JDUBBS1280
MN Hockey Enthusiast
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.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?
- Thread starter 4four4
- Start date
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.
Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?
I didn't read the article so I'm just going to ask. Is the 2,000 mandatory for all sports?
dggoddard
New member
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
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
dggoddard
New member
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?
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:
Split-N
All Hail
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.
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:
Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?
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.
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.
WeAreNDHockey
\../ \../
Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?
Yes, but probably not soon, though.
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.
YES
FlagDUDE08
Banned
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...
Yet I bet they're still going to prevent Major Junior players from coming down to play NCAA hockey...
Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?
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.
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.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?
Makes it easy for the ECAC, only 5 schools would have to pay out (potentially 4, given whomever HE invites for #12).
Makes it easy for the ECAC, only 5 schools would have to pay out (potentially 4, given whomever HE invites for #12).
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?
Does it say about whether it's a requirement across the entire athletic department, or can a school pay out football and both basketball teams, then dole out 85 scholarships worth that across their other women's teams?
Does it say about whether it's a requirement across the entire athletic department, or can a school pay out football and both basketball teams, then dole out 85 scholarships worth that across their other women's teams?
Bertogliat
New member
Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080428151728AALH1yo
Someone who sounds like they know what they are talking about suggests that Major Junior players get about $45-55 per week stipend which is not taxable (in Canada).
Interesting excerpt from Wikipedia-
"Note: that the Major Junior level is considered professional by some authorities, including the NCAA, as its players earn a small stipend."
Interesting because the stipend they earn is on the same level as that the NCAA is allowing. The major junior players play twice as many games though.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080428151728AALH1yo
Someone who sounds like they know what they are talking about suggests that Major Junior players get about $45-55 per week stipend which is not taxable (in Canada).
Interesting excerpt from Wikipedia-
"Note: that the Major Junior level is considered professional by some authorities, including the NCAA, as its players earn a small stipend."
Interesting because the stipend they earn is on the same level as that the NCAA is allowing. The major junior players play twice as many games though.
Last edited:
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?
The per week, if you looked at the math I did earlier, is the same. In fact, it's a couple bucks more.
Therefore, the only legs on which the NCAA has to stand are the number of games Major Junior plays, and attempting to claim they are a private entity (and we know how well that worked for football). Paul Kelly, THIS IS YOUR CHANCE! Call this out!
The per week, if you looked at the math I did earlier, is the same. In fact, it's a couple bucks more.
Therefore, the only legs on which the NCAA has to stand are the number of games Major Junior plays, and attempting to claim they are a private entity (and we know how well that worked for football). Paul Kelly, THIS IS YOUR CHANCE! Call this out!
Ralph Baer
Let's Go 'Tute!
Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?
Aren't you assuming that the MJ players get paid in the off season also? Do they?
Aren't you assuming that the MJ players get paid in the off season also? Do they?
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?
I am actually doing quite the opposite, Ralph. I'd explain, but I've been instructed that posters have been told there'd be no math.
My calculation was off of 35 weeks, about the amount of time the students are in session. It'd be about the same length, maybe a little shorter, for the Major Junior players. At $55 a week for 35 weeks, that's $1925.
I am actually doing quite the opposite, Ralph. I'd explain, but I've been instructed that posters have been told there'd be no math.
My calculation was off of 35 weeks, about the amount of time the students are in session. It'd be about the same length, maybe a little shorter, for the Major Junior players. At $55 a week for 35 weeks, that's $1925.Bertogliat
New member
Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?
I assUme no since the stipend is to help pay for gas, junk food, rye, etc. while the kids are away from home.
I assUme no since the stipend is to help pay for gas, junk food, rye, etc. while the kids are away from home.
Last edited:
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?
Don't forget Kraft Dinner.
Don't forget Kraft Dinner.
SteveF
* * * * *
It is good for any sport besides football and basketball. At least hockey provides revenue through tickets and tv - though probably not net income for most sports
Split-N
All Hail
Re: Pay for Play is approved: The Rich get Richer. Too Costly for non BCS schools?
So the college hockey universe is likely to be much smaller a few years down the road. Hope everyone enjoys what is being foisted upon us.
I have to reluctantly agree. Unless the economy suddenly picks up, the smallish state schools that are largely dependent on state funding and smallish private schools with modest endowments are going to have to deal with budgetary realities and one of the ways to make ends meet may well be to simply tank varsity hockey. Also remember that this "reform" is being driven by the BCS schools (only nine of which even have hockey) as part of their relentless drive to find ways to cut the college sports revenue pie into fewer pieces.
So the college hockey universe is likely to be much smaller a few years down the road. Hope everyone enjoys what is being foisted upon us.
Last edited: