Jump to content

Hilltopper

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,337

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    105

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Hilltopper

  3. NCAA TAX EXEMPT?

    in General UA & Campus Discussion

    Posted

    21 hours ago, Sergeant Zip said:

    80 / 20 rule is gone too.

     

    Minnesota issued a letter

     

    "This change to tax law would mean Scholarship Seating contributions will no longer be 80 percent tax-deductible."

    So did UA.

     

    "

    YEAR-END GIFTS AND TAX LAW CHANGES

    Dear Friend of Akron Athletics,
     
    Thank you for your generous support and investment in the success of our UA student-athletes through your annual donation to the Z-Fund.  Your continued support makes a tremendous impact on our 450 student-athletes to excel in the classroom, in competition, and in the community.
     
    As you are aware, Congress has recently passed changes to the tax code which will be signed by the President by the end of this week.  The proposed changes will have an impact on your philanthropic gifts to Akron Athletics.  For example, current IRS policy allows for donations related to priority ticket access for collegiate events to be tax-deductible for 80% of the total gift amount.  The new legislation eliminates the provision allowing individuals to deduct charitable contributions connected to athletics tickets.  With this new lRS policy, future donations to the Z-Fund for ticket purchases may no longer be considered tax-deductible.  We ask that you consult your tax advisor for your exact charitable contributions deductibility.
     
    At this time, Akron Athletics does not have any plans to adjust the donation structure of the Z-Fund seating programs for Men's and Women's Basketball, Football, and Men's Soccer, but we are actively looking at the new policy and considering how to structure our benefits in the future.
     
    It may be to your advantage to make any planned donations you are currently considering prior to the end of this 2017 tax year to guarantee tax-deductibility under current tax law.  For example, you may consider making a one-time gift that can be prorated by UA over a period of years toward future Z-Fund seating donation requirements.
     
    Our Athletics Development staff will be happy to personally assist you with any questions you may have related to your generous support or with a gift to Akron Athletics.  You may contact the Z-Fund staff by calling one of the following development officers Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m:
                           

    Anthony Henderson (330) 972-7117 or  ahender@uakron.edu

    Tim Faix (330) 972-8502 or  tfaix@uakron.edu

    George Van Horne (330) 972-8255 or  ghvanhorne@uakron.edu

     
    Any contributions made by December 31, 2017, would be deductible according to current tax laws.  Please contact your tax advisor about your specific situation and the impact of the new IRS Tax Law.
     
    Thank you for your support of Akron Athletics and investing in our student-athletes' success.  We wish you and your family all the best during this holiday season."

  5. Game 13—@Western Michigan

    in Akron Zips Basketball

    Posted

    7 hours ago, skip-zip said:

    You know, this isn't going to make this season any better by continuing to belabor the Dambrot issue.

     

    But note the following:

     

    1) Keith didn't leave because he saw some kind of Apocalypse coming for Akron's program.  

    2) Noah and Antino would have still been here.  

    3) Considering our current situation, YES, I absolutely wish we still had Hughes.  

    1. No argument.

    2. Antino was already on his way out the door when KD left. Noah would still be here. Don't forget that Williams was leaving too. His departure had nothing to do with KD leaving.

    3. Hughes had to have some major surgery on both of his legs and wouldn't have played this year anyways. 

    • Like 1

  8. Will Bowden get a contract extension?

    in Akron Zips Football

    Posted · Edited by Hilltopper

    The final word.

     

    https://projects.newsday.com/college-football-coaches-salaries-contracts/terry-bowden/

     

    Base compensation

    2017 guaranteed pay: $406,000

    Total contract pay: $3,630,000

    Contract length: 9 years

    Start date: 12/22/2011

    Last amended: 8/1/2016

    Expires: 2/28/2021

    Incentives

    CFP semifinal appearance:$50,000

    Conference title bonus: $50,000

    Conference regular season division title bonus: $25,000

    Coach of the year award bonus:$15,000 for MAC coach of year;

    Academic bonuses: $5,000 for graduation rate of 70%; $10,000 for 75%; $20,000 for 80%; $5,000 for APR of 935; $10,000 for 960; $20,000 for 970; $10,000 for team GPA of 2.75; $20,000 for 3.0; $20,000 for fewer than 50 “failing grades of withdraws of team members”; $10,000 for 51 to 75.

    Car: one car

    Golf/country club: $6,000 stipend to cover country club costs.

    Other Perks

    Miscellaneous perks: $12,000 expense allowance for entertainment; $1,000 annually from Wilson for endorsing footballs

    Buyout if coach leaves for another coaching job: $400,000 before 2/28/18; $300,000 before 2/28/19; $200,000 before 2/28/20; $100,000 before 2/28/21.

    • Like 1

  10. Will Bowden get a contract extension?

    in Akron Zips Football

    Posted

    4 hours ago, ZippyRulz said:

     

    "http://www.uakron.edu/bot/docs/2016/Board Book for August 16, 2016.pdf"

     

    Athletics There are 5 personnel actions in Athletics for changes to Head Coaching Contracts: 1. Terry Bowden, Head Football Coach – two-year contract extension; change in stipend for apparel and footwear contract from $25,000 to $30,000; relinquish administrative stipend for club membership and insert new language to support club membership; change in Academic Progress Rate bonus structure for Head Coach in Exhibit A and Assistant Coaches in Exhibit B of Employment Contract 2. Keith Dambrot, Head Men’s Basketball Coach – one-year contract extension 3. Noreen Herlihy, Head Women’s Soccer Coach – three-year contract extension 4. Jenny King, Head Women’s Golf Coach – new employment contract 5. Brandon Padgett, Head Women’s Tennis Coach – new employment contract

     

    So if I understand it, he was previously signed thru 2018 and was extended in Aug. 2016 (after the tater bowl season) for 2019 and 2020. I have no memory of hearing about that last year - either it flew totally under the radar or I need to see my gerontologist soon.

