Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

    Entire idea was Delany looking for a way to keep killing off athletic competition to the Big Ten in particular and BCS conferences in general. $55 a week isn't keeping anyone from taking booster money and anyone that's been on campus knows it's not like the football players are the ones hitching rides on the bus and buying ramen now. People on the bus might steal their $400 smart phones and Ipods.
    "I went over the facts in my head, and admired how much uglier the situation had just become. Over the years I've learned that ignorance is more than just bliss. It's freaking orgasmic ecstasy".- Harry Dresden, Blood Rites


    Western Michigan Bronco Hockey- 2012 Mason Cup Champions

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

      Originally posted by Cat lover View Post
      Does the NCAA think that any of these players(football mostly) really think that $2000 a year will be enough.
      Isn't that a pay cut at some football schools?
      Charter Member of darin's "UML Seven"

      "I just hate Boston College to be perfectly honest'' -Ken Dorsey
      "It's time for my favorite NCAA tradition ... that's right, rooting against BC!" -Bill Simmons

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

        I know that $2,000 would deter me from taking $10,000 and a new car from a booster.
        "My greatest achievement."
        Dirty on getting me suspended from USCHO.

        I'm not an alcoholic! I'm an independent beer taster for Anheuser Busch.

        Happy~Smelling like a warm turd sandwich since 11/15/07.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

          Oh good, I was just thinking that as if the top teams weren't stacked enough in the college game, now let's let them throw in more $. Now when a kid is trying to decide between being a 3rd stringer at LSU or starting at Northern Appalachain Valley Community College, there's just one more reason for him to join the big dog in hopes of one day actually sniffing the playing field. And lately when those two teams met LSU's only won by 60... we need to increase that spread.
          tUMD is Jan Brady per Brenthoven. Whew.... thanks for clearing THAT up.

          Best USCHO quotes to date:

          "UND/DU will realize that their party sucks, because the easterners only want to drink Zima." - BPH

          "It is too bad that aaron marvin was a senior so he can't go after the rest of the sioux". - bigblue_dl

          "I would rather play the blackhawks than you right now." - dogs2012

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
              You think the University of North Dakota won't find 50 grand for their 25 hockey players?
              They would have to pay their women's team too. They would, but that would cut into their budget. Definitely something North Dakota didn't want to see happen.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

                Originally posted by JDUBBS1280 View Post
                They would have to pay their women's team too. They would, but that would cut into their budget. Definitely something North Dakota didn't want to see happen.
                I didn't read the article so I'm just going to ask. Is the 2,000 mandatory for all sports?
                "My greatest achievement."
                Dirty on getting me suspended from USCHO.

                I'm not an alcoholic! I'm an independent beer taster for Anheuser Busch.

                Happy~Smelling like a warm turd sandwich since 11/15/07.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

                  Most student athletes in non-revenue sports are on partial scholarships. Will they receive "partial" $2,000?

                  The Denver Post article below seems to imply that CU-Boulder has 215 athletes on scholarship.

                  Interesting to note that a vast majority of BCS schools lose money on Athletics but will need to come up with around $400,000-$500,000 according to the article.

                  http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_19211648

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

                    The one thing that nobody has answered is the $2,000 plus the room and board - taxable income? I've had an accountant tell me that it is [scholarships are tax free]. Are these "student athletes" paying the taxes on this?
                    Last edited by dggoddard; 10-28-2011, 10:56 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

                      Three questions and a comment:

                      1) Does anybody not believe that the $2K cap is just for openers and that we'll soon be looking at $5K, $10K, and beyond?

                      2) How long until the lawsuits alleging discrimination between different sports and/or between men's and women's teams start getting filed? (The trial lawyers must be smacking their lips over this.)

                      3) Isn't this just another ploy to help ensure the rich keep getting richer?

                      This is great for the BCS schools (and maybe North Dakota) but an unmitigated disaster for everyone else.
                      Last edited by Split-N; 10-28-2011, 12:52 PM.
                      "Through the years, we ever will acclaim........"

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

                        I'm hoping that the B1G Networks grows a couple more teats so Maybe UND can latch on to one.
                        "My greatest achievement."
                        Dirty on getting me suspended from USCHO.

                        I'm not an alcoholic! I'm an independent beer taster for Anheuser Busch.

                        Happy~Smelling like a warm turd sandwich since 11/15/07.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

                          Originally posted by dggoddard View Post
                          The one thing that nobody has answered is the $2,000 plus the room and board - taxable income? I've had an accountant tell me that it is [scholarships are tax free]. Are these "student athletes" paying the taxes on this?
                          Unless they have lots of other "mysterious" income to report they will join the 47% group who don't pay any federal income tax. And if the IRS rules that the $2,000 is for their "labor" then they may even quality for an earned income credit and get money back on their $2,000.
                          Minnesota Golden Gopher Hockey

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

                            Originally posted by Split-N View Post
                            1) Does anybody not believe that the $2K cap is just for openers and that we'll soon be looking at $5K, $10K, and beyond?
                            Yes, but probably not soon, though.

                            2) How long until the lawsuits alleging alleging discrimination between different sports and/or between men's and women's teams start getting filed? (The trial lawyers must be smacking their lips over this.)
                            As soon as it's first paid out. There are already 7211 lawyers chasing this ambulance. We will be reliving every TITLE IX nightmare we've ever had.

                            3) Isn't this just another ploy to help ensure the rich keep getting richer?
                            YES

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

                              Yet I bet they're still going to prevent Major Junior players from coming down to play NCAA hockey...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?

                                Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                                You think the University of North Dakota won't find 50 grand for their 25 hockey players?
                                Are they willing to give $2,000 to the women's team? Because they have to do both.

                                UND might be able to give out $2,000 but what about SCSU, Miami, UMD, etc?

                                Finally, the NCAA also said the whole conference have to be playing by the sam rules.
                                Slap Shot - 444 might want to consider a restraining order.
                                dggoddard - Minnesota is THE ELITE Program in all of college hockey.
                                wasmania - you have to be the very best to get ice time with the great gophers!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X