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

[Shirtless Guy]

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

This will be very interesting. Can the smaller NCHC schools like Duluth and St Cloud afford the $2,000 per kid if voted in by North Dakota, Denver and a couple of the other bigger budget programs in that league? Where do Western, Miami and UNO fit in that scheme? How about CC? This will be very interesting. Do you once again end up with the same split among the bigger and smaller budgets that destroyed the WCHA?

We're talking about a maximum of $40k per year for any given hockey program.

 

[MUhawks628]

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

This will be very interesting. Can the smaller NCHC schools like Duluth and St Cloud afford the $2,000 per kid if voted in by North Dakota, Denver and a couple of the other bigger budget programs in that league? Where do Western, Miami and UNO fit in that scheme? How about CC? This will be very interesting. Do you once again end up with the same split among the bigger and smaller budgets that destroyed the WCHA?

Denver and UND might spend a disproportionate amount on hockey, but Miami and Western have the largest athletic budgets in the NCHC, although there might be a bit of red ink there

I think everyone can afford it.

 

[Osorojo]

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

This will be very interesting. Can the smaller NCHC schools like Duluth and St Cloud afford the $2,000 per kid if voted in by North Dakota, Denver and a couple of the other bigger budget programs in that league? Where do Western, Miami and UNO fit in that scheme? How about CC? This will be very interesting. Do you once again end up with the same split among the bigger and smaller budgets that destroyed the WCHA?

We may end up with a unique situation where the richest 1% of college hockey programs end up with 99% of the talent, but that's the price of doing business the American way.

 

[komey1]

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

When the profits of private financial and industrial corporations tanked two or three years ago their executives, directors, etc. received healthy bonuses, often millions of dollars. Don't you remember? It was only a couple of years ago, and the facts were widely reported. What's good for G.M. is good for the country, right? Why not give losing coaches and underperforming star athletes big bonuses?

The players would not be executors or directors. Those would be the coaches. The players would be a common worker. I don't think the average worker gets pay cuts, they get pink slips.

But enough about me getting the thread back on topic. I'm simply answering a question.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

The players would not be executors or directors. Those would be the coaches. The players would be a common worker. I don't think the average worker gets pay cuts, they get pink slips.

But enough about me getting the thread back on topic. I'm simply answering a question.

Never use "thread" (especially in the case of it being started by Bear Red) and "on topic" in the same sentence.

 

[Yuppie Scum]

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

"largely funded?" Pleeezzze! Your Wall Street heroes, both winners and losers, get splendid tax breaks, haven't you heard? If the NCAA wishes to emulate professional sports with a pay-to-play program why stop at trickle-down? Let's go with signing bonuses, seasonal bonuses, and golden parachutes, all unrelated to actual performance. It's called privatizing. BTW: Don't fret about the "bear red" sobriquet. I got that from H.U.A.C.. Several offspring from that committee post on this site and must have been leafing through old hearing transcripts, reminiscing.

Occupy my *** hippie

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

We may end up with a unique situation where the richest 1% of college hockey programs end up with 99% of the talent, but that's the price of doing business the American way.

Occupy NCAA?

 

[Osorojo]

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

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?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

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?

RIT is a post-grandfathering D-III school. Your argument is flawed.

DuMass.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

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

RIT is a post-grandfathering D-III school. Your argument is flawed.

DuMass.

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.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

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.

 

[manurespreader]

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

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.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

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.

 

[komey1]

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

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

 

[LynahFan]

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

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.

 

[Osorojo]

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

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.

 

[Osorojo]

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

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.

 

[manurespreader]

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

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..

 

[bigblue_dl]

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.

 

[bunt_q]

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

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.