not be exempt from state and local income tax? Your just building a huge pointless bureaucracy.

If you don't like churches, educational organizations, charitable organizations and yes, amateur sports getting special tax exempt status then call your congressman. I wouldn't expect to be taken seriously though.

But there's different definitions of the word business. Pointing out that there's a position in athletic departments with the word business in it doesn't prove ****.

(05-15-2019 12:05 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:51 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:01 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 10:34 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 08:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Again---its a public supported institution---not a business.

Then why does every athletic department, including Houston's, have someone directing business operations?

By that rational all nonprofits and government agencies are considered businesses. Anybody that sets a budget and pays bills and complies with local, state and federal laws is now a "business"

I'm cool with that. Start taxing them, including churches and the government.

Far too often there are state and federal facilities in local county or municipalities that pull tax funded resources yet pay no taxes to support those resources, putting the burden solely on the taxpayers of said county or municipality. They should pay their fair share.

You're getting off into lala land. Most local government funding comes from state and federal transfers and your worried about a SSA or federal courthouse building not paying local real estate tax? Should localities start paying their fair share and not be exempt from state and local income tax? Your just building a huge pointless bureaucracy.

If you don't like churches, educational organizations, charitable organizations and yes, amateur sports getting special tax exempt status then call your congressman. I wouldn't expect to be taken seriously though.

But there's different definitions of the word business. Pointing out that there's a position in athletic departments with the word business in it doesn't prove ****.

Most count and municipal funding in South Carolina comes from property taxes and fees. State and federal funding is less than a third in all cases, and usually much more. For example, in my town the state and federal contributions combined make up less than 4% of the town's annual budget, while property taxes, licensing, and franchise fees (for power, telephone, and cable tv) make up 92%.

How is an athlete an amateur if they are literally getting paid via scholarship to play a sport? An athlete is saving tens of thousands of dollars compared to Joe Student who ends up in severe debt without the fandom and welcome back party.

Anybody who thinks this is amateur athletics is not looking hard enough at what is actually going on. So since there actually are no amateur athletes in college, what does it matter if they gain some pocket money for their likeness? This whole system is ridiculous and the people defending the "purity" of college athletics are a bigger joke than the one they believe.

(05-15-2019 12:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 12:05 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:51 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 11:01 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 10:34 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Then why does every athletic department, including Houston's, have someone directing business operations?

By that rational all nonprofits and government agencies are considered businesses. Anybody that sets a budget and pays bills and complies with local, state and federal laws is now a "business"

I'm cool with that. Start taxing them, including churches and the government.

Far too often there are state and federal facilities in local county or municipalities that pull tax funded resources yet pay no taxes to support those resources, putting the burden solely on the taxpayers of said county or municipality. They should pay their fair share.

You're getting off into lala land. Most local government funding comes from state and federal transfers and your worried about a SSA or federal courthouse building not paying local real estate tax? Should localities start paying their fair share and not be exempt from state and local income tax? Your just building a huge pointless bureaucracy.

If you don't like churches, educational organizations, charitable organizations and yes, amateur sports getting special tax exempt status then call your congressman. I wouldn't expect to be taken seriously though.

But there's different definitions of the word business. Pointing out that there's a position in athletic departments with the word business in it doesn't prove ****.

Most count and municipal funding in South Carolina comes from property taxes and fees. State and federal funding is less than a third in all cases, and usually much more. For example, in my town the state and federal contributions combined make up less than 4% of the town's annual budget, while property taxes, licensing, and franchise fees (for power, telephone, and cable tv) make up 92%.

So you think your town should have to pay federal and state taxes on the property taxes they collect, and the licensing and franchise fees and the money they receive from the state and federal governments? In exchange your town will assess property taxes on any state or federal properties located there? Pretty much what you're saying? ******* genius.

California's SB206 was passed by the Senate today and is now moving to the Assembly.

The bill was amended last week to delay its implementation to 1/1/2023. Barring passage of the congressional bill or some other legislation in the interim, NCAA schools would have some 3+ years to realize this reform should the bill become law. That is unless they want to sit back and watch Cali schools snatch up 95% of the top recruits every year or to challenge the law in court or whatever. One thing the NCAA definitely would not do, IMO, is attempt to expel Cali schools.

Quote:The NCAA president and Board of Governors appointed a working group to examine issues highlighted in recently proposed federal and state legislation related to student-athlete name, image and likeness.

