Game Over: NCAA allows athletes to profit from name

[Swamp Donkey]

It’s actually Karen and I’d like to complain to the manager about my server Steve.

I figured he wasnt serving you correctly.

 

[Jack o' Diamonds]

Senator Burr of NC is introducing a bill to apply income tax to athletic scholarships. Sounds about right now.

Does he explain how he's going to tax someone who has no job and no income? What's he going to withhold the tax from? How many kids now won't be able to attend because they can't pay the taxes? Does the law of unintended consequences apply here?

Edit: Would this now make athletes employees?

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Does he explain how he's going to tax someone who has no job and no income? What's he going to withhold the tax from? How many kids now won't be able to attend because they can't pay the taxes? Does the law of unintended consequences apply here?

Edit: Would this now make athletes employees?

IT IS THE SJWs CLAIMING THIS IS A JOB AND THEY SHOULD BE PAID.

If you are in the business of making hot rods or selling pumpkin pies, and you get famous enough (through reality TV no doubt ) to sell signatures or your likeness then that gets taxed.

There's no exception for black athletes that I'm aware of.

same goes for forgiveness of debt or gift (ever you want to considere free tuition) that gets taxed for regular people too. if your employer gives you free stipends of living expenses for $6,000 a month or even free place to live that too gets taxed.

we talked about this earlier. if you want to become an employee it comes with a big ass tax bill from Uncle Sam on that 50 to $70,000 a free income and benefits you've already been getting.

THE TAX MAN COMETH.

 

[Captain Sasquatch]

IT IS THE SJWs CLAIMING THIS IS A JOB AND THEY SHOULD BE PAID.

If you are in the business of making hot rods or selling pumpkin pies, and you get famous enough (through reality TV no doubt ) to sell signatures or your likeness then that gets taxed.

There's no exception for black athletes that I'm aware of.

same goes for forgiveness of debt or gift (ever you want to considere free tuition) that gets taxed for regular people too. if your employer gives you free stipends of living expenses for $6,000 a month or even free place to live that too gets taxed.

we talked about this earlier. if you want to become an employee it comes with a big ass tax bill from Uncle Sam on that 50 to $70,000 a free income and benefits you've already been getting.

THE TAX MAN COMETH.

You're the only dipsh*t here making it about race. There are tons of white kids in college sports, too.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

You're the only dipsh*t here making it about race. There are tons of white kids in college sports, too.

When all the fvkktards on ESPN are involved calling it slavery, it is clear what it is.

No one in the world is paying your ass for an autograph.

And no one is clamoring to pay the mathletes that make those billion dollar research institutions work.

 

[TheDouglas78]

Likenesses? Kids are be "selling" autographs for $5000 a pop to boosters.

Queue the Doors This is the End...

Corrected it for you.

 

[soflagator]

You're the only dipsh*t here making it about race. There are tons of white kids in college sports, too.

Page 1, Fishon.

I agree that it shouldn't be a race issue. But everywhere I look, it seems like it's headed that way. Of course that doesn't mean every single person in favor or against is taking their position as a result. I'm sure you fit that category. But unfortunately, the whole debate will be stained with that perception. As I said, we didn't even make it a page before anyone against it was deemed an "old white", which, by my standards is the epitome of prejudice and using race as a reason.

Btw, my mom's Sicilian which means I'm likely up to 8% Arab. And I'm only 39. Not sure how to feel anymore.

 

[CU-UF]

I dont really care about race and dont think its relevant here. But in my opinion the athletes are being exploited (to be clear, I am only talking P5 programs). The AD's and presidents long ago left behind the ol' college game that so many folks seem to think we are still playing. Its about TV contracts, marketing dollars and national exposure. I am unsure how folks can look at decisions made by the NCAA and conferences over the last 10 years and deny that decisions regarding how college football is played show little concern of the "student-athlete". Decisions such as increasing the number of games, playing games at all different hours, playing games at different days of the week, travelling to all different locations, expanding conferences outside of geographical footprint. All this is done so that the TV contracts are satisfied and more lucrative. I stated this before, last year in TV $ alone every SEC school received $41 million. Now we have seen coaches salaries rise, athletic departments continue to build bigger and more elaborate palaces, yet the athletes in $ terms receive a fraction of a %. How can you say that is not exploitation? Many of you will point to this as the reason that college football is changing/dying/whatever, but that trajectory was set a long time ago. So the question is do you continue to deny this change and pretend nothing has changed in the management of the game from 20 years ago or try and be proactive and get ahead of the change to mitigate the impact. I do think we have to find some ground that recognized the contribution that the athletes make to sport. At least this hopefully starts an earnest discussion.

