(10-30-2019 12:27 AM)chester Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 10:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 09:50 PM)chester Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 08:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 07:55 PM)chester Wrote:  The hiring of college athletes is inevitable. It's been happening unofficially for many decades anyway, but in a manner that has fooled much of the public into believing that athletic scholarships aren't labor contracts and that those who receive them are still "amateurs."

If the NCAA had any sense at all, it would embrace the future and "pay the damn player," for pity's sake. Then it could have a more reasonably claim in regard to limiting endorsement opportunities, moral clauses, whatnot.

Well duh! I followed up on violations back when. But, I agree on the limiting of endorsements. Pay 'em counting in the education and incidentals, drop the grant & aid and sign them to 4 year contracts, provide insurance against injury, end the damned transfer portal, and save the images and rights for the schools The hypocrisy has been going on since the inception of college football but truly hit the payola back in the 20's and has been keeping up with inflation ever since.

Once upon a time, some college athletes were outright paid to play. Some could pocket dough in other ways, like selling programs at the gate for commission. No one cared back then. Folks back in the day loved their players because those players attended their schools.. They didn't give two rips about flipping "amateurism." That was for the weird-ass, inherently wealthy Oxford and Cambridge wannabees.

Some today will moan about officially employed college athletes, but I wonder if they consider the potential benefits.

Q: Is a college athlete that is signed to a 4 year contract more or less likely to complete his or her degree than the average college athlete of today?

Q: Is a college athlete that is signed to a 4 year contract more or less likely to transfer to another school than a college athlete in today's landscape.

Q: Is an Olympic athlete who is able to garner the endorsement $ needed for his or her specialized training more or less likely to stay in school, and thus to complete his or her degree?

etc... Who cares ??? Let it happen!

When was that? Under the table, yes, but in the open? I think you are totally wrong there.

Bullet, I recall that from browsing this 90 year old report on college athletics.

I apologize, but I do not recall wherein that report I read it and am loath to look for it (its like 350 pages long.) However, the same is repeated in this excellent 2011 article from The Atlantic, regarding that very same report:

Quote:Of the 112 schools surveyed, 81 flouted NCAA recommendations with inducements to students ranging from open payrolls and disguised booster funds to no-show jobs at movie studios. Fans ignored the uproar, and two-thirds of the colleges mentioned told The New York Times that they planned no changes. In 1939, freshman players at the University of Pittsburgh went on strike because they were getting paid less than their upperclassman teammates.

You don’t think they got rid othat for a reason?

(11-01-2019 09:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You don’t think they got rid othat for a reason?

Sure, they had their reasons. But IMO, nothing justified their fixing pay at grant-in-aid.

None of us want our own pay capped at artificial lows, do we?

The problem, ultimately, is that people in the earliest days tried to wedge true amateurism into what quickly became a business. No sensible, non-wealthy person wants to do non-charitable work for free when there is demand for their work.

Popular college sports have begged for the paying of players from the moment they became popular, and it didn't take long for amateurism to fall apart.

(10-29-2019 08:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 07:55 PM)chester Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 04:00 PM)mpurdy22 Wrote:  First domino fell already. Saw a tweet that Senator Richard Burr from NC says that if Athletes "cash in" on getting paid, he will introduce legislation then that treats scholarships as income. This will bring about a lot of taxation questions and can these athletes muddle through this responsibly.

It should be counted for tax purposes as income along with all other perks (food, dorms, book/laptop expenses, tutoring costs, etc.) along with their stipends.

And when they become employees of the University (and in most cases the state), then they should not be counted against Title IX. This is the first thread to be pulled that will eventually unravel the entire garment of amateurism, and which should eventually lead to the demise of the NCAA. Once the nature of the relationship is determined by the courts then all that was built upon the old classification will change as well.

The NCAA has agreed to images and likenesses. That is their best bet to keep power. But the likelihood of this simply ending there is remote.

The hiring of college athletes is inevitable. It's been happening unofficially for many decades anyway, but in a manner that has fooled much of the public into believing that athletic scholarships aren't labor contracts and that those who receive them are still "amateurs."

If the NCAA had any sense at all, it would embrace the future and "pay the damn player," for pity's sake. Then it could have a more reasonably claim in regard to limiting endorsement opportunities, moral clauses, whatnot.

Well duh! I followed up on violations back when. But, I agree on the limiting of endorsements. Pay 'em counting in the education and incidentals, drop the grant & aid and sign them to 4 year contracts, provide insurance against injury, end the damned transfer portal, and save the images and rights for the schools The hypocrisy has been going on since the inception of college football but truly hit the payola back in the 20's and has been keeping up with inflation ever since.

Hell yeah. +2

(10-29-2019 10:14 PM)chester Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 09:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 09:50 PM)chester Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 08:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 07:55 PM)chester Wrote:  The hiring of college athletes is inevitable. It's been happening unofficially for many decades anyway, but in a manner that has fooled much of the public into believing that athletic scholarships aren't labor contracts and that those who receive them are still "amateurs."

If the NCAA had any sense at all, it would embrace the future and "pay the damn player," for pity's sake. Then it could have a more reasonably claim in regard to limiting endorsement opportunities, moral clauses, whatnot.

Well duh! I followed up on violations back when. But, I agree on the limiting of endorsements. Pay 'em counting in the education and incidentals, drop the grant & aid and sign them to 4 year contracts, provide insurance against injury, end the damned transfer portal, and save the images and rights for the schools The hypocrisy has been going on since the inception of college football but truly hit the payola back in the 20's and has been keeping up with inflation ever since.

Once upon a time, some college athletes were outright paid to play. Some could pocket dough in other ways, like selling programs at the gate for commission. No one cared back then. Folks back in the day loved their players because those players attended their schools.. They didn't give two rips about flipping "amateurism." That was for the weird-ass, inherently wealthy Oxford and Cambridge wannabees.

