Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
Author Message
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 20,714
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
As long as football players are required to be enrolled in school it is an educational program and subject to Title IX.

You can finagle around declaring it for profit or an independent arm of the institution but as long as enrollment is tied to participation Title IX is going to impact football.
01-31-2018 03:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,744
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 548
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #32
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
(01-31-2018 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It would be sad to have all women’s sports go away, but some of those figures are really ghastly. I personally would keep women’s basketball, and other women’s sports that actually made $$, but women’s country club sports I would bring to an end unless a booster wanted to spare them along with sports just added solely for the purpose of Title IX, and just tax the profitable programs.

The law, namely Title IX, doesn't care about profits. Does Alabama want its football team that makes $100m a year and wins national titles? And do you want to give out the 85 football scholarships? Then the law, as interpreted by basically all the courts, says you have to give out about 85 scholarships to female athletes as well, period, whether you make money or lose money.

And Title IX has strong bi-partisan support. No tax change that has the effect of doing away with Title IX, such that Alabama can have its football team while not having an equal # of female athletes also on scholarship, will pass.

That's the bottom line here, not profits. The only way to get rid of all those money-losing women's sports is if you get rid of a roughly equal number of men's scholarships as well. 07-coffee3

And that is where you are dead wrong. It is not likely that the non profit status would be lifted for tax purposes. And the reason would be the defense of Title IX. But if we move to paying players there won't be any scholarships. Their earnings will be taxed, and any goods and services (like education) that they receive will be taxed. If there are no scholarships then there is no need to reciprocate them with women's sports. Therein lies the issue.

So if we move to a pay for play of any kind, the word scholarship will not be a part of it. So take away 85 scholarships offered in football and replace them with paid players who are taxed and you take away the need to offset those 85 scholarships with those offered for women.

JR, i just don't see this happening. Title IX - not just the words of the law but its evolved meaning as representing opportunities for female athletes at universities - will not be end-run by any shifting of terms or meanings or tax exempt status. There is not going to be any way to dodge T9 by setting up dummy corporations, spin-offs, for-profit entities, or other "arms length" entities that allegedly aren't "affiliated" with the school, the defenders of T9 will sniff all that out and be all over it.

IMO, it's not going to happen. No change in tax codes, etc. will be allowed to happen by Congress if it has the effect of eliminating those female scholarships while the boys still play football wearing the school colors.

Bottom line: As long as it says "LSU" on the helmet, the LSU football team will be regarded by the Feds, and Title IX, as being a part of LSU, and it will be subject to the regulations, no matter if there any scholarships from the school involved or not, no matter if the football program is incorporated as a completely separate business, no matter if the QB is being paid $500k a year .... no matter what. If the team is wearing blue and gold, playing in Tiger Stadium, and repping "LSU", etc. it will make the school subject to T9 or some other law/regulation that will be quickly drafted that has the same effect of requiring 85 scholarships/funding/pay for female athletes too.
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2018 04:35 PM by quo vadis.)
01-31-2018 04:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Online
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 6,281
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 388
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #33
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
(01-31-2018 12:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It would be sad to have all women’s sports go away, but some of those figures are really ghastly. I personally would keep women’s basketball, and other women’s sports that actually made $$, but women’s country club sports I would bring to an end unless a booster wanted to spare them along with sports just added solely for the purpose of Title IX, and just tax the profitable programs.

The law, namely Title IX, doesn't care about profits. Does Alabama want its football team that makes $100m a year and wins national titles? And do you want to give out the 85 football scholarships? Then the law, as interpreted by basically all the courts, says you have to give out about 85 scholarships to female athletes as well, period, whether you make money or lose money.

And Title IX has strong bi-partisan support. No tax change that has the effect of doing away with Title IX, such that Alabama can have its football team while not having an equal # of female athletes also on scholarship, will pass.

