(03-04-2023 08:00 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  If we pay players, is the six-figure value of their scholarship then taxable? How are we doing this?

If so, then there's going to be a considerable tax benefit to staying in-state vs. out-of-state. Take Michigan for example; in-state tuition is around $16K while out-of-state is over 3x more at around $52K. The private schools will be totally screwed. At Notre Dame the total cost of attendance for a year is over $83K; at USC it's $85K.

As part of a compensation package, absolutely it's taxable. NIL as well.

The state's that have no income tax will be at an advantage. That'll get interesting. Now as to privates they will need to bring players in early set them up with residency requirements and then count them as in state.

(03-04-2023 08:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 08:00 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  If we pay players, is the six-figure value of their scholarship then taxable? How are we doing this?

If so, then there's going to be a considerable tax benefit to staying in-state vs. out-of-state. Take Michigan for example; in-state tuition is around $16K while out-of-state is over 3x more at around $52K. The private schools will be totally screwed. At Notre Dame the total cost of attendance for a year is over $83K; at USC it's $85K.

As part of a compensation package, absolutely it's taxable. NIL as well.

This is stupid. They're not employees. They play sports while going to school. They get a scholarship for it; for the VAST majority of college athletes (even in CFB and CBB) that value of that scholarship far outweighs their fair market value as athletes. For the few that it doesn't, they can now pursue NIL opportunities and earn income which is taxable.

There's a concerted effort to destroy college athletics in America. Classifying athletes as employees would be a great step towards that goal.

(03-04-2023 08:07 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 08:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 08:00 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  If we pay players, is the six-figure value of their scholarship then taxable? How are we doing this?

If so, then there's going to be a considerable tax benefit to staying in-state vs. out-of-state. Take Michigan for example; in-state tuition is around $16K while out-of-state is over 3x more at around $52K. The private schools will be totally screwed. At Notre Dame the total cost of attendance for a year is over $83K; at USC it's $85K.

As part of a compensation package, absolutely it's taxable. NIL as well.

This is stupid. They're not employees. They play sports while going to school. They get a scholarship for it; for the VAST majority of college athletes (even in CFB and CBB) that value of that scholarship far outweighs their fair market value as athletes. For the few that it doesn't, they can now pursue NIL opportunities and earn income which is taxable.

There's a concerted effort to destroy college athletics in America. Classifying athletes as employees would be a great step towards that goal.

Tell that to the court that rules them to be employees via Johnson vs the NCAA, to be eligible for profit sharing via California Bill #1401, and to be paid back damages for all of those who graduated or used up eligibility in the 5 years prior to the ruling which is the third case pending in the next year or two. I linked the first two, one in Gitanole's post and one in mine. You can simply do a Google of all cases pending vs the NCAA and college athletics.

That's what this whole thread is about! Did you not read it? I was making fun of the 24 schools to a conference because beginning with the NIL ruling the "student" status has been under legal assault with Justice Cavanaugh recommending collective bargaining which insinuates organizing a union. The consensus is that Johnson will win. That makes them all paid employees. How are you going to handle it then? So we may be adding to 24 to keep 16. Which is a bit of hyperbole, I hope.

They are all about to be employees, revenue sport or not. I doubt we have 72 schools who can afford the changes that are coming. Realignment right now is more about the clustering of the strongest programs getting ready for massive change. The industry's most successful are circling the wagons.

It's what I meant when I told the board that the giants don't move unless from their vantage point, they can see calamity coming on the horizon. Well, we are here, which is why Texas and Oklahoma and USC and UCLA moved. It is why Networks are paying more for the SEC and Big 10, as they anticipated not only more audience but better likelihood of survivability. It's also why we are signing shorter deals. The demographics for college sports viewers takes a huge knock by 2036. And that and all the rest are why FSU and Clemson want a bigger lifeboat.

(03-04-2023 08:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 08:07 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 08:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 08:00 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  If we pay players, is the six-figure value of their scholarship then taxable? How are we doing this?

If so, then there's going to be a considerable tax benefit to staying in-state vs. out-of-state. Take Michigan for example; in-state tuition is around $16K while out-of-state is over 3x more at around $52K. The private schools will be totally screwed. At Notre Dame the total cost of attendance for a year is over $83K; at USC it's $85K.

As part of a compensation package, absolutely it's taxable. NIL as well.

This is stupid. They're not employees. They play sports while going to school. They get a scholarship for it; for the VAST majority of college athletes (even in CFB and CBB) that value of that scholarship far outweighs their fair market value as athletes. For the few that it doesn't, they can now pursue NIL opportunities and earn income which is taxable.

