menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: MAC supports paying full cost of attendance
Page: 1 of 3
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 10/28/2014 9:53 PM
settings_applications edit_note
If "P"5s pass NCAA legislation in January. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solom...
Mike Johnson
General User
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: North Canton, OH
Post Count: 1,756
mail
Mike Johnson
mail
Posted: 10/28/2014 11:58 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Whatever amount a school sets as this "stipend" (euphamism for pay), one thing is certain: There will be pressure to increase the amount annually.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,697
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 1:06 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Mike Johnson wrote:expand_more
Whatever amount a school sets as this "stipend" (euphamism for pay), one thing is certain: There will be pressure to increase the amount annually.
Once the courts get involved, and they will, this ruse won't last very long. Stipend = employees = professional = tax-exempt status problem = very ugly can of worms = possible death of all D1 college athletics. I suspect smarter heads to prevail before it we all fall over this cliff.
mf279801
General User
M279801
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Newark, DE
Post Count: 2,486
person
mail
mf279801
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 9:02 AM
settings_applications edit_note
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
Whatever amount a school sets as this "stipend" (euphamism for pay), one thing is certain: There will be pressure to increase the amount annually.
Once the courts get involved, and they will, this ruse won't last very long. Stipend = employees = professional = tax-exempt status problem = very ugly can of worms = possible death of all D1 college athletics. I suspect smarter heads to prevail before it we all fall over this cliff.
Except aren't most of the institutions we're talking about public universities, essentially owned by the respective states? Do you really think that paying athletes (which for the record I'm not all that gung-ho about) will cause the federal government (let alone the state governments) to start levying corporate taxes against Ohio, O-A&M, Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, etc? These places already pay their traditional employees, and other athletic department personnel. Heck, university hospitals bring in vast sums of money, and pay their top executives quite well. I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly don't see how "Stipend = employees = professional" --> "tax-exempt status problem" for the public schools that make up about 80% of the FBS. Could someone please explain that?

(I think equal pay for male and female students could be a financial hurdle for paying athletes, but thats a different matter)
ytownbobcat
General User
Y
Member Since: 8/7/2006
Post Count: 1,253
person
mail
ytownbobcat
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 9:16 AM
settings_applications edit_note
I don't think the MAC had any other option but to go along with this. I think the cost to schools like OHIO will be about $250,000 per year. I think our athletic budget is around 25 million so this is about 1% of the budget if my math is correct.
It should be noted that in my time at OHIO I was able to dodge those challenging math classes.
Last Edited: 10/29/2014 9:17:33 AM by ytownbobcat
C Money
General User
Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420
mail
C Money
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 9:29 AM
settings_applications edit_note
mf279801 wrote:expand_more
Except aren't most of the institutions we're talking about public universities, essentially owned by the respective states? Do you really think that paying athletes (which for the record I'm not all that gung-ho about) will cause the federal government (let alone the state governments) to start levying corporate taxes against Ohio, O-A&M, Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, etc? These places already pay their traditional employees, and other athletic department personnel. Heck, university hospitals bring in vast sums of money, and pay their top executives quite well. I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly don't see how "Stipend = employees = professional" --> "tax-exempt status problem" for the public schools that make up about 80% of the FBS. Could someone please explain that?

(I think equal pay for male and female students could be a financial hurdle for paying athletes, but thats a different matter)
I could see it. "Public" universities are, at best, quasi-governmental entities. There is some state governance, but for the most part the reason they are considered "public" is that they are supported by public subsidy. I don't think public subsidy precludes an IRS determination that an entity is for-profit.

And that's the actual education arm of the university. Athletic departments are one step removed from that, and I could definitely see an even stricter analysis applied there. Amateur athletics has it's own tax-exempt category. If you're paying athletes, that goes away, so you have to fall back on some other exempt category (presumably education). Maybe the IRS treats it the same as a work-study program, maybe not.