That's the bottom line here, not profits. The only way to get rid of all those money-losing women's sports is if you get rid of a roughly equal number of men's scholarships as well. 07-coffee3

From NCAA.org:
Quote:What is Title IX and what did it do?
Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 is a federal law that states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

So I think the question is this: if football were no longer a non-profit part of the university but, rather, spun-off as part of a stand-alone company associated with the school but NOT part of the "education program" and NOT receiving Federal money... would it still be under Title IX? I think it's not unreasonable to say no, it wouldn't...

The schools themselves would still want to be considered tax-exempt and receive federal research grants and such. How much separation would there have to be? I don't know. But I can guarantee there would be lawsuits. If the upper earning schools wanted to basically form a semipro football league what would they be able to take with them? The name? The school logo? If it's obvious that it's done just to skirt the law there would be serious blow back. That would hurt the brand of the new league they're trying to build and the TV revenues they'd be relying on. And for what? VT spent a whopping 13 million on women's sports and those same sports brought in about 8.5 million. 4.5 million to subsidize women's sports? If a group of schools wanted to spin off and change the rules to be somewhat semipro then this is not the fight they are going to pick. They would be more than happy to pay for a few women's sports.
01-31-2018 04:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,744
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 548
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #34
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
(01-31-2018 04:17 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It would be sad to have all women’s sports go away, but some of those figures are really ghastly. I personally would keep women’s basketball, and other women’s sports that actually made $$, but women’s country club sports I would bring to an end unless a booster wanted to spare them along with sports just added solely for the purpose of Title IX, and just tax the profitable programs.

The law, namely Title IX, doesn't care about profits. Does Alabama want its football team that makes $100m a year and wins national titles? And do you want to give out the 85 football scholarships? Then the law, as interpreted by basically all the courts, says you have to give out about 85 scholarships to female athletes as well, period, whether you make money or lose money.

And Title IX has strong bi-partisan support. No tax change that has the effect of doing away with Title IX, such that Alabama can have its football team while not having an equal # of female athletes also on scholarship, will pass.

That's the bottom line here, not profits. The only way to get rid of all those money-losing women's sports is if you get rid of a roughly equal number of men's scholarships as well. 07-coffee3

From NCAA.org:
Quote:What is Title IX and what did it do?
Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 is a federal law that states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

So I think the question is this: if football were no longer a non-profit part of the university but, rather, spun-off as part of a stand-alone company associated with the school but NOT part of the "education program" and NOT receiving Federal money... would it still be under Title IX? I think it's not unreasonable to say no, it wouldn't...

The schools themselves would still want to be considered tax-exempt and receive federal research grants and such. How much separation would there have to be? I don't know. But I can guarantee there would be lawsuits. If the upper earning schools wanted to basically form a semipro football league what would they be able to take with them? The name? The school logo? If it's obvious that it's done just to skirt the law there would be serious blow back. That would hurt the brand of the new league they're trying to build and the TV revenues they'd be relying on.

That's another key point: Any school or group of schools that tries to pull this kind of end-run will be raked over the coals, in the media AND by the larger academia community, which is highly committed to the values of Title IX. Politicians will pile on as well, and no TV networks or big corporate sponsors will want to be perceived as abetting the denial of opportunities to women, and that is the narrative that will take hold. Technical arguments about funding mechanisms, for-profit spin-offs, etc. will fall flat and seem out of touch by comparison.

The constituencies against this kind of play would be diverse, powerful, and vociferous. I can't see it happening. 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2018 04:34 PM by quo vadis.)
01-31-2018 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Online
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 6,281
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 388
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #35
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
(01-31-2018 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It would be sad to have all women’s sports go away, but some of those figures are really ghastly. I personally would keep women’s basketball, and other women’s sports that actually made $$, but women’s country club sports I would bring to an end unless a booster wanted to spare them along with sports just added solely for the purpose of Title IX, and just tax the profitable programs.

The law, namely Title IX, doesn't care about profits. Does Alabama want its football team that makes $100m a year and wins national titles? And do you want to give out the 85 football scholarships? Then the law, as interpreted by basically all the courts, says you have to give out about 85 scholarships to female athletes as well, period, whether you make money or lose money.