There's a concerted effort to destroy college athletics in America. Classifying athletes as employees would be a great step towards that goal.

Tell that to the court that rules them to be employees via Johnson vs the NCAA, to be eligible for profit sharing via California Bill #1401, and to be paid back damages for all of those who graduated or used up eligibility in the 5 years prior to the ruling which is the third case pending in the next year or two. I linked the first two, one in Gitanole's post and one in mine. You can simply do a Google of all cases pending vs the NCAA and college athletics.

That's what this whole thread is about! Did you not read it? I was making fun of the 24 schools to a conference because beginning with the NIL ruling the "student" status has been under legal assault with Justice Cavanaugh recommending collective bargaining which insinuates organizing a union. The consensus is that Johnson will win. That makes them all paid employees. How are you going to handle it then? So we may be adding to 24 to keep 16. Which is a bit of hyperbole, I hope.

They are all about to be employees, revenue sport or not. I doubt we have 72 schools who can afford the changes that are coming. Realignment right now is more about the clustering of the strongest programs getting ready for massive change. The industry's most successful are circling the wagons.

It's what I meant when I told the board that the giants don't move unless from their vantage point, they can see calamity coming on the horizon. Well, we are here, which is why Texas and Oklahoma and USC and UCLA moved. It is why Networks are paying more for the SEC and Big 10, as they anticipated not only more audience but better likelihood of survivability. It's also why we are signing shorter deals. The demographics for college sports viewers takes a huge knock by 2036. And that and all the rest are why FSU and Clemson want a bigger lifeboat.

I wasn't attacking you but rather the push to classify student-athletes as employees. It's a solution in search of a problem.

I don't disagree that if that happens, it will cause a significant consolidation in college athletics. It will also kill off athletics in the long run, as the collective fan bases of those programs left behind and not fortunate to be in the Lucky-32 or whatever will give up following altogether.

(03-04-2023 08:47 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 08:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 08:07 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 08:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 08:00 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  If we pay players, is the six-figure value of their scholarship then taxable? How are we doing this?

If so, then there's going to be a considerable tax benefit to staying in-state vs. out-of-state. Take Michigan for example; in-state tuition is around $16K while out-of-state is over 3x more at around $52K. The private schools will be totally screwed. At Notre Dame the total cost of attendance for a year is over $83K; at USC it's $85K.

As part of a compensation package, absolutely it's taxable. NIL as well.

This is stupid. They're not employees. They play sports while going to school. They get a scholarship for it; for the VAST majority of college athletes (even in CFB and CBB) that value of that scholarship far outweighs their fair market value as athletes. For the few that it doesn't, they can now pursue NIL opportunities and earn income which is taxable.

There's a concerted effort to destroy college athletics in America. Classifying athletes as employees would be a great step towards that goal.

Tell that to the court that rules them to be employees via Johnson vs the NCAA, to be eligible for profit sharing via California Bill #1401, and to be paid back damages for all of those who graduated or used up eligibility in the 5 years prior to the ruling which is the third case pending in the next year or two. I linked the first two, one in Gitanole's post and one in mine. You can simply do a Google of all cases pending vs the NCAA and college athletics.

That's what this whole thread is about! Did you not read it? I was making fun of the 24 schools to a conference because beginning with the NIL ruling the "student" status has been under legal assault with Justice Cavanaugh recommending collective bargaining which insinuates organizing a union. The consensus is that Johnson will win. That makes them all paid employees. How are you going to handle it then? So we may be adding to 24 to keep 16. Which is a bit of hyperbole, I hope.

They are all about to be employees, revenue sport or not. I doubt we have 72 schools who can afford the changes that are coming. Realignment right now is more about the clustering of the strongest programs getting ready for massive change. The industry's most successful are circling the wagons.

It's what I meant when I told the board that the giants don't move unless from their vantage point, they can see calamity coming on the horizon. Well, we are here, which is why Texas and Oklahoma and USC and UCLA moved. It is why Networks are paying more for the SEC and Big 10, as they anticipated not only more audience but better likelihood of survivability. It's also why we are signing shorter deals. The demographics for college sports viewers takes a huge knock by 2036. And that and all the rest are why FSU and Clemson want a bigger lifeboat.

I wasn't attacking you but rather the push to classify student-athletes as employees. It's a solution in search of a problem.

