NCAA legislation

[texascpa]

So the players are employees? If that's the case, they would be entitled to the same labor laws. Insurance, unemployment, etc... Therein lies the problem...

And yes, entertainers are allowed to make $$ off of their likeness .

It's a can of worms. Either way, rulings/legislation may decide that very shortly.

And you forgot the most important thing - taxes. The value of their stipends and scholarships are taxable, if employees.

 

[RandomGuy]

T

And you forgot the most important thing - taxes. The value of their stipends and scholarships are taxable, if employees.

The Alston ruling did not make them employees. It uncapped things related to education.

Is a lavish dorm related to education? Transportation to class? Etc .. Schools may interpret this differently, and there may be a tax burden. Would use of the Alabama football team's fleet of "Get to Class" Bentley's come with a tax? Getting to class is educational...

Could a certain Syracuse car dealer do that now, with no NCAA repercussion?

In the end, I'm guessing a kid can get a cpu, maybe a smart phone. But some schools will push for an edge, and the NCAA can't restrict it.

 

[CuseOnly]

So the players are employees? If that's the case, they would be entitled to the same labor laws. Insurance, unemployment, etc... Therein lies the problem...

And yes, entertainers are allowed to make $$ off of their likeness .

It's a can of worms. Either way, rulings/legislation may decide that very shortly.

Players aren't employees of the school. It would be other companies compensating them for their likenesses. The schools cant regulate that nor can they cap it, they wouldn't have any standing to do so. Just the same as if someone were getting a job at Subway, they cant regulate what the kid gets paid there either.

What it could affect is the kids ability to get grant in aid and subsidy from the federal government that contributes to their total COA.

I hope each kid has a financial advisor and pays their taxes on time.

 

[RandomGuy]

Players aren't employees of the school. It would be other companies compensating them for their likenesses. The schools cant regulate that nor can they cap it, they wouldn't have any standing to do so. Just the same as if someone were getting a job at Subway, they cant regulate what the kid gets paid there either.

What it could affect is the kids ability to get grant in aid and subsidy from the federal government that contributes to their total COA.

I hope each kid has a financial advisor and pays their taxes on time.

That'll only happen if the federal bill is passed. With the Alston ruling (Friday) allowing unlimited educational expenses, it'll be interesting what schools consider "educational".

Grad school for anyone who wants it, would be a no brainer.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Hadn't heard that.

Ya know... Let's say a school says you can have a Bentley to go to class .. They may bend the rules, but the IRS certainly won't, and the kid may have to pay the 40% gift tax... 3000 guitar for music class? Pay the tax ..

The tax could take care of any exhorbitant "educational" gifts, because the kid can't pay the tax.

Just a thought. State U's are gonna be on the horn with their reps and senators

 

[RandomGuy]

Just a thought. State U's are gonna be on the horn with their reps and senators

You'd think. The Representative had meetings with NCAA heads, ahead of the bill presentation Thursday, in attempt to let the NCAA control the Narrative - with restrictions they could add - instead of a further reaching Bill. Apparently has bi-partisan support.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

T
The Alston ruling did not make them employees. It uncapped things related to education.

Is a lavish dorm related to education? Transportation to class? Etc .. Schools may interpret this differently, and there may be a tax burden. Would use of the Alabama football team's fleet of "Get to Class" Bentley's come with a tax? Getting to class is educational...

Could a certain Syracuse car dealer do that now, with no NCAA repercussion?

In the end, I'm guessing a kid can get a cpu, maybe a smart phone. But some schools will push for an edge, and the NCAA can't restrict it.

Actually, the room and board portion of the scholarship is already taxable.

 

[Horn88]

A ruling allowing players to get paid for name use will completely ruin the game and drive a huge wedge between the haves and have nots.

And believe me, Syracuse will be a have not.

Big booster schools with alumns that donate will get even more recruits and 5 star kids than they do now.

It's crazy to advocate for this.

