My conference tidbit

[synapticwave]

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.

A corporation is a corporation, if you're better at marketing your corporation than I am and you do more business than me then there's nothing wrong with that, that's a free market. Same principle applies to non-profits. If a new organization springs up tomorrow that does a great job of marketing itself (even if it does a worse at the actual job) at disaster recovery, and as a result the red-cross brings in less and does less business then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, congrats to the guys that made the new company.

As for whether education is driving conference re-alignment. A university could easily argue that the athletics department is a fund-raising arm of the university and that by partnering with other/different institutions it will be able to raise more money that it will actually add X Million dollars to the general university fund (like Texas, OSU and several other schools already do). In that sense, it's a business decision for the corporation that will help it succeed in educating even more students.

I guess I'm just trying to do is point out that the "threaten the tax-exempt argument" that alot of people seem to think is a slam dunk, isn't necessarily an easy win and that it is a weaker position than a lot of people seem to think if they think it will somehow save ISU athletics in the next 2 weeks as the dominoes start to fall.

 

[shadow]

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.

Fun fact: did you know that the NFL (not the individual teams mind you) is a non-profit organization?

The Nonprofit Quarterly | @npquarterly | The Rooney Rule: NFL's Race Problem

Why is this a nonprofit issue? Remember that the National Football League is a tax exempt organization, a 501(c)(6) “business league.” The Fritz Pollard Association that certifies that NFL teams have complied with the Rooney Rule is also a tax exempt 501(c)(6) organization. Remember that the NFL’s unusual tax exempt nonprofit was a topic for Nonprofit Quarterly when it tried to get Congress to relieve it from having to file an IRS 990 that might disclose what it did with its typical $200 million annual budget, especially regarding salaries and compensation for its top and middle level but well paid executives.

Guess who in Congress tried to change that?

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/nonprofit/2008/08/tax-exempt-supe.html

However, in recent years the IRS has proposed new rules to require most of the more than 1.6 million nonprofit organizations in the country to disclose much more information, including salaries of many more key employees. The rules go into effect this year. The NFL is resisting.
According to the Times report, the football league is asking Congress for an exception to the requirement of publicly disclosing the names and salaries of employees at NFL headquarters who make more than $150,000 a year. The NFL is arguing that it is not a charity that receives public donations. Rather, it argues, it is a trade association financed by the teams that make up the league. The owners of these teams, the league argues, can ask for salary information at any time. But the general public? Joe Browne, the NFL's executive vice president for communications and public affairs, says no public purpose can be served disclosing more trade-group salaries.
On the other side of the playing-field (well, battlefield, if you prefer that term), the IRS and some outside experts on nonprofit law say there is indeed a public interest in disclosing top salaries for all tax-exempt groups: to assure that these salaries are not excessive.
At least one referee is not impressed with the NFL's arguments. The Times reports that:

Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who is considered a nonprofit expert on the Senate Finance Committee, said all organizations that benefit from tax-exempt status should provide the same public information of their finances.

“Disclosure helps keep everyone honest,” Grassley said in a written statement. “If, as requested, professional associations like the NFL are allowed to keep salary information from the public, other tax-exempt groups would ask for the same treatment. This would be contrary to the goal of increasing transparency and accountability from tax-exempt organizations to the public.”
​

We wait to see who'll win this battle.

 

[synapticwave]

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 think that's almost the ENTIRE point of university athletics, they should directly benefit the academic success of the university and Texas has found a way to not only help educate nearly 1000 students involved with their athletics department, but also give $5M back to the general university fund.

If ISU's budget suddenly jumped $15M/year I would fully expect part of that to go back to the university. In fact, in terms of re-alignment, schools could easily say, the only way we can operate the athletics arm of the university and give back to the general education above and beyond the scholarships we already pay for, is if we sign these new bigger TV deals. It's just a business move for us so we can better help the university educate.

I do see both sides of the argument here, I'm sort-of playing devils advocate, but if we take off our cardinal and gold glasses where we are looking for ways to stay in BCS conferences, then I think this argument is weaker than we would like to think it is.

 

[kingcy]

I think that's almost the ENTIRE point of university athletics, they should directly benefit the academic success of the university and Texas has found a way to not only help educate nearly 1000 students involved with their athletics department, but also give $5M back to the general university fund.

If ISU's budget suddenly jumped $15M/year I would fully expect part of that to go back to the university. In fact, in terms of re-alignment, schools could easily say, the only way we can operate the athletics arm of the university and give back to the general education above and beyond the scholarships we already pay for, is if we sign these new bigger TV deals. It's just a business move for us so we can better help the university educate.

I do see both sides of the argument here, I'm sort-of playing devils advocate, but if we take off our cardinal and gold glasses where we are looking for ways to stay in BCS conferences, then I think this argument is weaker than we would like to think it is.

If ISU athletics got $15M more dollars a year it would still not make as much as Iowa. If ISU athletics got $15M more it needs to put it all into coach retention and facality updates. Besides the BB facality the rest of what ISU has to work with is a joke compaired to other schools.