I don't disagree that if that happens, it will cause a significant consolidation in college athletics. It will also kill off athletics in the long run, as the collective fan bases of those programs left behind and not fortunate to be in the Lucky-32 or whatever will give up following altogether.

A special status for student athletes which would have permitted financial stipends should have been pursued by the NCAA when the ruling in 1983 took control of the television rights outside of the NCAA. The greater the money coupled with strict interpretations of amateurism, with limited amenities in existence, set the stage for this.

Decades ago we made crooks out of kids who took $100 handshakes from boosters, were given cars, etc, because they couldn't file capital gains or earnings or tip revenue for these illegal activities without losing eligibility. The NCAA has known of these violations for as long as they have been in existence. They nailed some, slapped the wrists of others, and let the kids stay in the tax dodge business. This is the court finally saying to the whole organization, enough! The so-called amateur has been illegally employed for decades. This legitimizes them as they can now be taxpayers. What they get is above board if they choose to report it, if not they are tax cheats.

The courts just looked at coaches getting 11 million a year, schools reporting NET earnings of 50 million or much more a year and had no other conclusion to draw but that this already was a massively profitable industry operating outside of the tax base since most schools are called non-profits.

I absolutely agree with you about the impact it will have. But I absolutely agree with the courts that enough is enough and the athletes should never be shackled to the shady side of life because a university winked at their gifts and tips. IF we are going to expect good citizens, we need to teach them how to be one, not force them to be shady. It's a dirty industry, and I followed the violations for over a decade of my life, concomitantly with a job in an industry which gave me access to see what was going on, and not with or for the NCAA.

(03-04-2023 04:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 04:24 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 10:13 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  The California bill requires each sport be treated separately. If a sport produces twice the revenue as it distributes in scholarships, then half the revenue goes to the players. There is an offset for the scholarships, and a cap of $25,000 while the student is in college, but the remainder is placed in a trust. This article:

California College Athletes Could Cash in Under Proposed Revenue-Sharing Bill

gives the example of USC, which had $50 million in football revenue, and $6.5 million in scholarships for 85 players ($76,000 per athlete).

Distributing half of $50 million to players comes out to $294,000 per player, so USC has to pay athletes another $218,000 per player per year. The excess is placed in a trust fund.

If USC is distributing $25 million to football players, they are going to have to cut expenses for the football program AND cut out any subsidies for other sports.

If you are not USC, you are still competing for players.

For any athletic director tempted to cut women's golf, I see, there's this:

Athletic directors could be suspended for “a minimum of three years” if they eliminate entire sports, roster spots or aggregate scholarship amounts “while paying an athletic administrator or coach an annual salary of $500,000 or more.”

The intention, clearly, is for schools to find savings first through braking coach and administrator salaries rather than through elimination of non-revenue sports.

Football players who graduate would earn, at present rates, roughly half of what their coordinator coach makes. They may not be 'employees' but this is pro ball, folks.

Precisely! This is why I debate Frank on holding a for profit athletic business to an academic standard and argue for a mutation of the present SEC system from one which tries to add schools which enhance academics, but which keeps the #1 norm of the move as added athletic value to one which emphasizes the academic value of schools and the business value of schools as separate but equally valued objectives.

Any notion of amateurism, even a hybridized one due to NIL, is simply obsolete, as is its governing system. To pretend this isn't headed professional is a rarified level of denial.

If the California bill is any indication, academics are still very much in the picture. What's toast is the idea of 'amateur,' which is really a different thing anyway.

Everything in the proposed law is based on athletes accepting scholarships and becoming students. These students can expect to get paid shares of the revenue they help bring in to the school on top of a stipend. But note: the money isn't paid to them until they graduate. They have six years to graduate or they forfeit the cash. For as long as they remain students who haven't yet graduated, the money is held in a trust.

So academic work is still very much in the picture.

Pity the unlucky professor whose assessment of course failure separates a college jock from his million-dollar payday... but that's a worry for tomorrow, I guess.

(03-05-2023 09:30 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 04:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 04:24 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 10:13 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  The California bill requires each sport be treated separately. If a sport produces twice the revenue as it distributes in scholarships, then half the revenue goes to the players. There is an offset for the scholarships, and a cap of $25,000 while the student is in college, but the remainder is placed in a trust. This article:

California College Athletes Could Cash in Under Proposed Revenue-Sharing Bill

gives the example of USC, which had $50 million in football revenue, and $6.5 million in scholarships for 85 players ($76,000 per athlete).

Distributing half of $50 million to players comes out to $294,000 per player, so USC has to pay athletes another $218,000 per player per year. The excess is placed in a trust fund.