Equal stipends and COA are fine but when u dont put limits on things, stuff will get completely out of control and it will get abused.

Impact won't be nearly as dramatic as you lay out.

What's the difference between several powerhouses dominating the recruiting rankings now? It can't really get any more further down that end of the spectrum than it already is. Kids will still factor in location of school, relationship with coaches, playing time, player development, etc. just like they do now and teams can still compete without a roster full of 5 stars just like they do now.

Also, the idea that local boosters and alumni have this infinite pool of money to spend on their favorite college sports team isn't realistic. They already earmark the funds they want to spend on their favorite programs and I don't see a material increase in that. The only difference will be that some of it goes directly to the player without having to be masked or layered and not 100% to the school.

It's insane the current model has been able to hold up as long as it has.

 

[Horn88]

I was an @$$holio when I had $100 at 20 years old... if you’d given me $50k, good chance I’d be dead.

Within the team, I honestly just think it’d fueled the fire. And you’d have things happen that happen around money.

Honestly, doesn’t matter the company/team or age imo. I struggle to see a model where the compensation isn’t equal. If there was, there’d be complete anarchy for the first couple years until it was accepted.

This wouldn't be the base case scenario. Give the kids some credit and you're fooling yourself if you think there isn't already a degree of what you just described with unequal status of players in the lockerroom now.

Varying levels of media coverage, varying levels of hype coming in to the program for certain recruits, varying "perks" to sign with a school or stay another year and not declare, varying levels of groupies on campus, varying levels of free drinks when you go out to the bar after the game, etc. It all happens now and somehow the anarchy hasn't been widespread.

 

[Finwad32]

This wouldn't be the base case scenario. Give the kids some credit and you're fooling yourself if you think there isn't already a degree of what you just described with unequal status of players in the lockerroom now.

Varying levels of media coverage, varying levels of hype coming in to the program for certain recruits, varying "perks" to sign with a school or stay another year and not declare, varying levels of groupies on campus, varying levels of free drinks when you go out to the bar after the game, etc. It all happens now and somehow the anarchy hasn't been widespread.

It hasn’t?

 

[Horn88]

It hasn’t?

If you think anarchy has already spread then why are you citing that as a reason on why we can't pay players?

 

[TexanMark]

And you forgot the most important thing - taxes. The value of their stipends and scholarships are taxable, if employees.

Agreed, and I know at 18-19 I wasn't mature enough to handle doing my own taxes. I can see kids getting in trouble with that...so guess what? Part of the perks will be free Tex prep. These kids will not even be pretending to be going to classes. Just break it off and make them AAA teams for the NFL. The 30 or so biggest schools can run minor league teams for the NFL if they choose.

If the system goes "Full Up Stupid", I'll find something else to do...as the game will be ruined. I hope a workable system evolves.

 

[Finwad32]

If you think anarchy has already spread then why are you citing that as a reason on why we can't pay players?

Did I say anything about not paying players?

 

[RandomGuy]

Impact won't be nearly as dramatic as you lay out.

What's the difference between several powerhouses dominating the recruiting rankings now? It can't really get any more further down that end of the spectrum than it already is. Kids will still factor in location of school, relationship with coaches, playing time, player development, etc. just like they do now and teams can still compete without a roster full of 5 stars just like they do now.

Also, the idea that local boosters and alumni have this infinite pool of money to spend on their favorite college sports team isn't realistic. They already earmark the funds they want to spend on their favorite programs and I don't see a material increase in that. The only difference will be that some of it goes directly to the player without having to be masked or layered and not 100% to the school.

It's insane the current model has been able to hold up as long as it has.

I tend to agree. The blue chips are still going to the same schools. If the NCAA waits for congress, it could be more of an open season. Should they act on their own, they can control the situation... Cap 3rd party earnings, NCAA license fees, earnings to trusts, etc..

The Alston ruling may cap itself, due to the tax implications, and the athletes inability to pay them.

