Questions about paying players

#1
O

onevol74

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
13,330
Likes
15,194
#1
It appears the schools are now going to pay the players based on a formula concerning the cost of attendance at each school. Since the players can now unionize and the schools have an employer-employee relationship, could the players have a claim against the schools using the formula as collusion? Could they demand pay dependent on talent?

Also, what is standing in the way of the players demanding sign-on bonuses as in a free market? This would make the Albert Means situation legal and the NCAA rules irrelevant.

Will the players be able to file US Income taxes and earn significant refunds due to earned income credit?
 
#2
#2
I'm no lawyer, but I don't think Universities are putting players on the payroll. Instead, schools are now simply allowed to adjust the value of their athletic scholarships to cover the "full cost of attendance." So the student-athletes' stipends will now include enough to cover costs like transportation, property insurance and storage, etc.

But it's still a scholarship, just like it has always been. Not a paycheck. As I understand it.
 
#3
#3
onevol74 said:
It appears the schools are now going to pay the players based on a formula concerning the cost of attendance at each school. Since the players can now unionize and the schools have an employer-employee relationship, could the players have a claim against the schools using the formula as collusion? Could they demand pay dependent on talent?

Also, what is standing in the way of the players demanding sign-on bonuses as in a free market? This would make the Albert Means situation legal and the NCAA rules irrelevant.

Will the players be able to file US Income taxes and earn significant refunds due to earned income credit?
Click to expand...

AU and UA already pay a sign on bonus.:)
 
#4
#4
74 said:
It appears the schools are now going to pay the players based on a formula concerning the cost of attendance at each school. Since the players can now unionize and the schools have an employer-employee relationship, could the players have a claim against the schools using the formula as collusion? Could they demand pay dependent on talent?

Also, what is standing in the way of the players demanding sign-on bonuses as in a free market? This would make the Albert Means situation legal and the NCAA rules irrelevant.

Will the players be able to file US Income taxes and earn significant refunds due to earned income credit?
Click to expand...
This is a UT forum. Probably need to take any NCAA pay for play questions to the experts ...Bammer.
 
#8
#8
TAF said:
Nope...but grew up in Hixson till high school...them Soddy-Girls...Lord have MERCY!

Congrats!
Click to expand...

She is definitely aging better than me.Hard to believe she is the mother of 5 and soon to be gg to number 5 and 6 grand babys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
In my opinion if the universities get the clearance to start paying players that would flat out ruining the game. College FB has changed alot since I was a kid watching on Saturdays. Its getting more and more about the mighty $. Its like some kids now act like getting a full scholarship to play big time college FB isn't enough. Its really a shame to see the direction that the college football is headed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#14
#14
joevol33 said:
Surely you're not suggesting such!?
Click to expand...

Why of course he's not ...

dee-liner-alleged-instagram.jpg


... :eek:hmy:
 
#15
#15
VFL-82-JP said:
I'm no lawyer, but I don't think Universities are putting players on the payroll. Instead, schools are now simply allowed to adjust the value of their athletic scholarships to cover the "full cost of attendance." So the student-athletes' stipends will now include enough to cover costs like transportation, property insurance and storage, etc.

But it's still a scholarship, just like it has always been. Not a paycheck. As I understand it.
Click to expand...

but you can bet that Unka Sam will find a way to take part of it
 
#16
#16
Paying players is fundamentally appropriate. Before most of you were born, we were "paid" what was called "laundry money." It wasn't much but was considered part of college expenses. It was around $27/month as I remember. It was enough to afford a date to a movie at the prices at the time. Most either did their own laundry or pooled with a local mom and the $ went to non-essential things that are essential to college life. We could also work at various jobs during the off season. Some players made a lot of money sweeping the loading dock at Breezy Wynn's factory or washing cars for Reeder's Chevy or whatever. It was work but was well compensated. Now, football season is 12 months and there are no opportunities to work and go to school for athletes. Laundry money got banned, too. There are some athletes that simply come from poverty. It is not fair to expect them to live like hermits in college. I do not condone nor encourage law breaking nor rules violations but absolutely know that the rules must be changed.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top