• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

More on schools paying athletes

tornado

tornado

New member
the AD of the newest Big Ten school Nebraska has revealed that some of the INSIDE talks going on at
the NCAA does involve allowing schools to PAY players in excess of their scholarship costs...in fact...
an actual amount has even been thrown around and Tom Osborne says it will probably be passed and enacted by NCAA...
to begin paying players $2,500 to $3,500 per year in excess of what they get in scholarship, tuition, housing, etc...

This is pure cash - spending money we're talking about and of course it's mostly the big boys & BCS schools who
want this because it gives them and enormous advantage over the UNI's, ISU's, Creighton's, and Drake's...
http://campussportsconnection.com/ncaa/nebraska-huskers/story/124140
 
Last edited:
I do not have a problem with a small stipend that takes care of random expenses that we all incurred during college. I'd also have to believe this will probably effect the smaller football schools more then any other sport.
 
but how can you draw the line and say it would happen in football only -
it most certainly would have to be done in all other sports - as Title IX and other lawsuits would instantly require...
That would mean a school like Bradley - which has more than a dozen sports - would have to fund AT LEAST 150 times $3,500 MINIMUM - just to be able to recruit.
Seriously -- how can any school compete if they don't offer the max NCAA would allow - and that adds AT LEAST an extra $ half million to their athletic budget...
But you are TRULY naive if you think it would end there....this is just the beginning -- the top BCS schools that can afford it would drive that figure from $3,500
to $4,500, then $6,000, then $10,000 until they are literally spending the bossters' dollars to buy all the best players.
This will destroy college sports except for BCS football. No way most smaller schools would keep up - but that's the idea...
 
SFP said:
I do not have a problem with a small stipend that takes care of random expenses that we all incurred during college. I'd also have to believe this will probably effect the smaller football schools more then any other sport.
Click to expand...

The major problem in this is once they give a kid 2500 or 3000 how do you keep them from slipping an extra 5000 as the money will be harder to follow, this is a bad idea as it is suppose to be an amateur sport and only professionals get paid; also this is being pushed for by the bcs schools and we all know how they feel about the so called mid-major schools, if we let them get away with this then the next thing you know all the smaller schools will be left out of all the major events.
 
tornado said:
but how can you draw the line and say it would happen in football only -
Click to expand...

Could happen but chance on a law on how you pay student athletes is very slim IMO. I just do not see all the teams being funded equally or a law making schools do so.

real fan said:
The major problem in this is once they give a kid 2500 or 3000 how do you keep them from slipping an extra 5000 as the money will be harder to follow, this is a bad idea as it is suppose to be an amateur sport and only professionals get paid; also this is being pushed for by the bcs schools and we all know how they feel about the so called mid-major schools, if we let them get away with this then the next thing you know all the smaller schools will be left out of all the major events.
Click to expand...

This may put us on a level playing field because we all know the BCS boys are already paying these guys. The money trail if anything would be a bit more transparent. The kids would have to report their earnings. Also the majority of the big schools are barely keeping their athletic departments in the green.
 
Here's a story on the new NCAA rule that will allow schools to pay their athletes...
http://www.daytondailynews.com/dayton-sports/stipends-for-ncaa-athletes-looking-likely-1276920.html

Of course the payments are optional but here's what the Dayton head coach says...of course they're going to find the $$ to start paying players...

"in terms of recruiting, you’ve got to keep up with the Joneses.”

Dayton Athletic Director readily admits that their school only covers 2/3 of their athletic budget on the revenues they produce...
(unlike many schools that claim they are self-supporting)
...and guess where the rest of the money comes from -- yup - you guessed it - it comes from the university's general fund, from educational and academic sources, from student fees and tuition revenue...and at state schools it will come from taxpayer monies because the states will have to award the schools more money to cover the extra costs...
($2000 per year paid to each athlete)

Of course the BCS schools will have far more resources to do this...so mid-majors will never really be able to "keep up with the Joneses"...

Here's what Kevin Dillard had to say as he looks forward to the prospect of getting $2000 more on top of all his scholarship payments...
shopping just for the essentials can be a drain on his resources.
“It can be hard sometimes,” said Dillard, a junior guard from Homewood, Ill.
“That’s when you’ve got to call Dad and Mom and see if they can help you out.
... You’ve got to budget — or you’ll go broke pretty quick.”

how did we ever get through college without getting $2000 extra in our pockets every year?
 
NCAA head has a solution to all their woes...
they're going ahead with plans to allow schools to pay players...
This will obviously favor all the biggest schools with the most (football) revenue) and it will severely hurt the smaller schools who won't be able to pay every athlete on every team $2000.
And woe to any school that pays their male athletes and does not pay each and every female athlete every bit as much...

then you will have lawsuits saying that if athletes each get $2000 - then the team managers, the cheerleaders, the stat keepers, the floor moppers, and even all the non-athletes ought to get the same...
 
Conference USA (CUSA) has voted to pay their athletes a $2000 "stipend" yearly --

I'm sure that the athletes need this extra money for "toothpaste and razors" as the school representatives claim...
(although here is some strong proof that ONLY the BCS school kids seem to be able to afford razors - LINK)

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/08/athletes-would-get-stipend-under-cusa-proposal

Interestingly that article also finally reveals something that we all knew was the fact - but was either unreported or was denied...
that the main reason the big time football schools want to dump NCAA and form their own organization is...
"seceding from the organization, so they can begin compensating athletes"

..so that none of the smaller schools (like BU) would ever again be able to land any decent recruit
 
Unless the C-USA is planning on giving every full time student a $2000 stipend, this constitutes a clear violation of the NCAA "Extra Benefits" rule.
The NCAA defines an extra benefit as any special arrangement by an institution employee or a representative of the institution??™s athletic interest (???Booster???) to provide a student-athlete (or a student-athlete??™s relative or friend) a benefit that is not generally available to other students.
 
the talk is that they are getting ready at the starting line to do this because there's word the NCAA will pass the measure shortly in an effort to try to keep the BCS boys happy and prevent them from bolting
 
The NCAA isn't some old guy sitting alone in a room smoking a cigar. A major rules change like this requires a vote of all the college presidents. Since most do not favor paying athletes, it has little chance of happening soon.
 