 

[itsgr82bag8r]

You've never been there, have you? :)

Why, no counselor, never!

:shifty:

 

[itsgr82bag8r]

There is really no way to lower their game.

With a new crop of horny kids in town with pockets full of money there is a new market to capitalize on. We’re talking a fresh buffet & champagne room with a view of the prairie!

 

[soflagator]

I dont really care about race and dont think its relevant here. But in my opinion the athletes are being exploited (to be clear, I am only talking P5 programs). The AD's and presidents long ago left behind the ol' college game that so many folks seem to think we are still playing. Its about TV contracts, marketing dollars and national exposure. I am unsure how folks can look at decisions made by the NCAA and conferences over the last 10 years and deny that decisions regarding how college football is played show little concern of the "student-athlete". Decisions such as increasing the number of games, playing games at all different hours, playing games at different days of the week, travelling to all different locations, expanding conferences outside of geographical footprint. All this is done so that the TV contracts are satisfied and more lucrative. I stated this before, last year in TV $ alone every SEC school received $41 million. Now we have seen coaches salaries rise, athletic departments continue to build bigger and more elaborate palaces, yet the athletes in $ terms receive a fraction of a %. How can you say that is not exploitation? Many of you will point to this as the reason that college football is changing/dying/whatever, but that trajectory was set a long time ago. So the question is do you continue to deny this change and pretend nothing has changed in the management of the game from 20 years ago or try and be proactive and get ahead of the change to mitigate the impact. I do think we have to find some ground that recognized the contribution that the athletes make to sport. At least this hopefully starts an earnest discussion.

You can say it's not exploitation because despite being a C-average student, they're receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits that that a B-average former HS teammate who wasn't quite as fast isn't getting. They're being given a chance to walk away with a masters for free while the vast majority of better, more qualified, students are paying out of pocket to earn that. They're being given a chance to showcase their talents on television for the world to see, potentially opening the way to a career far more lucrative than 95% of Americans will ever dream of. And all of this is "guaranteed", meaning that even if they never make a meaningful contribution to the university that's providing all of that, or never even partake in the activity itself due to career ending injury, their end of the deal is still honored completely. Other than that, yes, definite exploitation.

To the part about showing concern, athletes are given way more chances at getting things together than most of us are afforded. As I said yesterday, outside of a pilot, a couple of engineers, a couple of financial services guys and one mid-tier attorney, I don't know what most on here do. But I would imagine that if you failed a drug test(s), were arrested for brandishing weapons, and were found to be involved in a credit card fraud ring, you my, just may be fired. Yet, there are players on our current roster, still receiving all the aforementioned benefits, that have done some or all of those things. The school bend over backwards and look the other way constantly to help the student athletes, even if largely for selfish reasons.

 

[Gator By Marriage]

Y As I said yesterday, outside of a pilot, a couple of engineers, a couple of financial services guys and one mid-tier attorney, I don't know what most on here do.

I like to think of myself as a gentleman of leisure.

 

[soflagator]

I like to think of myself as a gentleman of leisure.

I assumed that. It just a bit wordy to include within the context.

 

[Gator By Marriage]

I assumed that. It just a bit wordy to include within the context.

Fair enough.

 

[CU-UF]

You can say it's not exploitation because despite being a C-average student, they're receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits that that a B-average former HS teammate who wasn't quite as fast isn't getting. They're being given a chance to walk away with a masters for free while the vast majority of better, more qualified, students are paying out of pocket to earn that. They're being given a chance to showcase their talents on television for the world to see, potentially opening the way to a career far more lucrative than 95% of Americans will ever dream of. And all of this is "guaranteed", meaning that even if they never make a meaningful contribution to the university that's providing all of that, or never even partake in the activity itself due to career ending injury, their end of the deal is still honored completely. Other than that, yes, definite exploitation.

To the part about showing concern, athletes are given way more chances at getting things together than most of us are afforded. As I said yesterday, outside of a pilot, a couple of engineers, a couple of financial services guys and one mid-tier attorney, I don't know what most on here do. But I would imagine that if you failed a drug test(s), were arrested for brandishing weapons, and were found to be involved in a credit card fraud ring, you my, just may be fired. Yet, there are players on our current roster, still receiving all the aforementioned benefits, that have done some or all of those things. The school bend over backwards and look the other way constantly to help the student athletes, even if largely for selfish reasons.