And Title IX has strong bi-partisan support. No tax change that has the effect of doing away with Title IX, such that Alabama can have its football team while not having an equal # of female athletes also on scholarship, will pass.

That's the bottom line here, not profits. The only way to get rid of all those money-losing women's sports is if you get rid of a roughly equal number of men's scholarships as well. 07-coffee3
And that is where you are dead wrong. It is not likely that the non profit status would be lifted for tax purposes. And the reason would be the defense of Title IX. But if we move to paying players there won't be any scholarships. Their earnings will be taxed, and any goods and services (like education) that they receive will be taxed. If there are no scholarships then there is no need to reciprocate them with women's sports. Therein lies the issue.

So if we move to a pay for play of any kind, the word scholarship will not be a part of it. So take away 85 scholarships offered in football and replace them with paid players who are taxed and you take away the need to offset those 85 scholarships with those offered for women.

The removal of tax exempt status for the donations made in connection with ticket priorities is the first step in the direction of taking away non-profit status. You can't have it both ways. Either donations that are ultimately in support of non profit athletes are deductible, or they are not. And if they are not then the Athletic structure that procures those donations is a for profit and should be taxed.

But given that the government would be involved either way anything is possible. But there is an obvious conflict arising between what is taxable and non profit status in college athletics.

Title IX would be operative for swimming and diving and track & field because those are non profit sports. But lose the 85 scholarships for football to a different taxable status and those would not be counted toward Title IX. That you can't have both ways.

So what is going to happen, either way, is that many smaller schools are going to be forced (by red ink) to drop athletic programs altogether. The NET effect is the same.

Look you have players at Northwestern wanting to collectivize. You have the push for stipends to offset this by many P5 schools and some G5 schools. Now you have donations losing their tax deductible status, but obviously those donations go toward the athletes. We are a schizophrenic culture which can't figure out the difference between non profit and for profit, between scholarships and pay, and what constitutes player care and what constitutes extraneous benefits. And in the meantime we have lots of athletic departments operating in the red in the face of falling donations.

Something has to give. Either scholarships include a cost of living that is reasonable, or we pay and tax the players and treat them like a student worker. We either tax them or we don't. And depending upon how that is resolved contributions to the A.D. are either tax deductible or they are not. We can't keep confusing this process or everyone will lose.

They are, just not if you receive something in return for them. The same as if you were to buy something from a charities silent auction. You can only deduct what you paid above the value of what you received. Write a check to your colleges athletic fund, ask for a letter saying you received nothing in return, deduct it on your taxes. No problem.
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2018 04:34 PM by mturn017.)
01-31-2018 04:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Online
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 6,281
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 388
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #36
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
And more related to the original post, all public schools in VA have their audited NCAA statements available publicly on the Auditor of Public Accounts website. It matches what USA Today releases but gives a good bit more detail.

Type the school name in the search and "Agreed Upon Procedures" in the category and it should list them all newest first. I imagine 2016-17 will be available anytime now based on the dates the previous ones were published.

http://www.apa.virginia.gov/APA_Reports/Reports.aspx
01-31-2018 04:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,753
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 751
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
(01-31-2018 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 12:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It would be sad to have all women’s sports go away, but some of those figures are really ghastly. I personally would keep women’s basketball, and other women’s sports that actually made $$, but women’s country club sports I would bring to an end unless a booster wanted to spare them along with sports just added solely for the purpose of Title IX, and just tax the profitable programs.

The law, namely Title IX, doesn't care about profits. Does Alabama want its football team that makes $100m a year and wins national titles? And do you want to give out the 85 football scholarships? Then the law, as interpreted by basically all the courts, says you have to give out about 85 scholarships to female athletes as well, period, whether you make money or lose money.

And Title IX has strong bi-partisan support. No tax change that has the effect of doing away with Title IX, such that Alabama can have its football team while not having an equal # of female athletes also on scholarship, will pass.