If USC is distributing $25 million to football players, they are going to have to cut expenses for the football program AND cut out any subsidies for other sports.

If you are not USC, you are still competing for players.

For any athletic director tempted to cut women's golf, I see, there's this:

Athletic directors could be suspended for “a minimum of three years” if they eliminate entire sports, roster spots or aggregate scholarship amounts “while paying an athletic administrator or coach an annual salary of $500,000 or more.”

The intention, clearly, is for schools to find savings first through braking coach and administrator salaries rather than through elimination of non-revenue sports.

Football players who graduate would earn, at present rates, roughly half of what their coordinator coach makes. They may not be 'employees' but this is pro ball, folks.

Precisely! This is why I debate Frank on holding a for profit athletic business to an academic standard and argue for a mutation of the present SEC system from one which tries to add schools which enhance academics, but which keeps the #1 norm of the move as added athletic value to one which emphasizes the academic value of schools and the business value of schools as separate but equally valued objectives.

Any notion of amateurism, even a hybridized one due to NIL, is simply obsolete, as is its governing system. To pretend this isn't headed professional is a rarified level of denial.

If the California bill is any indication, academics are still very much in the picture. What's toast is the idea of 'amateur,' which is really a different thing anyway.

Everything in the proposed law is based on athletes accepting scholarships and becoming students. These students can expect to get paid shares of the revenue they help bring in to the school on top of a stipend. But note: the money isn't paid to them until they graduate. They have six years to graduate or they forfeit the cash. For as long as they remain students who haven't yet graduated, the money is held in a trust.

So academic work is still very much in the picture.

Pity the unlucky professor whose assessment of course failure separates a college jock from his million-dollar payday... but that's a worry for tomorrow, I guess.

That's just the California Bill. The following suit which seeks damages up to the legal allowance of 5 years in arrears is national and graduation isn't mandated.

(03-04-2023 08:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 08:00 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  If we pay players, is the six-figure value of their scholarship then taxable? How are we doing this?

If so, then there's going to be a considerable tax benefit to staying in-state vs. out-of-state. Take Michigan for example; in-state tuition is around $16K while out-of-state is over 3x more at around $52K. The private schools will be totally screwed. At Notre Dame the total cost of attendance for a year is over $83K; at USC it's $85K.

As part of a compensation package, absolutely it's taxable. NIL as well.

The state's that have no income tax will be at an advantage. That'll get interesting. Now as to privates they will need to bring players in early set them up with residency requirements and then count them as in state.

That’s not true. You can receive a tax-free scholarship while also being a university employee that receives compensation at the same time. For example, this happens with grad students that receive a scholarship and then also get paid a salary to teach classes.

So, if you want to call that “half-pregnant”, that’s fine, but I think you’re projecting your personally desired outcome for a specific type of world where there is a complete divorce of academics from athletics (which just happens to somehow always advantage the SEC and disadvantage the Big Ten) on something that is far more nuanced and complex since, at the end of the day, these schools are STILL going to be academic institutions whether they’re in the Big Ten or SEC. We have tons of examples of scholarship recipients that are also university employees - this notion that there HAS to be a clean break between the school and athletics because of pay for play is simply wrong. (Whether you think that there SHOULD be a clean break is perfectly fine, but that’s quite different than it being somehow structurally necessary.)

Let’s put aside that vision of the future, though. That’s all a debate where neither of us will know the answer for several years. What I’m saying is that all of what you can say about pay for play may end up being true, but at a minimum, scholarships aren’t going to be taxed. That benefits absolutely NO ONE - not the colleges, their donors, or the athletes. And I’m talking about on a pure financial basis on that front as opposed to any academic argument. Whatever future structure is created is going to preserve that tax-free status. We can’t sit here and talk about money, money, and more money ruling everything… but then eliminate the single best tax-advantaged form of compensation out there for a college athlete and, for the vast majority of athletes, is going to be worth more than their other compensation (whether direct or via NIL). That simply makes little financial sense in a free market to do anything that would eliminate that massive benefit (and once again, it’s a benefit to EVERYONE - schools, donors and students).

(03-05-2023 12:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 08:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 08:00 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  If we pay players, is the six-figure value of their scholarship then taxable? How are we doing this?

If so, then there's going to be a considerable tax benefit to staying in-state vs. out-of-state. Take Michigan for example; in-state tuition is around $16K while out-of-state is over 3x more at around $52K. The private schools will be totally screwed. At Notre Dame the total cost of attendance for a year is over $83K; at USC it's $85K.