If I understand you correctly, you have a two part argument against this. The second part that you present (moral grounds is what I will call it) is not relevant to this topic. I think everyone will agree that benefits and compensation afforded to athletes, coaches and Kardashians are way out of line with their tangible merit to society. But it is not illegal and unfortunately we are all to blame in our willingness to consume and pay top $ for the product they produce thereby creating the environment of said benefits and compensation. I think its rather silly to say the college athletes shouldnt be paid because gosh darn it we already put athletes on a pedestal. Perhaps in a simpler time when the levels of $ were not in play this argument is more relevant.

The first part of your argument is relevant. My counter is that the money being generated in college football now is on par with any of the professional sports. On professional teams even the 3rd string backup is well compensated because they contribute to the overall product that is put on the field. I do think it would be incredibly difficult to pay the individual college athletes based upon their individual market value so I would prefer to see some solution that shares equally across all athletes on the team. Yes, they do get the scholarships and other perks but even being generous the scholarships and perks are worth $100,000 per year? So $100,000/41,000,000 = 0.2% of the cut! Even the athlete that never plays and is on the practice squad contributed to the product on the field. Yes, some do get injured and never contribute, but that is more the exception than the rule. I still dont understand how you cannot agree that the college game is way different than it was 10-20 years ago.

 

[Gator By Marriage]

Yes, they do get the scholarships and other perks but even being generous the scholarships and perks are worth $100,000 per year? So $100,000/41,000,000 = 0.2% of the cut!

I'm sure @soflagator will respond to your other statements, but you need to add some other factors to the above equation. First of all, that $100K needs to multiplied at least 85 times to account for all the scholarship athletes. So really, the players in total are getting around 20%; of the gross, not the net. And yes I realize there are other revenue streams, but there are also a lot of football related expenses not factored into the scholarship. By way of comparison, NFL players get 48% (mas o manos) of the revenue.

 

[ThreatMatrix]

These days, it's always about race. Fckv Sas went off in another thread because apparently only blacks wear dreads.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

I dont really care about race and dont think its relevant here. But in my opinion the athletes are being exploited (to be clear, I am only talking P5 programs). The AD's and presidents long ago left behind the ol' college game that so many folks seem to think we are still playing. Its about TV contracts, marketing dollars and national exposure. I am unsure how folks can look at decisions made by the NCAA and conferences over the last 10 years and deny that decisions regarding how college football is played show little concern of the "student-athlete". Decisions such as increasing the number of games, playing games at all different hours, playing games at different days of the week, travelling to all different locations, expanding conferences outside of geographical footprint. All this is done so that the TV contracts are satisfied and more lucrative. I stated this before, last year in TV $ alone every SEC school received $41 million. Now we have seen coaches salaries rise, athletic departments continue to build bigger and more elaborate palaces, yet the athletes in $ terms receive a fraction of a %. How can you say that is not exploitation? Many of you will point to this as the reason that college football is changing/dying/whatever, but that trajectory was set a long time ago. So the question is do you continue to deny this change and pretend nothing has changed in the management of the game from 20 years ago or try and be proactive and get ahead of the change to mitigate the impact. I do think we have to find some ground that recognized the contribution that the athletes make to sport. At least this hopefully starts an earnest discussion.

Youre a professor?

Are they having a shortage of paragraphs out your way?

 

[CU-UF]

I'm sure @soflagator will respond to your other statements, but you need to add some other factors to the above equation. First of all, that $100K needs to multiplied at least 85 times to account for all the scholarship athletes. So really, the players in total are getting around 20%; of the gross, not the net. And yes I realize there are other revenue streams, but there are also a lot of football related expenses not factored into the scholarship. By way of comparison, NFL players get 48% (mas o manos) of the revenue.

Good point, still I would argue that they are getting less of a cut that they deserve. Especially in context to the pro game. College coaching staffs are getting close to 30% of cut if not more. Guess it comes down to how much you think the college game is like the pro game? I can appreciate that there might be differing opinions on that.

 

[CU-UF]

Youre a professor?

Are they having a shortage of paragraphs out your way?

Message boards are considered relaxed conversations therefore proper grammatical rules do not apply. My apologies for offending you.