That's the bottom line here, not profits. The only way to get rid of all those money-losing women's sports is if you get rid of a roughly equal number of men's scholarships as well. 07-coffee3

And that is where you are dead wrong. It is not likely that the non profit status would be lifted for tax purposes. And the reason would be the defense of Title IX. But if we move to paying players there won't be any scholarships. Their earnings will be taxed, and any goods and services (like education) that they receive will be taxed. If there are no scholarships then there is no need to reciprocate them with women's sports. Therein lies the issue.

So if we move to a pay for play of any kind, the word scholarship will not be a part of it. So take away 85 scholarships offered in football and replace them with paid players who are taxed and you take away the need to offset those 85 scholarships with those offered for women.

JR, i just don't see this happening. Title IX - not just the words of the law but its evolved meaning as representing opportunities for female athletes at universities - will not be end-run by any shifting of terms or meanings or tax exempt status. There is not going to be any way to dodge T9 by setting up dummy corporations, spin-offs, for-profit entities, or other "arms length" entities that allegedly aren't "affiliated" with the school, the defenders of T9 will sniff all that out and be all over it.

IMO, it's not going to happen. No change in tax codes, etc. will be allowed to happen by Congress if it has the effect of eliminating those female scholarships while the boys still play football wearing the school colors.

Bottom line: As long as it says "LSU" on the helmet, the LSU football team will be regarded by the Feds, and Title IX, as being a part of LSU, and it will be subject to the regulations, no matter if there any scholarships from the school involved or not, no matter if the football program is incorporated as a completely separate business, no matter if the QB is being paid $500k a year .... no matter what. If the team is wearing blue and gold, playing in Tiger Stadium, and repping "LSU", etc. it will make the school subject to T9 or some other law/regulation that will be quickly drafted that has the same effect of requiring 85 scholarships/funding/pay for female athletes too.

Damage the profitability of football, or impinge the Athletic Department's ability to induced donations and the end result will the elimination of non profit sports affecting both men and women. School's cant afford 10's of millions in red ink. But I think what you will see is the elimination of football at many lower tier schools. And with it the elimination of a goodly number of non profits.

Schools were flush when Title IX was approved, and the cost of athletics was a lot less. I know I was alive and there and functioning as an adult when it happened. Just look at the red ink in just the Texas schools presented in the OP. They aren't atypical.

The largest best endowed schools will continue to be able to afford it all for a lot longer than most of the smaller schools. But Title IX's application is going to bite itself in the butt during a period of inflation (which we are entering) and stagnate wages (which we are in). Instead of optimizing women's sports by mandate, the equal number approach will merely shrink all sports beginning with the smallest schools. The best way to assure the survival of female sports will be to keep football profitable. At most of the athletic departments it funds all the rest. Kill football, or have it die due to natural causes will impact non profit sports in a major way.

Schools which don't have profitable football programs won't be able to afford compliance so they will just shut sports down which are not funded externally whether by corporate grant, private donations, or the player's parents.

It is simply a business reality. It is perfectly possible to keep the letter of Title IX by just not offering sports at all.

You are just seeing the beginning of "Sports" downsizing in higher ed. It's a trickle of schools who are downsizing right now. As inflation rises and the Boomer's pass this will become a river.

You can't tax something and assist it's ability to fund non profit programs at the same time. They'll have to be a workaround as was suggested by the ODU poster if we are to forestall the unintended consequences of the change in the tax law surrounding contributions to the athletic department in exchange for ticket priorities. Otherwise the changes that take place will be more rapid in nature, and much more inclusive of the upper tier.

And in the end the result will be the same. An antiquated piece of legislation will be the root of the demise of what it was intended to assist.

If you and others don't get that because you are so defensive of Title IX as a legal fact that you can't see the negative ramifications of it in today's economic environment, especially when the tax law impacts it, then there is nothing else for me to say on this matter. We'll all see soon enough.
01-31-2018 05:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 20,714
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
(01-31-2018 05:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Schools were flush when Title IX was approved, and the cost of athletics was a lot less. I know I was alive and there and functioning as an adult when it happened. Just look at the red ink in just the Texas schools presented in the OP. They aren't atypical.