As part of a compensation package, absolutely it's taxable. NIL as well.

The state's that have no income tax will be at an advantage. That'll get interesting. Now as to privates they will need to bring players in early set them up with residency requirements and then count them as in state.

That’s not true. You can receive a tax-free scholarship while also being a university employee that receives compensation at the same time. For example, this happens with grad students that receive a scholarship and then also get paid a salary to teach classes.

So, if you want to call that “half-pregnant”, that’s fine, but I think you’re projecting your personally desired outcome for a specific type of world where there is a complete divorce of academics from athletics (which just happens to somehow always advantage the SEC and disadvantage the Big Ten) on something that is far more nuanced and complex since, at the end of the day, these schools are STILL going to be academic institutions whether they’re in the Big Ten or SEC. We have tons of examples of scholarship recipients that are also university employees - this notion that there HAS to be a clean break between the school and athletics because of pay for play is simply wrong. (Whether you think that there SHOULD be a clean break is perfectly fine, but that’s quite different than it being somehow structurally necessary.)

Let’s put aside that vision of the future, though. That’s all a debate where neither of us will know the answer for several years. What I’m saying is that all of what you can say about pay for play may end up being true, but at a minimum, scholarships aren’t going to be taxed. That benefits absolutely NO ONE - not the colleges, their donors, or the athletes. And I’m talking about on a pure financial basis on that front as opposed to any academic argument. Whatever future structure is created is going to preserve that tax-free status. We can’t sit here and talk about money, money, and more money ruling everything… but then eliminate the single best tax-advantaged form of compensation out there for a college athlete and, for the vast majority of athletes, is going to be worth more than their other compensation (whether direct or via NIL). That simply makes little financial sense in a free market to do anything that would eliminate that massive benefit (and once again, it’s a benefit to EVERYONE - schools, donors and students).

It's taxable if it is part of your compensation package. If the players are under contract it will be. If they are under scholarship it won't. What you are suggesting is a hybridized system which categorizes elements of their compensation differently. That could happen. But that's a hybrid situation which the courts will have to sort out because it in many ways will be in conflict with itself when it comes to rights and obligations. That's a we'll see.

And Frank, I don't have an agenda. I simply report the world as I see it. You are the one who feels compelled to defend certain positions. I run into opposition all the time. People love their delusions, resist the truth about things they seek to believe in, and that's just how we justify and cope with life. None of this would be happening if college sports had remained the underpaid and much beloved domain of our alma mater. They didn't. They became an arms race extension of really two generations' egos. Then corporate America recognized a much higher profit potential than the sleepy cottage industry of college sports was yielding, likely because they took a good look at what the NCAA was raking in. So in 1983 things changed. All realignment is, and has been, is product placement designed to heighten interest and profits. It's not about the Big 10's way of life, or AAU schools, and its not about "It Just Means More" in the SEC, hell it's not even about the civil war or Jim Crow anymore. It's about money. And the moves of the Big 10 and SEC are proxy moves from two competing networks and no matter how you want to spin it the Big 10 taking USC and UCLA are about as far away from the operating principles of the Old Big 10 as you can get. The SEC won't be far behind as it has really only appropriated the Southwest, which may be South but isn't Southeast.

You sir are the one who defends momma, not me. I see what the SEC does. I know what they profess to want regionally, but I also know our wealth was increased in moving into the old SWC, which was just as removed from our organizing principle as your move into the PAC 12, or New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The two are money making and money gobbling machines. And neither has much to do with College anymore.

(03-04-2023 08:00 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  If we pay players, is the six-figure value of their scholarship then taxable? How are we doing this?

If so, then there's going to be a considerable tax benefit to staying in-state vs. out-of-state. Take Michigan for example; in-state tuition is around $16K while out-of-state is over 3x more at around $52K. The private schools will be totally screwed. At Notre Dame the total cost of attendance for a year is over $83K; at USC it's $85K.

Private schools like Notre Dame USC, BYU, etc, have vast alumni networks that they can tap into to help leverage cost, IMO. However, this is very bad news for smaller privates who don't have those types of alumni networks.

If revenue sports detached from academia de facto, they would detach from academia de jure in about a generation. Presidents, faculty, and students would push for this. So would sports writers and athletes, for different reasons. Alumni/booster support of the 'rah-rah-sis-boom-bah' myth could take time to erode, but it would. And that would be it.

Universities would still offer athletics within an educational framework.