I think a school like cuse could compete very well with educational perks...

 

[Horn88]

Did I say anything about not paying players?

I guess I just misinterpreted your post about the major negative impacts of letting players profit off their own likeness as a post against players being compensated.

 

[RandomGuy]

The only pay to play legislation, still active, is in California.

 

[Finwad32]

I guess I just misinterpreted your post about the major negative impacts of letting players profit off their own likeness as a post against players being compensated.

And you raise fair points too. I just don’t know what the answer is.

I think that schools in order to maintain the integrity of balance will need to have caps and limits as to what they could pay, and the system needs to be equitable. If they don’t you’ll still have the haves and the have not‘s and schools that were already paying will just have an accepted means to do so.

I think we’re at a point where you could put in a system that would be fair and could propel competitive balance.

I do believe that an education is worth something. But the sheer size that this industry has grown to should allow for compensation as well.

 

[Horn88]

And you raise fair points too. I just don’t know what the answer is.

I think that schools in order to maintain the integrity of balance will need to have caps and limits as to what they could pay, and the system needs to be equitable. If they don’t you’ll still have the haves and the have not‘s and schools that were already paying will just have an accepted means to do so.

I think we’re at a point where you could put in a system that would be fair and could propel competitive balance.

I do believe that an education is worth something. But the sheer size that this industry has grown to should allow for compensation as well.

I think caps and limits will organically come in to place as markets are efficient. The only game changer I could see is if Nike, UA or Adidas start to give guys money to sign with certain schools but then again that is already going on in basketball so it isn't that much of a change.

I think that we pretty much are at the point where college basketball and football has grown to be such a big business that this is probably as balanced as it's going to get. Once it became an arms race with facilities, support staff and coaching salaries the writing was on the wall that the big state schools who have their act together would start to separate themselves from everyone else and they have.

It's trash for the private schools like us that just don't have the resources to keep up with that top tier but that's the way it is now. We just have to find what works for us and then master it and I think Dino has been a huge step in that direction.

 

[CuseOnly]

I tend to agree. The blue chips are still going to the same schools. If the NCAA waits for congress, it could be more of an open season. Should they act on their own, they can control the situation... Cap 3rd party earnings, NCAA license fees, earnings to trusts, etc..

The Alston ruling may cap itself, due to the tax implications, and the athletes inability to pay them.

I think a school like cuse could compete very well with educational perks...

Not necessarily, the kids will end up going to the highest bidder. That is a fact! It happens now but below board in cash, now it will be above board.

It will get completely out of control.

Stanford is an incredibly rich school, one of the richest and largest P5 booster bases in the country with arguably unlimited booster resources. If an Alabama booster offers a kid $50K for a commercial, you don't think that there will be someone maybe Stanford to offer a kid $60K, or $70K...

Also, why wouldn't or couldn't a booster offer a kid some money for an appearance at the school instead of an unofficial visit? Or to do a commercial in the Bahamas with teammates?

We are talking about people with a ton of money to burn. They burn it now but it is far harder than it would be if this is allowed.

It would turn into a free marketplace for kids services. Which is normally a good thing in most cases. Not in this case.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Not necessarily, the kids will end up going to the highest bidder. That is a fact! It happens now but below board in cash, now it will be above board.

It will get completely out of control.

Stanford is an incredibly rich school, one of the richest and largest P5 booster bases in the country with arguably unlimited booster resources. If an Alabama booster offers a kid $50K for a commercial, you don't think that there will be someone maybe Stanford to offer a kid $60K, or $70K...

Also, why wouldn't or couldn't a booster offer a kid some money for an appearance at the school instead of an unofficial visit? Or to do a commercial in the Bahamas with teammates?

We are talking about people with a ton of money to burn. They burn it now but it is far harder than it would be if this is allowed.

It would turn into a free marketplace for kids services. Which is normally a good thing in most cases. Not in this case.

It's happening now, but it will be worse is not a good argument.