You might want to rethink that - here is the guy in the room - alone just can't see his cigar....

1375992031000-USATSI-7203025.jpg




The clear threat that enuf schools might leave NCAA or need to be placated - could be a big bargaining chip to get it done so the whole organization doesn't collapse or become irrelevant..

The head of NCAA, Mark Emmert just said...
"the change IS COMING"
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...r-college-players-isnt-enough-but-its-a-start

Essentially - he plans to split NCAA into the "haves" and the "have-nots" - two DIFFERENT NCAA's for all intents -
so once there are are two totally different Divisions of NCAA - he will implement two sets of rules and two completely independent governances....
Thus the BIG BOYS will never again need a single vote form the "have-nots" even tho the "have-nots" make up 80% of the current NCAA members.
http://www.indystar.com/article/201...op-division-makes-rules-policy?nclick_check=1
 
While I personally prefer the idea of not paying athletes, I'm not sure what you'd have them do Tornado.

You dislike this idea, but if the status quo is your preference, you also seem to rail against the NCAA as it never goes after the BCS schools and lets them get away with murder anyway.

I assume a benevolent takeover of the BCS is a possibility but I don't forsee that happening. You don't want to placate the BCS schools because it will advantage them, but then you don't want the NCAA to fall apart and render mid-major athletics irrelevant.

I'm actually interested in a third path, i'm just not sure where it is. I think in the long run Bradley and other mid-major schools will fall by the wayside - I guess it pays to have a BCS school fan card as well.
 
The NCAA President Mark Emmert has said he will never approve or seek to pay college athletes-
NCAA president: Pay-for-play won't happen under his watch
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/2011-02-13-ncaa-emmert_N.htm

And an overwhelming percentage of fans are against colleges paying athletes-
Don't Pay College Athletes, Sports Fans Say
http://www.marist.edu/publicaffairs/sportscommpoll2013.html

And IMO there is no way the majority of college presidents will approve it. It simply will not happen under the current NCAA, which I believe requires a vote of college presidents to approve changes to bylaws. And it would take a change of the NCAA constitution to amend the way bylaws are changed.
 
Da Coach said:
The NCAA President Mark Emmert has said he will never approve or seek to pay college athletes-
NCAA president: Pay-for-play won't happen under his watch
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/2011-02-13-ncaa-emmert_N.htm

And an overwhelming percentage of fans are against colleges paying athletes-
Don't Pay College Athletes, Sports Fans Say
http://www.marist.edu/publicaffairs/sportscommpoll2013.html

And IMO there is no way the majority of college presidents will approve it. It simply will not happen under the current NCAA, which I believe requires a vote of college presidents to approve changes to bylaws. And it would take a change of the NCAA constitution to amend the way bylaws are changed.
Click to expand...

Mark Emmert announces there are huge changes coming in NCAA and he warns people to expect the entire structure of Division I sports to look drastically different...
He even seem to be agreeing with a recent writer who said that the NCAA "is going down in flames" on this issue of paying players.

Most people believe that he is indeed talking about setting apart a completely different "division" so that schools who play football and who have big bucks can begin GOVERNING themselves and paying their players.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...ident-mark-emmert-says-lot-change-coming-ncaa
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...-emmert-a-lot-of-change-ahead-for-division-i-
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2013/...wn-in-flames-over-pay-athletes/#axzz2fp7APMWH

..so it appears Mark Emmert is talking out of both sides of his mouth....he claims he is against schools paying their players, but...
he appears willing to create a completely separate DIVISION of schools that will be allowed to govern themselves on this issue - and you know they will start paying players!
 
as most have seen by now - an official at the Chicago district of the National Labor Relations Board has ruled that it is legal for student athletes to unionize...
http://espn.go.com/college-football...rn-wildcats-football-players-win-bid-unionize

Of interest is that this ruling ONLY affects athletes at PRIVATE schools --
".. the push is to unionize athletes at private schools, such as Northwestern, because
the federal labor agency does not have jurisdiction over public universities."


however here's the drawback - just as soon as they would attempt to form a union, then they'd be considered EMPLOYEES, and thus any scholarships, stipends, books, supplies, even their uniforms and meals provided while away from campus..
would be considered INCOME and would be subject to INCOME TAXES!!!!!

A rough estimate of the value of a ONE YEAR full scholarship at Northwestern would be about $60,000 but everything else they get from travel, meals, books, and tutoring ...would push that amount up near $100,000.
Thus they'd owe $15,000 to $30,000 each year in taxes.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...tic-scholarships-football-players-state-taxes
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10683398/tax-implications-create-hurdle-players-union
 
More on Schools Paying Athletes

More on Schools Paying Athletes

t...You are 100% correct regarding the specter of income taxes being required of athletes if players are unionized and considered employees. And even if this doesn't happen, payment in cash to athletes would be considered income and would be subject to taxes.
Also, there would be state income taxes which vary from state to state and in some states are not required (Florida). Would this then give schools in Florida a recruiting advantage over states such as California?
And then there would be the problem of workman comp if athletes are considered employees. If such an athlete is injured, would the school be liable for workmans comp?
And how about medical insurance? Would the spouses and children of athlete employees be covered?
In effect, this whole thing would be a monumental mess!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top