(03-05-2023 09:51 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  If revenue sports detached from academia de facto, they would detach from academia de jure in about a generation. Presidents, faculty, and students would push for this. So would sports writers and athletes, for different reasons. Alumni/booster perpetuation of 'rah-rah-sis-boom-bah' myth could take time to erode, but it would. And that would be it.

Universities would still offer athletics within an educational framework.

Precisely. If one of the conjoined twins is to survive, possibly both, separation is necessary. Professional sports and academia cannot share the same host. Their missions are in conflict. This is in part what I've been trying to get the Big 10 faithful to grasp. The two as they will become, not what they once were, are no longer symbionts. Now they are fighting for the possession of the same host body. And the wholly disparate organizing principles demand that they be separated. So be it!

(03-05-2023 12:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 08:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 08:00 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  If we pay players, is the six-figure value of their scholarship then taxable? How are we doing this?

If so, then there's going to be a considerable tax benefit to staying in-state vs. out-of-state. Take Michigan for example; in-state tuition is around $16K while out-of-state is over 3x more at around $52K. The private schools will be totally screwed. At Notre Dame the total cost of attendance for a year is over $83K; at USC it's $85K.

As part of a compensation package, absolutely it's taxable. NIL as well.

The state's that have no income tax will be at an advantage. That'll get interesting. Now as to privates they will need to bring players in early set them up with residency requirements and then count them as in state.

That’s not true. You can receive a tax-free scholarship while also being a university employee that receives compensation at the same time. For example, this happens with grad students that receive a scholarship and then also get paid a salary to teach classes.

So, if you want to call that “half-pregnant”, that’s fine, but I think you’re projecting your personally desired outcome for a specific type of world where there is a complete divorce of academics from athletics (which just happens to somehow always advantage the SEC and disadvantage the Big Ten) on something that is far more nuanced and complex since, at the end of the day, these schools are STILL going to be academic institutions whether they’re in the Big Ten or SEC. We have tons of examples of scholarship recipients that are also university employees - this notion that there HAS to be a clean break between the school and athletics because of pay for play is simply wrong. (Whether you think that there SHOULD be a clean break is perfectly fine, but that’s quite different than it being somehow structurally necessary.)

Let’s put aside that vision of the future, though. That’s all a debate where neither of us will know the answer for several years. What I’m saying is that all of what you can say about pay for play may end up being true, but at a minimum, scholarships aren’t going to be taxed. That benefits absolutely NO ONE - not the colleges, their donors, or the athletes. And I’m talking about on a pure financial basis on that front as opposed to any academic argument. Whatever future structure is created is going to preserve that tax-free status. We can’t sit here and talk about money, money, and more money ruling everything… but then eliminate the single best tax-advantaged form of compensation out there for a college athlete and, for the vast majority of athletes, is going to be worth more than their other compensation (whether direct or via NIL). That simply makes little financial sense in a free market to do anything that would eliminate that massive benefit (and once again, it’s a benefit to EVERYONE - schools, donors and students).

A grad student is getting a scholarship to be a grad student.

A athlete is being employed as an entertainer. Why should Bogwash U be advantaged in hiring its entertainers over Bogwash Bogtrotters professional football club?

(03-05-2023 10:43 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  A grad student is getting a scholarship to be a grad student.

A athlete is being employed as an entertainer. Why should Bogwash U be advantaged in hiring its entertainers over Bogwash Bogtrotters professional football club?

Exactly. To keep staging these kinds of performances on campus, the performances going forward may well need to function as more than 'entertainment.'

So let's take a look at it. Your sister or daughter at State U who plays Blanche DuBois in Streetcar Named Desire... she's performing, too. The performance enriches campus life, benefits the community. Everyone is invited.

But the performance does more than just offer a diversion for its viewers. Opportunities like this are also part of her course of study. She's a scholar of theatre, right? She and her colleagues need experiences like this. Classroom activities can only cover so much. As a graduate, she needs more than a diploma. She needs a portfolio. Students need the experience of putting the whole show together.

Could someone argue that athletic performance serves the same role in some other major?

Physical education is already a popular major among athletes. No surprises there. What about sports administration? Can a case be made that to graduate with a degree in sports administration, a student needs the experience of 'putting the whole show together' in competitive sports?

How about athletic coaching? How about athletic scouting and assessment?

Someone may need to make cases very much like these, if the conjoined twins are not to be scheduled for separation.

(03-05-2023 11:26 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-05-2023 10:43 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  A grad student is getting a scholarship to be a grad student.

