menu
Logo
person
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
person
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Posturing of the Day
Page: 1 of 1
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: 3/20/2013 12:14 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Today's Posture Child is Big Tenfinity commish Jim Delany, who says his conference would go to a DIII model if its forced to split TV revenues with players.  Right.  I'm sure that's what they'll do.
C Money
General User
Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420
mail
C Money
mail
Posted: 3/20/2013 12:59 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Jim Delany wrote:expand_more
"Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model ... These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten's philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student athletes."


B1G Logic: The appropriate compensation for student athletes is a free education. If we're forced to provide more than a free education, we just won't provide a free education.

Also, here is a fantastic bit of satire on this.
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 3/20/2013 1:38 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Cute. Largely inaccurate, but cute.
Ohio69
General User
O69
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,124
person
mail
Ohio69
mail
Posted: 3/20/2013 4:16 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Other conference coaches should start telling recruits that the Big 10 is talking about pulling all scholarships and going division 3.  After all, its true.  Hee hee.....

I give Jim Delaney's comments a credibility score of ZERO.  Good grief.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,699
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 3/20/2013 7:46 PM
settings_applications edit_note
While the comments are bogus, the underlying idea that college players are never going to be paid to play is valid.  There are so many legal ramifications of this, including colleges losing tax exempt status, that it's not going to happen.
Last Edited: 3/20/2013 7:47:23 PM by OhioCatFan
The Pessimist
General User
Member Since: 3/13/2005
Location: Allentown, PA
Post Count: 145
mail
The Pessimist
mail
Posted: 3/25/2013 7:33 PM
settings_applications edit_note
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
There are so many legal ramifications of this, including colleges losing tax exempt status, that it's not going to happen.


Because paying the presidents, professors, ADs, coaches, assistant coaches, concession workers, ticket takers, janitors, etc etc etc doesn't threaten the tax exempt status?

I'm not a policy wonk, just an average thinking Joe.  This claim that paying athletes would ruin the not-for-profit tax exempt status thing sounds fishy.  Big name schools hire big name professors for big bucks to attract big SAT scores, big tuition payments, and big research dollars from big corporations.  Does this hurt anyone's tax exempt status?
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,699
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 3/26/2013 6:22 PM
settings_applications edit_note
If you're running a pro or semi-pro athletics program, you are not in the business of education but in the business of making money through ownership of a football and/or basketball team.  Today there is a sometime tenuous connection between the student athlete and his or her institution.  Theorically, at least, the athlete is in school for an education and the athletics part is an extracurricular activity.   If you begin paying players that tenous line becomes severed.  Paying professors, janitors and presidents is in no way a comparison.  Those folks are at the university because they have a job there.  Being a student at an institution and being a full-time employee of the university is an entirely different thing.  You cannot retain amateur status if you are being paid for playing a sport.  If you were an employee (and the courts have ruled that student athletes are not employees) then you would have the right to strike, the right to collectively bargain, and the university becomes liable for your work-related actions.  And, then, there are the Title IX implications.  Even the University of Texas, with a $163 million in annual sports revenue, has said that they will not abide by a system that forces them to reduce their committment to non-revenue sports by having a pay-for-play systems for big revenue sports.  The UT AD and their women's AD issued a statment that said, in part, that Texas "has no interest in a model that would force us to professionalize two sports to the detriment of the balance of the athletics department's sports, fitness and educational programs."   In short this is a nice topic for water cooler and hot-stove league discussions, but it's actually never going to happen. 
Bobcatbob
General User
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Coolville, OH
Post Count: 1,351
mail
Bobcatbob
mail
Posted: 3/27/2013 9:11 AM
settings_applications edit_note
+1 

Besides all that, no one will ever get rich advising people on what the tax code implies about society and "right" (as opposed to how to job it).  What's obviously taxable today can be made non-taxable with a sweep of John Boehner's pen and vice versa.  There is no justice or logic in the Internal Revenue Code.  So, there is definitely a path to making monetary compensation to "student - athletes" tax free but that doesn't make it right.
Showing Messages: 1 - 8 of 8
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
MAC News Links



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