My conference tidbit
- Thread starter rebecacy
- Start date
If I posted something here asking for his help on something, think I'd get a response? :spinny::spinny::spinny:
They got involved in Roger Clements' steroids case, and that involves less money than college football anti-trust issues. Why wouldn't they get involved?
I havnt read this whole thread but the message the OP is sending out is a different message than was in the athletic dept last week. Things to change fast but not that fast.
I hear this argument a lot: "there is so much more money involved now and the athletic departments are profiting money from this that they should lose their tax-exempt status." I'm not sure I understand why bringing in more money or profiting from athletics would be grounds for losing tax-exempt status? I'm not disagreeing with this view necessarily, I just don't understand it. And I'll concede there are other parts to the tax-exempt status debate besides revenues and profits, but more revenue and profits have really no bearing on whether an organization is classified a non-profit tax-exempt corporation in the tax code.
In fact, if there were limits on revenues or profits then the red-cross should be taxed as well with a budget of nearly 2 Billion dollars and their revenues from the sales of products and services operates at fairly high profit margins. Likewise, mega-churches bring in millions of dollars in revenue and some pay their staffs very hansomly.
I just don't see an argument for "their making a profit so they can't be a non-profit." The term "non-profit" doesn't actually mean you can't make a profit and as long as your purpose is charitable, educational, religious, scientific or a literary activity you can be a non-profit. In the case of college football, all the schools have to say is, "we are educating up to 1000 kids every year that otherwise couldn't afford an education." and you've pretty much fulfilled your obligations toward education. Could schools more efficiently educate kids...maybe, but all the schools have to say is that the cost of doing business is what it is, we have to pay our head marketer...echkhem...head coach...top dollar because they are so good at bringing in donations, and he needs all these facilities in order for us to continue to bring in all the donations. It's a vicious circle, but it's necessary.
Again, I don't necessarily disagree that there's something wrong with college athletics and the athletics departments at major universities could jeopardize non-profit tax-exempt status. But I'm also not convinced that US Senators or anyone else for that matter would be all that successful in playing this card.
Last edited:
I don't want to throw the OP under the bus here but the more I think about this...
How do 2 members of the US Senate and 3-4 members of the US House of Representatives share a suite with Pollard and Geoffrey and not a single person in the media picks up on it?
How do 2 members of the US Senate and 3-4 members of the US House of Representatives share a suite with Pollard and Geoffrey and not a single person in the media picks up on it?
Non-Profit isn't about size, it's about mission and impact. And the fact that they are tied to Universities, not an NFL farm league (which the NCAA already is basically, and would be more or less formalized by a move to superconferences).
Which is also why certain megachurches are getting looked into for their tax exempt status, and some bowls have also been hit with stuff for their actions that don't reflect being a non-profit.
Which is also why certain megachurches are getting looked into for their tax exempt status, and some bowls have also been hit with stuff for their actions that don't reflect being a non-profit.
It is not the idea of the departments making more money, it is the idea that their actions to make more money have a negative affect on another university and their educational funds. The idea of the athletics being non-profit is that they are first and foremost an educational institution. It has been shown time and time again that educational values are not being put first and foremost during these conference realignments and thus would lead to the idea that education is not driving this bus, money is.
Rumor has it that the media was watching a football game. I assume that it was ISU-UNI and not another game a couple hours drive away...
Because it's not that big of a deal, and probably happens quite a bit, and will probably happen this week as well.
I hear you, but why then does Texas give $5million per year of their $15 million LHN fees to the academic side? In my view it is to tie that contract to education and deflect any who view that as a questionable venture for an academic institution.
I understand that but i doubt anyone has any idea to what is going to happen and making a change isnt the reason we had guests from DC at the game.
I disagree with your premise that it "probably happens quite a bit", but with realignment in the news there is no way in this Internet age a media member says "Eh, no big deal."
They represent Iowans. They both live in Iowa. And, they were out of session. Both Harkin and Grassley will attend numerous ISU football games this and next fall - there are elections.
Exactly. When its being clear they are completely disregarding their educational mission and making all their decisions because of athletics (collectively spending billions on facilities for a small percentage of their students that are in their athletic programs, while simultaneously cutting back in academic areas and raising tuition), their nonprofit status must be questioned.