A athlete is being employed as an entertainer. Why should Bogwash U be advantaged in hiring its entertainers over Bogwash Bogtrotters professional football club?

Exactly. To keep staging these kinds of performances on campus, the performances going forward may well need to function as more than 'entertainment.'

So let's take a look at it. Your sister or daughter at State U who plays Blanche DuBois in Streetcar Named Desire... she's performing, too. The production enriches campus life, benefits the community. Everyone is invited to see the show.

But the play does more than just offer a rewarding night out for people in the community. Opportunities like this are also part of her course of study. She's a scholar of theatre, right? She and her colleagues need experiences like this. Classroom activities can only cover so much. Students need the experience of putting the whole show together.

Could someone argue that athletic performance serves the same role in some other major?

Physical education is already a popular major among athletes. No surprises there. What about sports administration? Can a case be made that to graduate with a degree in sports administration, a student needs the experience of 'putting the whole show together' in competitive sports?

Someone may need to make exactly that case, if the conjoined twins are not to be scheduled for separation.

You need to offer coaching majors, including but not limited to coordinators and position coaching. And offer courses in officiating. The more job available majors you can produce the better your argument will be. Don't worry about theater, concentrate on the creation of ways to work in athletics from trainers to coaches. All are needed skill sets. Even sports medicine and osteopathy for brighter athletes would be useful. Make sure you can offer graduate programs in all of these disciplines as well. But I still think separation is inevitable.

(03-05-2023 11:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2023 11:26 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-05-2023 10:43 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  A grad student is getting a scholarship to be a grad student.

A athlete is being employed as an entertainer. Why should Bogwash U be advantaged in hiring its entertainers over Bogwash Bogtrotters professional football club?

Exactly. To keep staging these kinds of performances on campus, the performances going forward may well need to function as more than 'entertainment.'

So let's take a look at it. Your sister or daughter at State U who plays Blanche DuBois in Streetcar Named Desire... she's performing, too. The production enriches campus life, benefits the community. Everyone is invited to see the show.

But the play does more than just offer a rewarding night out for people in the community. Opportunities like this are also part of her course of study. She's a scholar of theatre, right? She and her colleagues need experiences like this. Classroom activities can only cover so much. Students need the experience of putting the whole show together.

Could someone argue that athletic performance serves the same role in some other major?

Physical education is already a popular major among athletes. No surprises there. What about sports administration? Can a case be made that to graduate with a degree in sports administration, a student needs the experience of 'putting the whole show together' in competitive sports?

Someone may need to make exactly that case, if the conjoined twins are not to be scheduled for separation.

You need to offer coaching majors, including but not limited to coordinators and position coaching. And offer courses in officiating. The more job available majors you can produce the better your argument will be. Don't worry about theater, concentrate on the creation of ways to work in athletics from trainers to coaches. All are needed skill sets. Even sports medicine and osteopathy for brighter athletes would be useful.

I'm not suggesting that anyone 'worry about theatre.' I am sharing one example among many possible.

Performance is already part of academia.

Figure out why, and it's possible to determine the value of performance experiences for students in other fields.

(03-05-2023 11:50 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-05-2023 11:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2023 11:26 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-05-2023 10:43 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  A grad student is getting a scholarship to be a grad student.

A athlete is being employed as an entertainer. Why should Bogwash U be advantaged in hiring its entertainers over Bogwash Bogtrotters professional football club?

Exactly. To keep staging these kinds of performances on campus, the performances going forward may well need to function as more than 'entertainment.'

So let's take a look at it. Your sister or daughter at State U who plays Blanche DuBois in Streetcar Named Desire... she's performing, too. The production enriches campus life, benefits the community. Everyone is invited to see the show.

But the play does more than just offer a rewarding night out for people in the community. Opportunities like this are also part of her course of study. She's a scholar of theatre, right? She and her colleagues need experiences like this. Classroom activities can only cover so much. Students need the experience of putting the whole show together.

Could someone argue that athletic performance serves the same role in some other major?

Physical education is already a popular major among athletes. No surprises there. What about sports administration? Can a case be made that to graduate with a degree in sports administration, a student needs the experience of 'putting the whole show together' in competitive sports?

Someone may need to make exactly that case, if the conjoined twins are not to be scheduled for separation.

You need to offer coaching majors, including but not limited to coordinators and position coaching. And offer courses in officiating. The more job available majors you can produce the better your argument will be. Don't worry about theater, concentrate on the creation of ways to work in athletics from trainers to coaches. All are needed skill sets. Even sports medicine and osteopathy for brighter athletes would be useful.