 

[cyatheart]

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."

Who would report it? The Register barely covers ISU, the Gazette? Please.

I am not saying it is true or not, but a nuclear bomb could go off on the ISU campus and the local media wouldn't know about it till it showed up on an AP news feed, and even then they would wait till the next day to report it.

 

[cyatheart]

I think that's almost the ENTIRE point of university athletics, they should directly benefit the academic success of the university and Texas has found a way to not only help educate nearly 1000 students involved with their athletics department, but also give $5M back to the general university fund.

If ISU's budget suddenly jumped $15M/year I would fully expect part of that to go back to the university. In fact, in terms of re-alignment, schools could easily say, the only way we can operate the athletics arm of the university and give back to the general education above and beyond the scholarships we already pay for, is if we sign these new bigger TV deals. It's just a business move for us so we can better help the university educate.

I do see both sides of the argument here, I'm sort-of playing devils advocate, but if we take off our cardinal and gold glasses where we are looking for ways to stay in BCS conferences, then I think this argument is weaker than we would like to think it is.

I don't think it matters what anyone's definition is other than a person that might want to make a stink about it and has the power to at the every least cause waves. I doubt any political effort will save us but it has to be tried.

 

[synapticwave]

Fun fact: did you know that the NFL (not the individual teams mind you) is a non-profit organization?

The Nonprofit Quarterly | @npquarterly | The Rooney Rule: NFL's Race Problem

Guess who in Congress tried to change that?

Nonprofit Law Prof Blog: Tax-Exempt Superbowl: IRS vs. The NFL

I did not know the NFL was a non-profit, but I'm not surprised. I did know that grassley was the non-profit guru in the senate and that he's pushed for reforms. But I'm pretty sure that all he's been able to do so far is push for greater transparency so we can all see what employees are paying. I also don't think there's enough support behind any major changes to the tax code that could be perceived as hurting education or other non-profit sectors.

I'm hoping like hell that we find our way into a BCS conference when this all goes down, I just don't think it's going to involve anything related to tax-exempt status.

 

[rebecacy]

I never would have thought a tuesday morning coffee corner discussion would create such an uproar. I was trying to deliver some positive news and said from the gitgo that 'you could take it or leave it.' Now I feel like I need to submit to a polygraph test.

 

[acgclone]

I never would have thought a tuesday morning coffee corner discussion would create such an uproar. I was trying to deliver some positive news and said from the gitgo that 'you could take it or leave it.' Now I feel like I need to submit to a polygraph test.

I don't think anyone's questioning your honesty rebecacy, and I wouldn't take it as such. Things are still very much up in the air as you know, and people are still debating the possible scenarios. Even with your "body language" update, there are still numerous ways to interpret the way things play out.

 

[VTXCyRyD]

I never would have thought a tuesday morning coffee corner discussion would create such an uproar. I was trying to deliver some positive news and said from the gitgo that 'you could take it or leave it.' Now I feel like I need to submit to a polygraph test.

Nah, I appreciate what you let us know. It makes me feel a little better in all of this.

 

[Stormin]

I never would have thought a tuesday morning coffee corner discussion would create such an uproar. I was trying to deliver some positive news and said from the gitgo that 'you could take it or leave it.' Now I feel like I need to submit to a polygraph test.

Not necessary for me. Appreciate your info. Dr. Gene Lloyd's first wife is from my area. She passed away. And Dr. Lloyd and his present wife still make some donations in honor of her memory. IMO, that is one high character classy couple.

Dr. Lloyd and GG are extremely close it appears. My brother went fishing in Canada with both of them just last year. My brother said they were both awesome guys. You would NEVER know that they were as influential as they are. Just great guys.

Those guys would know ISU's options. I find it encouraging that they figure we will have a good landing spot.

 

[Im4State]

I never would have thought a tuesday morning coffee corner discussion would create such an uproar. I was trying to deliver some positive news and said from the gitgo that 'you could take it or leave it.' Now I feel like I need to submit to a polygraph test.

Don't worry about it. I for one appreciate the insight and it's made me feel better. It's hard for all of us (I assume all carry degrees from ISU) when we have poured so much into the institution. I for one have an undergrad degree and next spring will have my MBA from ISU. I'm not too thrilled if we get crapped on conference wise and it makes my degrees look worse in the future.

This conference stuff could have HUGE ramifications on the academic side and I for one am worried about that too.

 

[Arkansas Cyclone]

I never would have thought a tuesday morning coffee corner discussion would create such an uproar. I was trying to deliver some positive news and said from the gitgo that 'you could take it or leave it.' Now I feel like I need to submit to a polygraph test.

Actually I think the majority in this thread were supportive and appreciative of the information and only one called you out purely for a personal reason. I've felt all along that ISU would end up being all right (although you could never be 100% sure) and hearing this made it all that much easier to believe. Thanks for the info!