And that's before we get into any of the private benefit/private inurement problems that (IMO) ought to blow up the entire system anyway. When the top paid "public" employee in most states is a college or basketball head coach (not even getting into the NCAA executives' pay), it's hard for me to buy that the college athletics system isn't operated the way it is to personally benefit a few stakeholders.
Alan Swank
General User
AS
Member Since: 12/12/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,375
person
mail
Alan Swank
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 9:46 AM
settings_applications edit_note
ytownbobcat wrote:expand_more
I don't think the MAC had any other option but to go along with this. I think the cost to schools like OHIO will be about $250,000 per year. I think our athletic budget is around 25 million so this is about 1% of the budget if my math is correct.
It should be noted that in my time at OHIO I was able to dodge those challenging math classes.
For football alone at $3000 per "scholarship" you're looking at $255,000. This will be closer to a million.
mf279801
General User
M279801
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Newark, DE
Post Count: 2,486
person
mail
mf279801
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 9:52 AM
settings_applications edit_note
C Money wrote:expand_more
Except aren't most of the institutions we're talking about public universities, essentially owned by the respective states? Do you really think that paying athletes (which for the record I'm not all that gung-ho about) will cause the federal government (let alone the state governments) to start levying corporate taxes against Ohio, O-A&M, Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, etc? These places already pay their traditional employees, and other athletic department personnel. Heck, university hospitals bring in vast sums of money, and pay their top executives quite well. I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly don't see how "Stipend = employees = professional" --> "tax-exempt status problem" for the public schools that make up about 80% of the FBS. Could someone please explain that?

(I think equal pay for male and female students could be a financial hurdle for paying athletes, but thats a different matter)
I could see it. "Public" universities are, at best, quasi-governmental entities. There is some state governance, but for the most part the reason they are considered "public" is that they are supported by public subsidy. I don't think public subsidy precludes an IRS determination that an entity is for-profit.

And that's the actual education arm of the university. Athletic departments are one step removed from that, and I could definitely see an even stricter analysis applied there. Amateur athletics has it's own tax-exempt category. If you're paying athletes, that goes away, so you have to fall back on some other exempt category (presumably education). Maybe the IRS treats it the same as a work-study program, maybe not.

And that's before we get into any of the private benefit/private inurement problems that (IMO) ought to blow up the entire system anyway. When the top paid "public" employee in most states is a college or basketball head coach (not even getting into the NCAA executives' pay), it's hard for me to buy that the college athletics system isn't operated the way it is to personally benefit a few stakeholders.
Thanks
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,801
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:44 AM
settings_applications edit_note
If this keeps college athletes from having to steal crab legs in order to eat a meal, I am all for it!
Bobcatbob
General User
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Coolville, OH
Post Count: 1,351
mail
Bobcatbob
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 11:54 AM
settings_applications edit_note
mf279801 wrote:expand_more
Whatever amount a school sets as this "stipend" (euphamism for pay), one thing is certain: There will be pressure to increase the amount annually.
Once the courts get involved, and they will, this ruse won't last very long. Stipend = employees = professional = tax-exempt status problem = very ugly can of worms = possible death of all D1 college athletics. I suspect smarter heads to prevail before it we all fall over this cliff.
Except aren't most of the institutions we're talking about public universities, essentially owned by the respective states? Do you really think that paying athletes (which for the record I'm not all that gung-ho about) will cause the federal government (let alone the state governments) to start levying corporate taxes against Ohio, O-A&M, Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, etc? These places already pay their traditional employees, and other athletic department personnel. Heck, university hospitals bring in vast sums of money, and pay their top executives quite well. I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly don't see how "Stipend = employees = professional" --> "tax-exempt status problem" for the public schools that make up about 80% of the FBS. Could someone please explain that?

(I think equal pay for male and female students could be a financial hurdle for paying athletes, but thats a different matter)
There are well-defined regulations, some of which may even be adhered to, about the separation of a non-profit's non-profit side from its business income generation side. There have to be some inherent measurements about the use of "public" assets in the generation of income that would affect things like property tax basis, which for a University has to be one of the biggest "non-profit" perks. Does the Convo suddenly become taxable real estate? What about the golf course?
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,821
person
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 12:01 PM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
If this keeps college athletes from having to steal crab legs in order to eat a meal, I am all for it!
I think that had more to do with his personal character than it did the money in his wallet.
colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
person
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 1:15 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Just heard yesterday on Sirius college football radio that it is a foregone conclusion that the number of scholarships for the power 5 will be going up! Where will it end? G-5 schools are in more trouble than I thought about keeping up with the big boys. I have to reevaluate just how much this thing is going to change college football and all college sports.
Mike Johnson
General User
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: North Canton, OH
Post Count: 1,756
mail
Mike Johnson
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 2:33 PM
settings_applications edit_note
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
Just heard yesterday on Sirius college football radio that it is a foregone conclusion that the number of scholarships for the power 5 will be going up! Where will it end? G-5 schools are in more trouble than I thought about keeping up with the big boys. I have to reevaluate just how much this thing is going to change college football and all college sports.
Why should anyone be surprised by this? Ever since whisperings started that the P-5 would be permitted to set their own rules, I fully expected them to increase the number of football scholarships from the current 85 back to the former 105.

