California has actually addressed this in some capacity for the states largest schools. Note that it is for career ending injuries only though. I have no idea what defines that though. But at least they do get their tuition and medical bills taken care of.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...thletes-pac-12

Meh. Im all for paying the players, but injured players still get the free ride. They just get a waiver and don't count towards the 85 scholarship limit.

Something to think about that I heard on Mike and Mike this morning.....

Currently, athletic scholarships are considered grants in aid, which are not taxable.

If student/athletes are to be considered employees of the schools (with the main reason to be considered employees is that their scholarships are considered compensation)...would their scholarships then be considered taxable income? :doh!:

And here's another wrinkle...

Most (if not all) grants are done directly to the institution. The student never gets a "check", and in the case of institutional scholarships, money never actually changes hands at all.

If they become employees and get a paycheck, not only will that be taxable, but that income will be issued TO THE STUDENT. At that point, like any work-study job, it becomes the student's money to do with as the please.

What happens when 30+ athletes at a school suddenly default on their tuition payments because they decided to spend that money on something else?

No they don't by anything that I am seeing. I already provided one link that seems to dispel this notion. Is there is some type of off the book waiver that can be utilized if the school wants? In this case below, it looks like if their scholarship isn't renewed, no more free ride. If they did get the tuition, these guys wouldn't have had to sue, and have their case dismissed.

"The athletic scholarships held by plaintiffs at the time of their injuries were good for one year only, and needed to be renewed to be valid for any subsequent seasons. When plaintiffs’ injuries prevented them from playing football, their scholarships were not renewed."

http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?s=&d=55940

Their tuition for that academic year is covered, but not beyond that. This is one reason the Northwestern guys are asking for four year scholarships.

This is all theoretical at this point, but the ultimate outcome might be the existing scholarship plus a potentially taxable stipend.

Cool.


Start taxing these athletes for the "income" they are receiving over and above the average student in their universities and colleges.

Reading is fundamental. As I stated, a serious injury will be covered - if its not serious, that's another story.

If you read the articles you linked, the first one clearly states (1) the player is not in jeopardy of losing his scholarship
and (2) it is not as bad of an injury as being depicted The article is just an insane 'uproar' because it was possible that he could loose his scholarship. How outrageous that players that can play, have to play in order to have school paid for! Next thing you know, they'll want students on academic scholarships to maintain good grades!

In the second article, you fail to understand how insurance disputes and scholarship status don't mix. The NCAA has a catastrophic coverage policy for the really bad injuries. Outside of that, coverage comes via existing policies and coordination with school coverage. As in every coordination of benefits situation, one insurance will be denoted as the primary and the other as secondary and disputes often arise in who pays what, particularly if there is suspicion that the injury may have not occurred while playing sports for the university.

In that article, Hardrick was covered under his parent's policy per their admission and was diagnosed with a quad injury for the second injury. Later, an MRI showed he had a torn ligament... was it from the same injury, or something else? The MRI was taken and billed to his insurance that the parents stated they had him covered with... but now don't want to pay? Thus the dispute.

Joseph Agnew didn't have serious injuries - he had nagging injuries. His lawsuit wasn't so much about getting his injuries covered but not realizing that if he decided he couldn't / didn't want to perform, he could lose his scholarship. He got what he wanted in that schools can now offer multiyear scholarships.

Seriously, next time put some effort into it instead of just a quick google search.

You must understand, the search for victimhood must always be rapid and shallow, lest awkward facts be uncovered...

Can Northwestern just remove all scholarships from the players filing because they are now no longer considered students? They can now pay for everything they get. If these guys want to be treated like adults then go ahead and do so.

You are a moron. I didn't cite the Ware article that he lost anything. Only that it was possible he could have not had his medical expenses taken care of and his scholarship lost which is true and you acknowledged this yourself. But of course in a high profile case that wouldn't happen.

The Hardrick link was about his scholarship and tuition being lost you idiot and that they now had to pay the tuition. You said an injury still leaves school being paid, which isn't true. That is why I quoted the part dealing specifically with tuition. Same thing with the Agnew case. It was about his tuition no longer being covered, not medical things.

Your rambling doesn't refute anything I am saying. Students can have scholarships not renewed due to injury, which means no more free education. And even beyond that, they can have scholarships not renewed due to performance. In that scenario, what is truly more important? The athletics or the academics?

Edit - the idea you suggest that they should have to reach a certain level of injury to keep their scholarship is just plain stupid. Agnew had to pay his own tuition in his senior year.

LMAO

Go ahead and tell me I am wrong. I won't hold my breath.

The whole point of this exercise is that some people act as though the free education is some guarantee and that they should all be grateful. It is not. And it can be taken away for injury or performance. That certainly doesn't sound like the NCAA values "student" over "athlete."

So again this applies. If receiving the free education is completely dependent upon the athletics, the ability to stay healthy, follow every rule, and maintain good productivity in competition, which of athletics and academics is truly the more important focus? (Hint: there is only one correct answer)

I don't know how actually paying money would work (it seems like a good idea on the surface), but I definitely see no drawback in at least guaranteeing they get tuition paid for for four years. Especially when they want to pretend the academics come first. If they get the athletic scholarship taken away, sure you could take away the free room, meals, etc. but not the tuition.

Boosters will happen.