Started By
Message
re: Loyola Marymount to cut 6 sports in response to NIL
Posted on 1/27/24 at 10:19 am to DeathByTossDive225
Posted on 1/27/24 at 10:19 am to DeathByTossDive225
quote:
So… the books have all been shady from the jump. Nobody is gonna convince me that the tax filing is all on the up & up.
Many of these collective's donors are doing just that. They are donating money to the collective and in return are getting a tax deduction for doing so. So, any donor expecting to have it offset their taxes have to have it on the up and up because they are reporting the donation to the IRS as should the collective be as well.
Interesting note I have a friend that is currently working for the IRS out of the Atlanta office. Recently he told me the IRS is hiring thousands of field agents due to the emergence of the NIL.
1
Posted on 1/27/24 at 10:26 am to TideWarrior
quote:Then that means scholarships for football (the real cash cows) will go away leaving teams consisting of more walk-ons than ever before, and a few elite players who pay for their tuition through NIL.
Because Federal law under Title 9 says women sports have to happen in order to give scholarships for men sports. The same logic will be applied for university employees.
States with laws that allow high school students to partake in NIL will benefit most since prospective recruits can nail down a deal or two before they ever step foot on a college campus.
While I agree with the Supreme Court decision on NIL, it may have the side effect of finally giving the NFL a reason to start farm club teams consisting of players straight out of high school who have no interest in getting a college degree.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 10:34 am to BCreed1
I wouldn't say I like it for the kids. But for the bleeding heart liberals, it is a good thing.
The unintended consequences bite them again because they have no idea what they are doing.
It will get much worse.
The unintended consequences bite them again because they have no idea what they are doing.
It will get much worse.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 10:37 am to imjustafatkid
Forbes on the 14-team minimum, AntiTrust, and the NCAA scam that is NIL
This post was edited on 1/27/24 at 10:39 am
Posted on 1/27/24 at 10:41 am to cj2002
quote:The old NCAA argument of CFB being an "amateur" sport went away with massive tv contracts, in other words decades ago. I don't like what is happening either, but it was always inevitable...just surprised SCOTUS sat on it for as long as they did.
I wouldn't say I like it for the kids. But for the bleeding heart liberals, it is a good thing.
The unintended consequences bite them again because they have no idea what they are doing.
It will get much worse.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 10:41 am to TideWarrior
quote:
Many of these collective's donors are doing just that. They are donating money to the collective and in return are getting a tax deduction for doing so. So, any donor expecting to have it offset their taxes have to have it on the up and up because they are reporting the donation to the IRS as should the collective be as well.
No one is writing off a donation to the collective.
If the write-off is important, it is a NIL deal with individual players. That is a marketing expense for a company.
If the write-off is not important, it is going to the collective.
The "issue" that no one is discussing is "what is the benefit to the funder of NIL/Collectives". In the past, colleges and universities gave out perks for donation levels.
None of these large financial investments are permissible for university perks.
At some point, a lot of this novel money will dry up (how long will one stroke huge checks to finish 2nd or 3rd or 5th in conference).
This isn't the NFL where an investor is part owner and reaps in profits for success.
Anyway, be on the lookout for this issue 3-5 years from now. And be on the lookout for abuse (i.e. universities getting busted for giving perks to NIL donors when the rules have clear separation between the university and NIL)
Posted on 1/27/24 at 10:41 am to STATEofMIND
quote:
the IRS would be having a hay day with targeting players, schools, and businesses
Let's hope so.
Want to turn a young liberal into a conservative? Show them their tax bill. My own daughter was all-in on the leftist BS until she got her first pay stub. "What the hell is FICA?"...yeah, that's the money you are paying into SS that you will probably never see again.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 10:44 am to cj2002
quote:
I wouldn't say I like it for the kids. But for the bleeding heart liberals, it is a good thing.
The NCAA themselves triggered this response from players after pulling shite like vacating wins over $500 autographs. Then, they had an opportunity to go with above-board revenue sharing but skirted around it.
NIL emerged as a result & is now uncontrollable due to SCOTUS ruling citing restriction of trade. Meanwhile, NFL has an antitrust exemption that allows them to regulate & maintain the league
It’s all completely retarded.
This post was edited on 1/27/24 at 11:41 am
Posted on 1/27/24 at 10:47 am to Themicah86
quote:
I'm even more excited for the tax evasion arrest but that will take a year or 2.
These aren’t conservatives. They won’t be investigated by the IRS.