It doesn't take much imagining to divine how that will affect programs in the MAC, Conf-USA, Sun Belt, et al.
Casper71
General User
C71
Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,237
person
mail
Casper71
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 2:41 PM
settings_applications edit_note
1AA, here we come! No way we can compete with those guys. We just do not have the resources. And once the BIGGs starting each taking 20 more players there just won't be enough quality athletes to compete at that level. Sad state of affairs. Just pump the money into basketball and let the football get on a level where it is competitive. Never thought I would feel that way but it is the coming reality.
cincybobcat99
General User
C99
Member Since: 11/8/2007
Post Count: 192
person
mail
cincybobcat99
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 2:47 PM
settings_applications edit_note
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
Whatever amount a school sets as this "stipend" (euphamism for pay), one thing is certain: There will be pressure to increase the amount annually.
Once the courts get involved, and they will, this ruse won't last very long. Stipend = employees = professional = tax-exempt status problem = very ugly can of worms = possible death of all D1 college athletics. I suspect smarter heads to prevail before it we all fall over this cliff.
If the NFL can keep it's tax-exempt status (http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/09/nfl-tax-exempt) I don't think the NCAA will have any problems.
Mike Johnson
General User
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: North Canton, OH
Post Count: 1,756
mail
Mike Johnson
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 5:40 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Casper71 wrote:expand_more
1AA, here we come! No way we can compete with those guys. We just do not have the resources. And once the BIGGs starting each taking 20 more players there just won't be enough quality athletes to compete at that level. Sad state of affairs. Just pump the money into basketball and let the football get on a level where it is competitive. Never thought I would feel that way but it is the coming reality.
When the P-5 ADs and football coaches succeed in increasing the number of football scholarships, does anyone believe that P-5 basketball coaches won't campaign for one or two more scholarships?

Before football scholarships were cut from 105 to 85, wins by the 'little guys' over the 'big guys' were about as frequent as a political campaign without negative ads.

After the reduction, the 'little guys' clearly became more competitive with their brigger brethren. Ohio, seldom mistaken for one of the stronger 'little guys,' has recorded post-reduction wins over Maryland, Minnesota, Kentucky, Pitt, Illinois, Penn State and taken other P-5s such as Kansas State and North Carolina State to the wire. And in recent years we've seen 8 or so wins annually by 1-AA/FCS teams over the 'big guys.' For me, anyway, that increased competitiveness made college football immensely more enjoyable.

I see my love for college sports fading...
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 6:01 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Casper71 wrote:expand_more
1AA, here we come! No way we can compete with those guys. We just do not have the resources. ...

The only problem with that is that the economics of FCS are even worse, which is why you keep seeing schools trying to escape that mess and become FBS.


Mike Johnson wrote:expand_more
.... For me, anyway, that increased competitiveness made college football immensely more enjoyable.

I see my love for college sports fading...

+1
Last Edited: 10/29/2014 6:04:59 PM by L.C.
Alan Swank
General User
AS
Member Since: 12/12/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,375
person
mail
Alan Swank
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 6:17 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Mike Johnson wrote:expand_more
1AA, here we come! No way we can compete with those guys. We just do not have the resources. And once the BIGGs starting each taking 20 more players there just won't be enough quality athletes to compete at that level. Sad state of affairs. Just pump the money into basketball and let the football get on a level where it is competitive. Never thought I would feel that way but it is the coming reality.
When the P-5 ADs and football coaches succeed in increasing the number of football scholarships, does anyone believe that P-5 basketball coaches won't campaign for one or two more scholarships?