     

     

     

    Nice work. I guess that answers my question. I hope Bowden is able to move the program to the next level.

  16. Article on College soccer

    in Akron Zips NCAA Championship Soccer

    Posted

    A good read. It appears to me that the Zips are just the type of program he is begging for. Unfortunately when it comes to the post season the other style of play prevails most often. Size and speed with an emphasis on defensive prowess will beat finesse if the referee swallows his whistle. For what ever reason we seem to have culture in the USA that in the post season we accept the concept of "just let them play". 

  19. Net Neutrality

    in Off Topic, Smack & Jokes

    Posted

    It disincentives the exact things you want it to do. There are already remedies available to prevent ISP's from blocking or throttling content. Lawsuits can be filed using existing FCC regulations that were in place before NN was enacted. If the ISP's try to throttle the public outcry will be tremendous. More government regulation is not always the answer to every possible issue in life. 

  20. Net Neutrality

    in Off Topic, Smack & Jokes

    Posted

    1 hour ago, ZachTheZip said:

    What free market, Hilltopper? There is not a free market for ISPs. In a free market this would self-regulate, but for vast swaths of America there is only one ISP for people to choose from. People living outside cities are not at the mercy of their one choice of a company that connects them to the world, that allows them to find work and conduct business with anyone beyond their own town. You can't even get a fast food job without applying online anymore.

    Where in the NN regulations did it say that multiple ISP's had to expand into underserved markets? If anything the NN rules discouraged expansion. Here is a pretty good explantion of both sides of the issue.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/28/one-law-professors-overview-of-the-confusing-net-neutrality-debate/

     

    "The most notable aspect is that net neutrality has become a social justice cause. Progressive activist groups of all stripes have come to believe that net neutrality is essential to and allied with their causes. I do not know how this happened – but it is frustrating, because net neutrality is likely adverse to many of their interests. One hears lots of stories about how activists are using the Internet, and how small, typically minority-owned, businesses rely on the Internet and therefore on net neutrality. The reality is that there is exceptionally little reason to believe that any ISP would ever do anything to hurt these users. The general animating fear of net neutrality is that ISPs want to move to a “pay-to-play” model, charging those putting content online to deliver that content to users.

    But there simply isn’t enough revenue to be generated from charging most of these users to make it worth the ISPs time (not the mention the political costs that ISPs would face if they did). Moreover most of these users do not deliver their own content, but instead rely on third party providers. There are many stories of people producing video content who are worried that net neutrality will make it impossible for them to reach users – despite the fact that most of them use YouTube to deliver the content. And, as I said above, if net neutrality rules decrease investment they hamper efforts to close the digital divide, harming already marginalized and disadvantaged communities.

    The most frustrating of these stories, which relates back to the innovation theories above, is that there is a pervasive belief that net neutrality is needed in order for entrepreneurs to enter the market. The concern is that ISPs would charge start-ups a prohibitive amount in order to get access to ISPs’ customers on terms sufficient for start-ups to compete with firms such as Google and Netflix. This is tragic because almost all of today’s big content providers – the Googles and Netflixes – have invested massively in “content delivery networks.” These are networks that allow their content to bypass almost the entire Internet, dramatically improving performance. In other words, they have already paid for prioritization – they just haven’t paid ISPs for that competitive benefit. Start-ups don’t have access to (or need to pay a pretty penny for access to) services such as these. Allowing ISPs to charge for prioritized performance would give start-ups a lower-cost alternative to CDNs that could give them a competitive advantage (or help remedy a competitive disadvantage). The reality is that most start-ups don’t need that sort of performance assistance (so would not be harmed) – but those offering complex-enough services would have access to a valuable new offering.

    It also must be noted that for many (most?) people net neutrality is about regulating ISPs. ISPs are reviled. They are known for bad customer service, they always seem to be too slow, they cost too much (especially bad since they’re mere middlemen, not providing anything of value – just access to content providers’ things of value), and when anything on the Internet isn’t working it’s their fault (e.g., if Netflix is down, users blame their ISP, not Netflix). In this context, “net neutrality” is about “having the FCC regulate Comcast so it will have better customer service and I’ll have someone to complain to when Comcast raises its rates.” Never mind that net neutrality has nothing to do with this. This is why many people are in favor of Title II, utility-style, regulation for ISPs. We don’t like ISPs so we should regulate them; end of story.

    The last comment that I will make is how I think about this entire issue: it’s just the latest example of a fight between bilateral media oligopolists. “Big content” and “big distribution” have always fought over how to split the rents they extract from consumers, users have always distrusted distributors, and content providers have always used this to their advantage. From this perspective, the net neutrality rules are pure rent seeking by a content/edge industry that had largely captured the previous FCC."

×
×
  • Create New...