I'm not suggesting that anyone 'worry about theatre.' I am sharing one example among many possible.

Performance is already part of academia.

Figure out why, and it's possible to determine the value of performance experiences for students in other fields.

Yeah, I got that. It's just simpler to look at graduate programs which could be developed for sports. There are oodles if you look at each sport, and then each specific area in that sport, and the surrounding support networks athletics require. Good graduate programs there could even reduce the overhead of staffing if utilized appropriately. Figure out the value of those and you figure out values elsewhere also. It is an equation is it not?

(03-05-2023 10:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2023 09:51 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  If revenue sports detached from academia de facto, they would detach from academia de jure in about a generation. Presidents, faculty, and students would push for this. So would sports writers and athletes, for different reasons. Alumni/booster perpetuation of 'rah-rah-sis-boom-bah' myth could take time to erode, but it would. And that would be it.

Universities would still offer athletics within an educational framework.

Precisely. If one of the conjoined twins is to survive, possibly both, separation is necessary. Professional sports and academia cannot share the same host. Their missions are in conflict. This is in part what I've been trying to get the Big 10 faithful to grasp. The two as they will become, not what they once were, are no longer symbionts. Now they are fighting for the possession of the same host body. And the wholly disparate organizing principles demand that they be separated. So be it!

It will take the courts breaking the B1G's illusion into a hundred pieces, IMO, JR.

On another thread somewhere else, one poster excellently summed up the B1G with this quote, "Ivy League in the classroom, SEC on athletics. " I like it about as much as you do (that is to say that I don't like it), but it will take the courts taking a sledgehammer to that for reality to finally sink into the B1G's fans' minds.

(03-06-2023 12:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2023 11:50 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-05-2023 11:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2023 11:26 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-05-2023 10:43 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  A grad student is getting a scholarship to be a grad student.

A athlete is being employed as an entertainer. Why should Bogwash U be advantaged in hiring its entertainers over Bogwash Bogtrotters professional football club?

Exactly. To keep staging these kinds of performances on campus, the performances going forward may well need to function as more than 'entertainment.'

So let's take a look at it. Your sister or daughter at State U who plays Blanche DuBois in Streetcar Named Desire... she's performing, too. The production enriches campus life, benefits the community. Everyone is invited to see the show.

But the play does more than just offer a rewarding night out for people in the community. Opportunities like this are also part of her course of study. She's a scholar of theatre, right? She and her colleagues need experiences like this. Classroom activities can only cover so much. Students need the experience of putting the whole show together.

Could someone argue that athletic performance serves the same role in some other major?

Physical education is already a popular major among athletes. No surprises there. What about sports administration? Can a case be made that to graduate with a degree in sports administration, a student needs the experience of 'putting the whole show together' in competitive sports?

Someone may need to make exactly that case, if the conjoined twins are not to be scheduled for separation.

You need to offer coaching majors, including but not limited to coordinators and position coaching. And offer courses in officiating. The more job available majors you can produce the better your argument will be. Don't worry about theater, concentrate on the creation of ways to work in athletics from trainers to coaches. All are needed skill sets. Even sports medicine and osteopathy for brighter athletes would be useful.

I'm not suggesting that anyone 'worry about theatre.' I am sharing one example among many possible.

Performance is already part of academia.

Figure out why, and it's possible to determine the value of performance experiences for students in other fields.

Yeah, I got that. It's just simpler to look at graduate programs which could be developed for sports. There are oodles if you look at each sport, and then each specific area in that sport, and the surrounding support networks athletics require. Good graduate programs there could even reduce the overhead of staffing if utilized appropriately. Figure out the value of those and you figure out values elsewhere also. It is an equation is it not?

Persuasive cases can probably be made, sure. Media and entertainment are big US exports: music, film, TV, games, and sports. The fashion America sells is sport fashion. The NBA is as global an export as Hollywood movies. If we say sport is one segment of these national industries, it's a field worthy of attention in the education and training of professionals.

At the grad level this is all here. People get MBAs in sports marketing and sports administration. A discussion about undergrads is in order.

To gain a place in academia, professional preparation has to go beyond the merely vocational. Vocational training is about skill sets: students learn to how to repair refrigerators. Education is about concepts and principles as well as skills: students learn appliance design, say, or food science. Students doesn't just train to work a particular job. They prepare in a way that, ideally, enables them to adapt and innovate in jobs that don't even exist yet.