 

[delt4cy]

Here's my issue with the arguments against "the threat of changing the tax status"-

1. It was pointed out in a previous post that Athletic departments are now used as primary fundraising sources with ties to academic success and progress.

2. Then the "marketing" theory, if I'm better than you, I make more sales was pointed out.

My problem with the above arguments, and I stated it earlier in this thread, there are public Universities that face a grave threat as a result of these Athletic and revenue driven decisions. I'm all for Universities and athletic departments striving for as much $ as they can get, but when their actions threaten existing academic opportuntity, that is where someone needs to step in.

No one knows the direct ramifications for schools such as ISU and KSU but it potentially could be a death blow in ways far worse than on the athletic field.

Exp. Students from Minnesota and Chicago form a key piece of the enrollment. Currently in a prospective students mind, Iowa State is nearly Big10 caliber since it's in a "Big Time" conference and has Big12 competition. Take that away and to the 17 year old mind there isn't much difference between Indiana State, Illinois State, or Iowa State.

ISU turning into a secondary midwest school is my greatest fear.

 

[Trice]

This conference stuff could have HUGE ramifications on the academic side and I for one am worried about that too.

This honestly is as big, if not bigger, of a concern than the athletic side. I don't think people understand how many research dollars, prospective students, jobs, etc. are potentially at stake here.

If we go Conference USA or whatever, that hurts our perception significantly, even on the academic side. It would probably be more of a long, slow decline rather than a lightning strike. But it certainly could happen.

 

[acgclone]

Here's my issue with the arguments against "the threat of changing the tax status"-

1. It was pointed out in a previous post that Athletic departments are now used as primary fundraising sources with ties to academic success and progress.

2. Then the "marketing" theory, if I'm better than you, I make more sales was pointed out.

My problem with the above arguments, and I stated it earlier in this thread, there are public Universities that face a grave threat as a result of these Athletic and revenue driven decisions. I'm all for Universities and athletic departments striving for as much $ as they can get, but when their actions threaten existing academic opportuntity, that is where someone needs to step in.

No one knows the direct ramifications for schools such as ISU and KSU but it potentially could be a death blow in ways far worse than on the athletic field.

Exp. Students from Minnesota and Chicago form a key piece of the enrollment. Currently in a prospective students mind, Iowa State is nearly Big10 caliber since it's in a "Big Time" conference and has Big12 competition. Take that away and to the 17 year old mind there isn't much difference between Indiana State, Illinois State, or Iowa State.

ISU turning into a secondary midwest school is my greatest fear.

This is exactly what I fear as well.

 

[rebecacy]

Not necessary for me. Appreciate your info. Dr. Gene Lloyd's first wife is from my area. She passed away. And Dr. Lloyd and his present wife still make some donations in honor of her memory. IMO, that is one high character classy couple.

Dr. Lloyd and GG are extremely close it appears. My brother went fishing in Canada with both of them just last year. My brother said they were both awesome guys. You would NEVER know that they were as influential as they are. Just great guys.

Those guys would know ISU's options. I find it encouraging that they figure we will have a good landing spot.

I have no worries and I am a rabid worrier. As JP said.... read websites and the media speculation for fun and amusement only. Not facts.

 

[Palmer]

I have no worries and I am a rabid worrier. As JP said.... read websites and the media speculation for fun and amusement only. Not facts.

I have always enjoyed your tidbits.

I think you should take the week off and hang around campus and get scoops.

 

[WalkingCY]

This aspect has to help us in a new conference:

College Rankings right here:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/ran...

Big 12
15. Texas A&M
19. Texas
68. Iowa State
80. Baylor
113. Missouri
145. Oklahoma State
152. Kansas
187. Oklahoma
189. Kansas State
215. Texas Tech

Big Ten
10. Michigan
29. Wisconsin
33. Michigan State
38. Illinois
42. Ohio State
45. Minnesota
47. Penn State
67. Northwestern
79. Purdue
108. Indiana
126. Iowa
140. Nebraska

 

[Wesley]

Here's my issue with the arguments against "the threat of changing the tax status"-

1. It was pointed out in a previous post that Athletic departments are now used as primary fundraising sources with ties to academic success and progress.

2. Then the "marketing" theory, if I'm better than you, I make more sales was pointed out.

My problem with the above arguments, and I stated it earlier in this thread, there are public Universities that face a grave threat as a result of these Athletic and revenue driven decisions. I'm all for Universities and athletic departments striving for as much $ as they can get, but when their actions threaten existing academic opportuntity, that is where someone needs to step in.

No one knows the direct ramifications for schools such as ISU and KSU but it potentially could be a death blow in ways far worse than on the athletic field.

Exp. Students from Minnesota and Chicago form a key piece of the enrollment. Currently in a prospective students mind, Iowa State is nearly Big10 caliber since it's in a "Big Time" conference and has Big12 competition. Take that away and to the 17 year old mind there isn't much difference between Indiana State, Illinois State, or Iowa State.

ISU turning into a secondary midwest school is my greatest fear.

Item One is why the UT LHN is making an annual donation of $5M to education.