Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Pay-to-play" - a blessing in disguise?

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

  • #31
    Re: "Pay-to-play" - a blessing in disguise?

    Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
    I was going to say that but he did say per player expenses...I'm not sure that includes scholarship? I mean, Wisconsin flys everywhere so that number will be large.
    They may fly everywhere, but if you assume 9 flights (18 game weekends, half of them they travel), that's $4000 a person per flight. That doesn't make sense. It HAS to be scholarship.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: "Pay-to-play" - a blessing in disguise?

      Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
      Umm... According to the US Census, state tax revenue for the state of NY (largely funded by income tax on Wall Street bankers/brokers) fell from $147B in 2008 to $92B in 2009 - a 37% drop. If you think bonuses are anywhere near the same level when things go badly as when they go well, you're smoking some powerful stuff.
      No I don't think he is.. quite. I believe if you checked carefully you'd find that the majority of tax revenue is due to tax on capital gains not on bonuses or income tax. I don't believe salaries went down hardly at all. Since there were a ton of capital losses during this period I would assume that tax revenue would generally fall primarily for that reason.
      MTU: Three time NCAA champions.

      It never get's easier, you just go faster. -Greg Lemond

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: "Pay-to-play" - a blessing in disguise?

        Originally posted by manurespreader View Post
        No I don't think he is.. quite. I believe if you checked carefully you'd find that the majority of tax revenue is due to tax on capital gains not on bonuses or income tax. I don't believe salaries went down hardly at all. Since there were a ton of capital losses during this period I would assume that tax revenue would generally fall primarily for that reason.
        Not to mention dividends (whether qualified or not)... those went into the tank.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: "Pay-to-play" - a blessing in disguise?

          Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
          Never use "thread" (especially in the case of it being started by Bear Red) and "on topic" in the same sentence.
          I should have known better with the thread started - my bad
          2006-07 Atlantic Hockey Champions!
          2008-09 Atlantic Hockey Co-Champions!
          2009-10 Atlantic Hockey Champions!
          2010 Frozen Four participant
          2010-11 Atlantic Hockey Champions!

          Member of the infamous Corner Crew

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: "Pay-to-play" - a blessing in disguise?

            Originally posted by manurespreader View Post
            No I don't think he is.. quite. I believe if you checked carefully you'd find that the majority of tax revenue is due to tax on capital gains not on bonuses or income tax. I don't believe salaries went down hardly at all. Since there were a ton of capital losses during this period I would assume that tax revenue would generally fall primarily for that reason.
            Well, since his original point was specifically about bonuses, let's just go to the actual numbers:

            2007, $32.9 billion, $34.38 billion
            2008, $18.4 billion, $18.52 billion

            So bonuses were cut by 46% when the performance tanked. Hardly a cause for outrage, I would say.
            If you don't change the world today, how can it be any better tomorrow?

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: "Pay-to-play" - a blessing in disguise?

              Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
              Not to mention dividends (whether qualified or not)... those went into the tank.
              Tax on long-term capital gains (unearned income) is capped at 15%, while earned income can be taxed up to 35%. If your claim that the majority of tax revenue comes from tax on capital gains is true then the end is near. Might as well sit around and defend fantasies about college hockey as go to work.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: "Pay-to-play" - a blessing in disguise?

                Originally posted by manurespreader View Post
                No I don't think he is.. quite. I believe if you checked carefully you'd find that the majority of tax revenue is due to tax on capital gains not on bonuses or income tax. I don't believe salaries went down hardly at all. Since there were a ton of capital losses during this period I would assume that tax revenue would generally fall primarily for that reason.
                According to the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics the unemployment rate in New York State in December, 2007, was 4.9%, and the unemployment rate in New York State in December, 2008, was 7.0%. This is a 33.3% increase in unemployment - documented, not a freelance fantasy. In light of these facts the last load of unsubstantiated conjecture about tax revenue (as well as other stuff) you spread did little to clear the air.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: "Pay-to-play" - a blessing in disguise?

                  Originally posted by Osorojo View Post
                  According to the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics the unemployment rate in New York State in December, 2007, was 4.9%, and the unemployment rate in New York State in December, 2008, was 7.0%. This is a 33.3% increase in unemployment - documented, not a freelance fantasy. In light of these facts the last load of unsubstantiated conjecture about tax revenue (as well as other stuff) you spread did little to clear the air.
                  Except he mentioned the years 2008 to 2009. NOT 2007 to 2008... So there's that..
                  MTU: Three time NCAA champions.

