Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Swamp Gas' started by HotlantaGator, Apr 26, 2014.
Do you think some kind of % could be dividend between the sports?
So you let the FCS schools "go out of business" because they don't have the large fanbase and student population to have the financial means to compensate the players? So where do all of those players go to play football then? I doubt the school would still give them scholarships to come play club level ball. Clearly schools like Florida and Alabama would have no need or room for 1-star and unranked players. So we just leave hundreds, if not thousands of players just out there with nothing for a small few?
So again, a lot of players who might have gotten a scholarship aren't getting them, so a few players can have cash in addition to room, board, tuition, books, tutors, training, teaching, exposure and, in a lot of cases, Pell Grants.
And we're doing this for the players, right?
The premise that players are going to get paid is incorrect. There's too many down sides for everyone involved including the players if they actually become employes in the eyes of the IRS.
In the big picture, this is all a negotiation. They've already gotten meals out of it.
Four year scholarships. Medical insurance. An expanded view of benefits allowed in full Grant In Aid. Those are the additional changes we're likely to see. IMO.
There would be fewer, no doubt. But honestly, who here would stop watching Gator Football if this happened? I'm willing to bet that no one would.
Many proponents of not benefitting the "better" players (and thus programs that can afford to pay them) cite two reasons: what about all the smaller schools and non-revenue athletes.
My son wrestled but no college in Florida has wrestling scholarships. Is he deprived? No. These smaller schools may have athletic programs that more resemble intramurals, and some lower revenue teams may get cut back, but do we really need a special field/trainers/coaches for every sport? I guess sports is just the sidelight to me to the college experience and academics is why ALL should attend school. This is just me, but I don't really care about a less fortunate athlete getting a chance to go to school, I care more that a less fortunate person who wants an education gets to go to school. Them being an athlete is just one small factor (like being a musician). Kids can still play their sport, they may not have a stadium, but who promised them that???
As I said on page 2, the NCAA and large universities made this a business - capitalism, pure and simple. It seems to me that the market is separating the haves from the have nots. Now, I am not an Ayn Rand acolyte (they are as myopic as Marxists to the realities of human/social behavior), but this is the path the big schools have been taking, not the players. Again, why do we expect great fields/athletics/coaching to be at all these universities? Isn't intramurals or a lower level of focus on sports ok?
Finally, as to quality of players, I couldn't care less. If all schools' talent level drops because great players go to a D league, fine to me. Indeed, I loved seeing a mechanical engineer actually play for the gator hoops team this year. As long as the field is level, I just like watching the Gators. I think to many fans, like me, college sports has become somewhat soulless as the clear sell out to business interests (by the NCAA, schools and players) and lack of many kids having any interest in their school is just thrown in our faces.
I'd be okay with that, but it won't stop there. This isn't about those things -- it's about certain people feeling like they are being taken advantage of, other people fueling that feeling and what people consider to be the common-sense assumption that there is so much money in college sports that it doesn't make sense for the players to share in the actual revenue.
Listen to ESPN radio: you've got half their lineup arguing passionately that the only fair thing is that players get paid because they are being taken advantage of. Same thing on PTI and Around the Horn. The radio and media is dominated by the northeast, and because of its unionized history, the northeast has a tendency to think in terms of workers' rights, and a distrust of management. As a a result, they tend to think that the players are being taken advantage of, and that becomes their narrative. They also have lots of former players making commentary, and former players almost invariably think they were taken advantage of, because everyone always thinks they themselves were taken advantage of. That too becomes the narrative, And the narrative is what pushes the public opinion, which is what pushes legislation.
There are two good and quantitative arguments against the idea that players are taken advantage of, but you almost never hear them used. The first is the actual benefit of a scholarship (Cowherd makes this one when he gets into the argument). How much all the stuff the players receive is actually worth -- how much tuition, food, board, housing, training, etc is actually monetarily worth. When compared, it's a pretty big number. The second is the simple fact that most programs don't make enough money to cover additional payments in most schools, so adding benefits to football and basketball players is fiscally impossible for most schools without cutting other things. If you wanted to change this narrative, they could talk about those other sports that would likely be affected -- actually lay out the numbers of scholarships that would be lost assuming revenue remains neutral. That conversation would work, but no one makes it because its easier to say Saban makes 9 million and Shabazz Napier went hungry (my guess is that people who actually go hungry might have different definitions of that, but what the hell).