The NCAA Board of Governors Federal and State Legislation Working Group will be made up of member representatives from all three NCAA divisions.

“This group will bring together diverse opinions from the membership — from presidents and commissioners to student-athletes — that will examine the NCAA’s position on name, image and likeness benefits and potentially propose rule modifications tethered to education,” said Val Ackerman, commissioner of the Big East and working group co-chair. “We believe the time is right for these discussions and look forward to a thorough assessment of the many complexities involved in this area.”

Still scratching my head over the "tethered to education" line. How the heck do you tie pay from third parties to education?

I've since read where that language may originate, though, and can see now why the NCAA might try to restrict NIL action in some bizarre way if it does crack open this door. From the 9th Circuit CoAs' majority opinion in the O'Bannon case:

Quote:...In our judgment, however, the district court clearly erred in finding it a viable alterative [sic] to allow students to receive NIL cash payments untethered to their education expenses...

...The difference between offering student-athletes education-related compensation and offering them cash sums untethered to educational expenses is not minor; it is a quantum leap. Once that line is crossed, we see no basis for returning to a rule of amateurism and no defined stopping point; we have little doubt that plaintiffs will continue to challenge the arbitrary limit imposed by the district court until they have captured the full value of their NIL. At that point the NCAA will have surrendered its amateurism principles entirely...

Seems the NCAA may fear that letting athletes capitalize their identities in ways untethered to their education (again, what other way is there?) could lead to an eventual court-ordered open market.

(05-15-2019 12:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  How is an athlete an amateur if they are literally getting paid via scholarship to play a sport? An athlete is saving tens of thousands of dollars compared to Joe Student who ends up in severe debt without the fandom and welcome back party.

Anybody who thinks this is amateur athletics is not looking hard enough at what is actually going on. So since there actually are no amateur athletes in college, what does it matter if they gain some pocket money for their likeness? This whole system is ridiculous and the people defending the "purity" of college athletics are a bigger joke than the one they believe.

Yeah, actual amateurs wouldn't be paid anything in exchange for their services.

Time for all California schools be booted from NCAA and NAIA. From that bill, all athletes from all levels including private schools would get paid. I also think that it will not go anywhere in the feds at all. I would be against paying players since once you start paying players? They become pro players and that is what defeats what college and university sports are for.

(05-22-2019 06:51 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Time for all California schools be booted from NCAA and NAIA. From that bill, all athletes from all levels including private schools would get paid. I also think that it will not go anywhere in the feds at all. I would be against paying players since once you start paying players? They become pro players and that is what defeats what college and university sports are for.

That is one of your better posts,agree.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(05-22-2019 06:51 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Time for all California schools be booted from NCAA and NAIA. From that bill, all athletes from all levels including private schools would get paid. I also think that it will not go anywhere in the feds at all. I would be against paying players since once you start paying players? They become pro players and that is what defeats what college and university sports are for.

Well, not necessarily. It just means that they would each have the opportunity to profit from their NILs. Let me stress, that's their names, their images... Seriously, what business is that of yours or mine? I do not presume to own or deny the economic rights of others and neither should college athletic organizations.

One way or another, college athletics' long years of institutionalized economic slavery will come to a close and I think America will be better for it when it does.

As for where it may lead, I hope that it leads to college athletes gaining full economic rights. All Americans should be able to ply their craft in a free market, IMO. Don't worry, there would be plenty of schools that couldn't afford to pay athletes if it came to that, and so they wouldn't.

(05-22-2019 08:01 PM)chester Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 06:51 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Time for all California schools be booted from NCAA and NAIA. From that bill, all athletes from all levels including private schools would get paid. I also think that it will not go anywhere in the feds at all. I would be against paying players since once you start paying players? They become pro players and that is what defeats what college and university sports are for.

Well, not necessarily. It just means that they would each have the opportunity to profit from their NILs. Let me stress, that's their names, their images... Seriously, what business is that of yours or mine? I do not presume to own or deny the economic rights of others and neither should college athletic organizations.

One way or another, college athletics' long years of institutionalized economic slavery will come to a close and I think America will be better for it when it does.

As for where it may lead, I hope that it leads to college athletes gaining full economic rights. All Americans should be able to ply their craft in a free market, IMO. Don't worry, there would be plenty of schools that couldn't afford to pay athletes if it came to that, and so they wouldn't.

That is what scholarships are for.

(05-22-2019 06:51 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  That is what scholarships are for.

Recommend you re-read Section 1 of that California bill.