                  It never get's easier, you just go faster. -Greg Lemond

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: "Pay-to-play" - a blessing in disguise?

                    Oh sweet jesus. Is this thread the love child of an osorojo thread and a political thread? This might be the worst combination possible.
                    Having a clear conscience just means you have a bad memory or you had a boring weekend.

                    RIP - Kirby

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: "Pay-to-play" - a blessing in disguise?

                      Originally posted by Osorojo View Post
                      As noted in a 11/06/2010 "pay to play" thread on this site, in 2009-10 the RIT men's ice hockey program paid $8,074 per player in expenses, while in 2009-10 Wisconsin paid $36,152 per hockey player. This information was provided by the schools themselves according to the "Equity in Athletics [!] Disclosure Act." This was BEFORE the NCAA approved pay-to-play. So what? Even professional sports are concerned that financial inequity between franchises will destroy their sport and the pros have reacted with salary caps. The gap in college hockey per player spending will swell with the new pay-to-play deregulation. If you were pleased with the 450% difference in program per-player expenses before PTP college hockey you should be thrilled with the new arrangement. Maybe college hockey games should be decided by comparing notarized financial statements - or at least use financial statements as tie breakers. Specific? Check. On subject? Check. Documented information? Check. Now what's your problem, bub?
                      Scholarships or not, if that's RIT's FULL program cost per player, then they must be doing just fine financially.

                      Season attendance for RIT in 2009-10 was 37,282. $8,074 * 25 guys on the roster (assuming they divided by everybody) = expenses of $201,850. Divide that by 37,282 tickets sold, and you're looking at $5.41 per ticket.

                      Add $36k to that total expense budget (lets say only 18 guys get the bonus money), you're up to $6.38 per ticket. I'd happily pay that.

                      I'm guessing that's not the whole expense number... it's not including something. Is this gas for the bus, rent for the arena (or, say, cooling and zamboni maintenance if its school-owned), coaches salaries, administrative overhead, everything? Seems awfully low.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: "Pay-to-play" - a blessing in disguise?

                        Originally posted by bunt_q View Post
                        Scholarships or not, if that's RIT's FULL program cost per player, then they must be doing just fine financially.

                        Season attendance for RIT in 2009-10 was 37,282. $8,074 * 25 guys on the roster (assuming they divided by everybody) = expenses of $201,850. Divide that by 37,282 tickets sold, and you're looking at $5.41 per ticket.

                        Add $36k to that total expense budget (lets say only 18 guys get the bonus money), you're up to $6.38 per ticket. I'd happily pay that.

                        I'm guessing that's not the whole expense number... it's not including something. Is this gas for the bus, rent for the arena (or, say, cooling and zamboni maintenance if its school-owned), coaches salaries, administrative overhead, everything? Seems awfully low.
                        The AHA is a bus league aside from Air Force. Their only plane trips were to Air Force and Minnesota State that year.

                        The arena is an on-campus arena, and also hosts the woman's team and has public skating, so I would not expect arena expenses to be there.
                        2006-07 Atlantic Hockey Champions!
                        2008-09 Atlantic Hockey Co-Champions!
                        2009-10 Atlantic Hockey Champions!
                        2010 Frozen Four participant
                        2010-11 Atlantic Hockey Champions!

                        Member of the infamous Corner Crew

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: "Pay-to-play" - a blessing in disguise?

                          Ok question...everyone keeps saying that pay to play $$$ can only go to players getting a full ride but that really doesn't make sense. Let's look at the numbers for a non-headcount sport like Hockey.

                          Old scenario for full year(I'll use Michigan Tech):
                          Tuition - $13,200 ($26,200 out of state)
                          Room & Board - $8,600
                          Books & Supplies - $1,200
                          Full Ride scholarship: $23,000 (36,000)
                          so partials are:
                          75% - $17,250 ($27,075)
                          50% - $11,500 ($18,050)
                          25% - $5,750 ($9,025)

                          So if we add the $2,000 stipend, why don't the 75, 50, 25% not increase by $1,500, $1k, $500?
                          Michigan Tech Legend, Founder of Mitch's Misfits, Co-Founder of Tech Hockey Guide, and Creator/Host of the Chasing MacNaughton Podcast covering MTU Hockey and the WCHA.

                          Sports Allegiance: NFL: GB MLB: MIL NHL: MIN CB: UW CF: UW CH: MTU FIFA: USA MLS: MIN EPL: Everton

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X