Actually schools weren't flush at the time of Title IX being adopted. There was a recession going on, the college draft deferment had ended the year before and college enrollment dropped nationally.

It was the fact that colleges were in tight circumstances that lead to the abolition of "laundry money" and football scholarships became capped for the first time.
01-31-2018 06:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,753
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 751
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #39
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
(01-31-2018 06:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 05:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Schools were flush when Title IX was approved, and the cost of athletics was a lot less. I know I was alive and there and functioning as an adult when it happened. Just look at the red ink in just the Texas schools presented in the OP. They aren't atypical.

Actually schools weren't flush at the time of Title IX being adopted. There was a recession going on, the college draft deferment had ended the year before and college enrollment dropped nationally.

It was the fact that colleges were in tight circumstances that lead to the abolition of "laundry money" and football scholarships became capped for the first time.

The school's weren't hurting. Raises for faculty were hurting. The rifts in the military after the drawback in Viet Nam had a lot of returning veterans retooling for private life.

And your take on capped scholarships had more to do with the stockpiling of athletes who would never see playing time, but were given scholarships to prevent the competition from using them than it had to do with the economy.

If people thought that football first schools today were out of control, they just didn't live through the late 60's and early 70's. U.S.C., Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas, and so many others had stockpiles of football players on scholarship. That was hurting the game.

Saban is an anomaly compared to the practices of the football giants of the 60's and 70's.

And, as far as the recession goes, the nation had really been in one since the end of Korea. Viet Nam was the only respite from it and during those years the national debt rose from 205 million in '63 to billions by the end of the Nixon administration. Between Viet Nam and the Great Society Program of LBJ we managed to borrow for the first time from Social Security placing in jeopardy the long range viability of what had been a state mandated savings program thereby eliminating the largest nest egg the Federal Government held in reserve, and blowing the debt through the roof.

Those who profited were the major corporations, the backers of the Federal Reserve which collected interest and bought influence with the proceeds, and of course the educational research wing benefited as well. Dow and Dupont did quite nicely.

So after the artificial stimulus that cost 55,000 American Lives and spent us into a massive debt what we called a recession in the early 70's was not even a hangover.

But those on the government dole who had profited from the inflation sure thought so.

Kids today can't remember 18% APR's. I was so happy to refinance a home at 8% I could have busted with excitement.

But in spite of $2.00 gas the average American still could afford a home, eat decently, and expect good health care. I hardly call today flush! Heck, if I was depressed a six pack of Michelob was $2.25 and that was expensive beer.

Enrollment was fine. Higher Ed was propped up with all kinds of government perks. Pell grants were born a short time later. Government student loans were made available and at ridiculously low interest rate. So the Profs got their raises and COLAS became part of the vernacular and bureaucrats everywhere lived fat enough.

When people actually owned and operated family businesses, when those businesses sustained them and paid for their children's educations, when the legal bureaucracy wasn't finding ways to dip into everyone's pockets like the Sheriff of Noddingham, when Bell telephone ran secure lines free from robo calls and scamsters, when government wasn't telling me what to do and when to do it and trying to keep me from instilling some values in my children, and when a ticket to the Auburn / Alabama game was $8, I call that time not only flush, but rich and idyllic when adjusted for the inflation rate of today. The value we had so outpaced what we can afford today there is no real comparison.
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2018 07:24 PM by JRsec.)
01-31-2018 07:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,645
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Detailed Peek at College Finances for Athletics
I'll just look at G5 here for their football revenues vs. expenses (less student aid).

Houston
FB Revenue: 11.2 mill
FB Expense: 10.7 mill

North Texas
FB Revenue: 4.4 mill
FB Expense: 3.5 mill

UTEP
FB Revenue: 14.5 mill
FB Expense: 6.4 mill

The numbers to me say two things.

1) G5 football is pulling its own weight financially. That is where all the revenue is.
2) G5 salaries won't go up too much higher since the margin isn't great.
01-31-2018 07:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.