This post was edited on 1/27/24 at 10:49 am
Posted on 1/27/24 at 10:57 am to BCreed1
Posted on 1/27/24 at 11:01 am to DeathByTossDive225
quote:
Again, none of this is to suggest that no Division I college should offer tennis, or wrestling, or fencing or squash. Many schools, absent the 14-sport minimum rule, would choose to offer these sports either because offering them helps to attract elite students to the school, or these sports serve as positive marketing and public-relations for the school—thus indirectly benefiting the school’s long-term financial picture.
I get where the author of that article is coming from, but this is the same argument that was made about Title 9 and men's sports.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 11:06 am to imjustafatkid
The bit you quoted there really needs to be put in context of the two surrounding paragraphs — Otherwise, it sounds contrary to the author’s point.
TLDR: Allowing Athletic Departments to consolidate would mitigate issues with revenue sharing like title IX, among others:
TLDR: Allowing Athletic Departments to consolidate would mitigate issues with revenue sharing like title IX, among others:
quote:
The 14-sport minimum rule is far less benign that it may seem on its face. This is because a growing number of NCAA administrators and their allies are presently using this rule as an excuse to oppose sharing revenues with highly commercial, revenue-generating college athletes.
…They purport that revenue-generating sports such as football and basketball should not share their revenues with their highly commercialized college-athlete labor because schools have to spend large sums of money to comply with the NCAA’s 14 sport minimum rule—even though some of these other sports cost colleges money that they would never independently choose to spend.
…It’s kind of like a rule that says any college that wants to have a law school (typically a profit center) must also offer courses in the classics, French poetry, and at least twelve foreign languages. Nobody doubts there is societal value in offering courses in these subject areas. But, that does not mean a college should be forced to do so—especially given the likely tradeoffs this would mean to other aspects of the school’s budget.
This post was edited on 1/27/24 at 11:49 am
Posted on 1/27/24 at 11:18 am to TideWarrior
quote:
Because Federal law under Title 9 says women sports have to happen in order to give scholarships for men sports. The same logic will be applied for university employees.
Title IX was an equality ruling rather than a gender ruling.
The salaries beyond the scholarship guarantees do not have to be equal. With Title IX, only the basic scholarship has to be of equal value.
Just like in MLB, no two employment contracts are exactly alike because the employee has to agree to the terms. Even with a union base figure, each player has to be offered a compensation package that reflects their potential value to the organization.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 11:20 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Why is there a minimum?
To ensure that you have enough spots to balance out football for Title IX?
Posted on 1/27/24 at 11:26 am to Evolved Simian
quote:
To ensure that you have enough spots to balance out football for Title IX?
No. It’s so the NCAA has a leg to stand on against revenue sharing. To prevent schools like LMU from implementing a more complete/aggressive consolidation strategy — because that would mitigate title IX & take away the NCAA’a excuses.
Two posts up brother — Full link a bit further up.
This post was edited on 1/27/24 at 11:43 am
Posted on 1/27/24 at 11:32 am to Themicah86
quote:
God damn this makes my heart happy. We all knew this was going to happen and now the universities that have been peddling this bullshite will have to actually look a woman in the face and tell her she no longer has a scholarship because of it. I'm even more excited for the tax evasion arrest but that will take a year or 2.
Women ought not have an athletic scholarship paid for by male athletes to begin with. It was never ethical and should have never happened. What SHOULD happen is the school issue a license to the football and basketball and lease their athletic facilities to them and provide scholarships for those sports.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 11:51 am to meansonny
quote:
No one is writing off a donation to the collective.
Not sure why they are not if they can. To be honest someone would be a fool if they could write-off a donation to a collective if it is not for profit entity.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 11:57 am to BCreed1
The benefactors of this will be small DI's, DII/DII and NAIA/JUCO.
Those places are still built on the foundation of what college sports was, an opportunity to continue playing sports, usually in or around your local community.
Those places are still built on the foundation of what college sports was, an opportunity to continue playing sports, usually in or around your local community.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 12:14 pm to TideWarrior
quote:
No one is writing off a donation to the collective.
Ha Ha... That is exactly how the Alabama administrator who signed the Learfield contract for an on-campus center screwed over your fan base.
I'm a Georgia fan and I can legally write off some of my donation money by way of a 501(c)(3)donation.
I'm convinced that whoever it was in the Alabama administration that directly snubbed Saban's advice on the subject must have pocketed a fairly handsome kickback.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 12:23 pm to STATEofMIND
quote:
Unless they do something about this then this is about to become an avalanche towards the destruction of college sports.
Uh, the avalanche already happened with the 9-0 Supreme Court decision.
College sports are already dead.
It's just taking a while for fans who don't pay more than superficial attention to notice.
Oh, by the way, the PAC-12 Conference no longer exists.
You know, used to be called the PAC-10? Did that whole Rose Bowl thing for decades?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News