Before football scholarships were cut from 105 to 85, wins by the 'little guys' over the 'big guys' were about as frequent as a political campaign without negative ads.

After the reduction, the 'little guys' clearly became more competitive with their brigger brethren. Ohio, seldom mistaken for one of the stronger 'little guys,' has recorded post-reduction wins over Maryland, Minnesota, Kentucky, Pitt, Illinois, Penn State and taken other P-5s such as Kansas State and North Carolina State to the wire. And in recent years we've seen 8 or so wins annually by 1-AA/FCS teams over the 'big guys.' For me, anyway, that increased competitiveness made college football immensely more enjoyable.

I see my love for college sports fading...
Fading? Mine is down to about 40 watts. When the cost of going to games becomes a line item in the family budget, it's time to step back and take a serious look at what's going on. Right now, I don't much care for what I'm seeing.
ytownbobcat
General User
Y
Member Since: 8/7/2006
Post Count: 1,253
person
mail
ytownbobcat
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 7:20 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Alan you are way off on the calculation for the student athlete cost of attendance.Probably football and M/W hoops are the only ones that will get COA.

If you are really hurting send me a PM and I will get you my tickets for the game of your choice.Maybe I can pull out some old Taco Johns coupons too.
Alan Swank
General User
AS
Member Since: 12/12/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,375
person
mail
Alan Swank
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 9:27 PM
settings_applications edit_note
ytownbobcat wrote:expand_more
Alan you are way off on the calculation for the student athlete cost of attendance.Probably football and M/W hoops are the only ones that will get COA.

If you are really hurting send me a PM and I will get you my tickets for the game of your choice.Maybe I can pull out some old Taco Johns coupons too.
for the cost of attendance to fly, it will have to be every scholarship athlete or you'll have more title 9 cases than you've ever seen. The article cited the cost at $3500 each. If OU has only 300 scholarship athletes that's a cool million. I wasn't talking about me when it comes to cost of attendance but for many folks who used to sit around me, they've already bailed. Add additional costs and it will be like a dam opening in terms of those folks exiting.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,801
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 9:55 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
Alan you are way off on the calculation for the student athlete cost of attendance.Probably football and M/W hoops are the only ones that will get COA.

If you are really hurting send me a PM and I will get you my tickets for the game of your choice.Maybe I can pull out some old Taco Johns coupons too.
for the cost of attendance to fly, it will have to be every scholarship athlete or you'll have more title 9 cases than you've ever seen. The article cited the cost at $3500 each. If OU has only 300 scholarship athletes that's a cool million. I wasn't talking about me when it comes to cost of attendance but for many folks who used to sit around me, they've already bailed. Add additional costs and it will be like a dam opening in terms of those folks exiting.
Agreed, this will not be only a football/basketball thing! And I hope no one can say with a straight face that these other athletes do not deserve equal opportunity.
The Optimist
General User
Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,611
mail
The Optimist
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 10:03 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
for many folks who used to sit around me, they've already bailed. Add additional costs and it will be like a dam opening in terms of those folks exiting.

What? Attendance in both football and men's hoops is up? Are you suggesting their is a different clientel? Perhaps more Columbus-centric?
mf279801
General User
M279801
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Newark, DE
Post Count: 2,486
person
mail
mf279801
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 10:04 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Well, it would need to be an equal number of male and female athletes, so in practice that would be (approximately) 85 football players+12(?) male basketball players + 97 female athletes (or 97 female athlete equivalents in the case of split scholarship sports)
Mark Lembright '85
General User
ML85
Member Since: 8/22/2010
Location: Highland Heights, OH
Post Count: 2,460
person
mail
Mark Lembright '85
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 10:27 PM
settings_applications edit_note
You guys still want to expand Peden Stadium?
The Optimist
General User
Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,611
mail
The Optimist
mail
Posted: 10/29/2014 10:50 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Mark Lembright '85 wrote:expand_more
You guys still want to expand Peden Stadium?

Expanding Peden is about recruiting. I don't want to watch walk-ons at QB and HB any more. It is really that simple.

Expand or drop.
Last Edited: 10/29/2014 10:51:41 PM by The Optimist
Showing Messages: 1 - 25 of 74
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)