So if you are right, Oaktown, it's literally no harm no foul in this. But I fear you aren't -- that no one is talking about the benefits you discuss, but instead what they want is actual money they feel is commiserate with the perception of what the NCAA brings in. The fact that it can't be done won't change the narrative, and the narrative drives everything,
I looked at the lawsuit as well and did not see where UF is listed either as a defendant or co-conspirator. Did I miss it or are you just saying that since UF is a pert of the SEC that by default, UF is being sued?
I'm not sure what's going to happen. There's talk that the "union" issue could cause Title IX to crumble (it wouldn't be in effect anymore if players were to be considered "employees" - but I'm not sold on that thought process).
The biggest problem isn't at schools like UF. The problem is going to be at the schools that struggle to balance their athletic budgets...basically the bottom tier D1 schools. And that's just IF they have to pay football players (and maybe men's basketball)...which I'm an advocate of the thought that if you pay the football players you'll be paying the woman's athlete's.
The suit talks about member institutions. UF isn't named, but as a part of the SEC, it will be part of the suit as well.
Agree with this. Effectively all FBS schools are defendants via membership in their conference and the NCAA. If I understand it correctly.
Maybe our lawyer buds can weigh in on this (maybe yall are). But I am not sure on the surface that this makes sense. I am a member of lots of organizations (some very large and some small, local ones) that have faced lawsuits and it has never resulted in me being a defendant.
I can see the appearance of what you are saying but from an actual legal standpoint, I simply dont know.
The points you (and others) make on the value of the scholarship I think are right on. And that's why the players will never be employees. When they have to pay taxes on that compensation, it will kill the whole idea of them being employees because they will literally have to pay more in taxes to Uncle Sam (and states that tax) than they get paid in cash, unless the value of the scholarship gets exempted from income. Of course it would also drastically impact athletic budgets as schools would have that payroll plus having to pay employment taxes.
I can see where there might be some exceptions made for players being allowed to make money on their name via jersey and autograph sales and the like. And then just be taxed on that income. That would set up some ugly bidding wars for "contracts" for top players to sell this stuff, but that type of compensation shouldn't have the adverse effects of universities having to payroll these guys. I don't think. And could put the current underground pay for play out in the open - we might see right up front in the recruiting process what is being offered to kids, and we'd certainly find out via tax reporting what they're making (or reporting at least). Which would be enlightening.
Good point, hadn't thought of the tax angle on total compensation, yeah that's going to be a flustercuck.
The tax implications are not highly relevant. The amount of any scholarship that covers tuition is tax free - see http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc421.html. The part of the scholarship that covers room/board may be taxable. Let's say a player gets benefits worth $20k/year (for room/board). Assume he gets taxed at 20% (probably lower for poorer players). You are looking at a tax bill of $4k/player, or $340,000 for the football team.
The big 10 just announced that it's schools will make +$40M/year under its new TV deal. Will Muschamp makes over $3m/year. Taxes are noise to the major conference schools BECAUSE this is such a successful business.
There are two paths here: continue with the current farce of calling these guys "student-athletes" despite the fact that many/most would not be admitted if they weren't exceptional athletes and cut them in on the business OR take college football back to having students who are also athletes and recognize that being a glorified D league for pro sports is not an academic mission. Given the above, a bastardized middle path derived from litigation and, lord help us, legislation is the likely result.
A person making $20k per year would at most owe $1,000 in taxes. This is without considering the EIC (or SS).
I was being generous to the argument that taxing room/board would somehow effect this equation. It will not. Too much money on the table.
Good info, seabud. Thanks.
I recognize the complexity of the issue, but MSA is on the correct path here in my understanding.