 

[RandomGuy]

Not necessarily, the kids will end up going to the highest bidder. That is a fact! It happens now but below board in cash, now it will be above board.

It will get completely out of control.

Stanford is an incredibly rich school, one of the richest and largest P5 booster bases in the country with arguably unlimited booster resources. If an Alabama booster offers a kid $50K for a commercial, you don't think that there will be someone maybe Stanford to offer a kid $60K, or $70K...

Also, why wouldn't or couldn't a booster offer a kid some money for an appearance at the school instead of an unofficial visit? Or to do a commercial in the Bahamas with teammates?

We are talking about people with a ton of money to burn. They burn it now but it is far harder than it would be if this is allowed.

It would turn into a free marketplace for kids services. Which is normally a good thing in most cases. Not in this case.

Perhaps. Many of these kids may never go pro, so I guess I don't mind them making some $$$, in a multi billion $$ industry .

I would much prefer the NCAA institute it - with strict rules and regulations - than a free for all, that could come from congress.

 

[CuseOnly]

Perhaps. Many of these kids may never go pro, so I guess I don't mind them making some $$$, in a multi billion $$ industry .

I would much prefer the NCAA institute it - with strict rules and regulations - than a free for all, that could come from congress.

Totally agree but there has to be a way to keep everything above board and keep it competitive and fair.

 

[RandomGuy]

Should 3rd party compensation become legal, it's possible to make the whole system more competitive. While the NCAA couldn't restrict 3rd parties , they can restrict eligibility.

If a school hits it's 3rd party cap, additional compensation would deem that player ineligible.(barring transfer) If a superstar was coming into a situation, where he didn't have 3rd party potential, he might want to choose another school. Can of worms? Absolutely. But you could also spread out the 5 stars...

 

[javadoc]

Totally agree but there has to be a way to keep everything above board and keep it competitive and fair.

Schools will now need to have a department of financial advisors and guidance counselors to keep 18-year-olds from getting into trouble or blowing their money. Add another line item to the sports budget.

I bet that coaches don't have any problem with kids profiting off their likenesses... as long as the windfall doesn't lead to off-field problems that impact performance.

The current remuneration is the college scholarship and degree, with all it entails. It's a deferred benefit contingent on completing the degree. I would be happier if a system were devised wherein the monies were placed into a trust to be redeemed on exiting amateur status, than if the money were to be realized immediately.

 

[Horn88]

Not necessarily, the kids will end up going to the highest bidder. That is a fact! It happens now but below board in cash, now it will be above board.

It will get completely out of control.

Stanford is an incredibly rich school, one of the richest and largest P5 booster bases in the country with arguably unlimited booster resources. If an Alabama booster offers a kid $50K for a commercial, you don't think that there will be someone maybe Stanford to offer a kid $60K, or $70K...

Also, why wouldn't or couldn't a booster offer a kid some money for an appearance at the school instead of an unofficial visit? Or to do a commercial in the Bahamas with teammates?

We are talking about people with a ton of money to burn. They burn it now but it is far harder than it would be if this is allowed.

It would turn into a free marketplace for kids services. Which is normally a good thing in most cases. Not in this case.

In this situation what would really change relative to now other than the names on the jerseys of the group of schools that are in their own tier as is? It would just be Stanford experiencing the success instead of Alabama or Clemson.

The talen concentration isn't going to change all that much from how it is now. Alabama is already signing the best running back in the country almost every year. Clemson seems to be signing the best quarterback in the country every other year. Kids will still have the built in bias of playing close to home, going where there is playing time, playing for coaches they like, playing style, etc.

The idea that it would threaten competitive balance suggests that everyone is on equal footing right now and that isn't the case. The same teams get the best recruits and the same teams are in the CFP pretty much every year. Schools would still have programs with a fan base celebrating 8 win seasons and getting excited about the potentially under the radar 3 star recruit who they feel is a diamond in the rough.