Some today will moan about officially employed college athletes, but I wonder if they consider the potential benefits.

Q: Is a college athlete that is signed to a 4 year contract more or less likely to complete his or her degree than the average college athlete of today?

Q: Is a college athlete that is signed to a 4 year contract more or less likely to transfer to another school than a college athlete in today's landscape.

Q: Is an Olympic athlete who is able to garner the endorsement $ needed for his or her specialized training more or less likely to stay in school, and thus to complete his or her degree?

etc... Who cares ??? Let it happen!

And, with a contract if they want to turn pro early then that organization that drafts them has to buyout their remaining contracted time at the school compensating that school for their investment.

There are more than a few upsides.

There you go! Let the NFL, NBA, whatever, pay some for the free development they've enjoyed all these years.

It's a freaking no-brainer. Unless you're the NCAA, which seems to be clueless. Completely clueless!

You forget the NCAA is paid by the colleges?

(11-02-2019 11:00 PM)chester Wrote:  

(11-01-2019 09:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You don’t think they got rid othat for a reason?

Sure, they had their reasons. But IMO, nothing justified their fixing pay at grant-in-aid.

None of us want our own pay capped at artificial lows, do we?

The problem, ultimately, is that people in the earliest days tried to wedge true amateurism into what quickly became a business. No sensible, non-wealthy person wants to do non-charitable work for free when there is demand for their work.

Popular college sports have begged for the paying of players from the moment they became popular, and it didn't take long for amateurism to fall apart.

Actually two things justified.

One. The public or at least the public and status considered professional sports to be coarse and vulgar. That's why the Olympics clung to amateurism as long as they did.

Athletics were supposed to be a pass time to develop oneself and stay healthy while learning the virtues that would make one a good soldier (read officer).

Second. The most respected academic institutions in the country rejected the idea of ability based aid, the rest halved the baby by limiting it to tuition, fees, books, room and board plus an allowance for laundry and other expenses that was taken away in the early 1970's. That figure when adopted in the 50's was pretty close in buying power to what the current stipends for cost of attendance pay, by 1971 not so much.

(11-05-2019 12:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Actually two things justified.

One. The public or at least the public and status considered professional sports to be coarse and vulgar. That's why the Olympics clung to amateurism as long as they did.

Athletics were supposed to be a pass time to develop oneself and stay healthy while learning the virtues that would make one a good soldier (read officer).

Second. The most respected academic institutions in the country rejected the idea of ability based aid, the rest halved the baby by limiting it to tuition, fees, books, room and board plus an allowance for laundry and other expenses that was taken away in the early 1970's. That figure when adopted in the 50's was pretty close in buying power to what the current stipends for cost of attendance pay, by 1971 not so much.

Those reasons are not what I'd call justifications.

That elitist attitude was not so prevalent pre-50s that people did not show up to games and pay good money to watch the players go at it. The fans back then knew that there were players who were being paid in one way and/or another. That's pro college ball, not amateur, and those fans yummed it up...

Since the demand for pro college ball was there (still is, always will be), there was, IMO, no justification for fixing pay. It served no pro-competitive purpose. All it did was cheat the players who would have been paid more -- the irrational, immoral beliefs of classist butt-heads in ivory towers notwithstanding.

The other schools ought to have owned up to the fact that college ball was business and that it had been for decades. They should have told the elitist pearl clutchers to go take a flying row off the edge of a waterfall. They should have properly compensated their own players.

Athletics as just a healthy, virtuous "avocation," as the Cartel calls it, was completely unjustified once it became business, and so too artificially low caps on pay. That's how I see it, anyway.

EDIT: I'm reminded of the following passage from a 90 year old article in the Cornell Alumni News. For context, the Carnagie Foundation had just been reported that Cornell was one of only a few surveyed schools that did not pay varsity players in some way. Seems the writer here questioned the virtue of Cornell's own approach.

(10-29-2019 04:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Everything beyond tuition, books, and fees is taxable if you read the tax code.

The IRS just hasn't ever spent any energy on chasing students for the taxes due on housing, meals, and stipends.

Not sure they haven’t spent energy but I wonder if the college gives the athletes a 1099 for stuff that is taxable. In a lot of cases the amount of room and board is still under the standard deduction for a single status filer so even though they file their 1040 form, they don’t owe any income tax. Now that would change with the NIL and any tax code changes.
Then the state IRS will get involved like they do with the pros. Each athlete that does a NIL endorsement will need to file a tax return for each state they play in. Because those athletes still make a name for themselves when playing in their state and the state will want their share of the money for when they play in their state.

Some people argue about the Olympic model being applied to college. However, the big difference is that the vast majority of Olympic athletes have jobs (mostly part time) that supports their training with some endorsements deals.
The public and the Olympic committee accepts that as amateurism.

Putting that model to the college system wouldn’t be acceptable to most of the college fans. People forget why these collegiate athletic organizations exist and came about. They exist to provide a set of rules for everyone to follow. If there is a subset of schools that want to be semi-pro then they can form their own division with no rules at all. But don’t complain when the fans aren’t lining up as they do now.

The number of fans who are going to walk away from college sports if their preferred style of amateurism isn't retained is one that is greatly overstated by folks in that group.

(11-09-2019 10:39 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  The number of fans who are going to walk away from college sports if their preferred style of amateurism isn't retained is one that is greatly overstated by folks in that group.

100% agree. They will still cheer. They are going to cheer. They will cheer.

...An article on the hegemonic nature of the Cartel and its propagandistic use of "student athlete" and "the collegiate model":

Cheering on the Collegiate Model Creating, Disseminating, and Imbedding the NCAA’s Redefinition of Amateurism