Coach Nowlin Posted March 3 Posted March 3 do college players get taxed on where they play like NFL? Oh wait, there is ZERO actually rules still. Nevermind..... Quote
Bobref Posted March 3 Author Posted March 3 25 minutes ago, Coach Nowlin said: do college players get taxed on where they play like NFL? Oh wait, there is ZERO actually rules still. Nevermind..... NIL is most certainly taxable income. They get taxed in the state where they are “employed.” I believe it’s Mississippi where legislation has been introduced to make NIL earnings exempt from state taxes … so as to give their state schools a recruiting advantage. 1 Quote
PDB26 Posted March 3 Posted March 3 39 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said: It is interesting to think about...given some states have a decent state tax (not counting local) at/near 10% or higher, if this would ever factor into decision-making by the player. Zero state income tax in Florida, Texas, Tennessee, etc. vs some of these states listed below.... Brendan Sorsby goes to Texas Tech and pays $0 state income tax for his $5M one year deal. He would have lost $665K in state taxes alone had he went to USC. Perhaps the agents/lawyers help them through the state residency issues to avoid that kind of hit. Last time I checked, the vast majority of states tax income at something like 4.5%, although there are a couple of jurisdictions approaching relatively Canadian levels of income tax––as you have noted. 54 minutes ago, Coach Nowlin said: do college players get taxed on where they play like NFL? Oh wait, there is ZERO actually rules still. Nevermind..... Sure, but the NFL and other leagues don't have anything to do with how the players are taxed. Jurisdictions just don't want to lose out on additional tax revenue that they can justify getting at. Quote
Coach Nowlin Posted March 3 Posted March 3 so professional collegiate players are not suspected to the same JOCK TAX that the counterparts are? https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/super-bowl-lx-players-lose-thousands-californias-jock-tax-athlete-income Quote
PDB26 Posted March 4 Posted March 4 35 minutes ago, Coach Nowlin said: so professional collegiate players are not suspected to the same JOCK TAX that the counterparts are? https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/super-bowl-lx-players-lose-thousands-californias-jock-tax-athlete-income They're certainly paying income taxes on NIL income earned in any jurisdiction. They're probably also being subjected to jock taxes for games––or they will be. 1 Quote
Bobref Posted March 4 Author Posted March 4 14 hours ago, PDB26 said: They're certainly paying income taxes on NIL income earned in any jurisdiction. They're probably also being subjected to jock taxes for games––or they will be. The reason Super Bowl players were taxed in California is because they worked there (in California) for at least a week. That’s what California law requires. If it had just been a weekend trip, California taxes would not apply. 1 Quote
Sparty Posted March 4 Posted March 4 2 hours ago, Bobref said: The reason Super Bowl players were taxed in California is because they worked there (in California) for at least a week. That’s what California law requires. If it had just been a weekend trip, California taxes would not apply. Sounds like non California teams playing in a SB, should take a look at this and not stay all week… Quote
Irishman Posted March 4 Posted March 4 4 hours ago, Sparty said: Sounds like non California teams playing in a SB, should take a look at this and not stay all week… Not sure they can do that. Remember the Organization is the NFL. The teams are not individual entities; they are franchises of the NFL. The NFL sets the schedule for Super Bowl week as well as the trips overseas. Franchises have to participate. I may not be saying exactly as it should be, but I think it gets the point across. Quote
Sparty Posted March 4 Posted March 4 10 minutes ago, Irishman said: Not sure they can do that. Remember the Organization is the NFL. The teams are not individual entities; they are franchises of the NFL. The NFL sets the schedule for Super Bowl week as well as the trips overseas. Franchises have to participate. I may not be saying exactly as it should be, but I think it gets the point across. Oh for sure. I then see the SB is in LA next year too. You are saying it perfectly. All good my guy. I get it. Probably just a rant on my part. I don’t remember lol. 1 Quote
Coach Nowlin Posted March 4 Posted March 4 my ole point of conversation is once again to show how much it truly is wild Wild West STILL.......... Quote
Bash Riprock Posted March 5 Posted March 5 21 hours ago, Irishman said: Not sure they can do that. Remember the Organization is the NFL. The teams are not individual entities; they are franchises of the NFL. The NFL sets the schedule for Super Bowl week as well as the trips overseas. Franchises have to participate. I may not be saying exactly as it should be, but I think it gets the point across. Perhaps the union may then wish to stipulate higher payouts for games in which states have higher income tax. If because of the timeframe, Cali state taxes apply, then perhaps the pay should be higher for Super Bowl participants to offset the impact of the higher taxes. Another option is to only have the Super Bowls in more tax friendly states. It would see the NFL does have some options so players don't come out on a losing end for being amongst the best teams in a given year. Quote
Irishman Posted April 3 Posted April 3 Unsustainable https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2026/03/30/what-happens-when-a-200k-college-athlete-gets-a-65k-job-offer FTA: The NIL market has grown from roughly $917 million in 2021-22 to an expected $1.67 billion this season, with revenue sharing set to push that past $2.5 billion. But four years in, the industry is investing almost entirely in the deals, the collectives and the fine print without building anything meaningful on the other end, especially for the majority of athletes who will never go pro. Quote
Coach Nowlin Posted April 7 Posted April 7 Coming off the final 4 and hosts and coaches saying, what about the poor college hoops player who is making 3-750K but then after he is done and has to go work a "regular " job...... for less than 100k or so ..... like somehow that was bad..... I don't know, get a degree.... start there..... 1 Quote
Coach Nowlin Posted April 8 Posted April 8 That post got the classic Community Note !! NCAA is set to potentially announce new eligibility rules: Age limits : 5 years , from time you are 19 or you graduate HS seems to be the number one Some exceptions it seems: Redshirt, Maternity leave, Military, Missions Quote
PDB26 Posted April 8 Posted April 8 1 hour ago, Coach Nowlin said: That post got the classic Community Note !! NCAA is set to potentially announce new eligibility rules: Age limits : 5 years , from time you are 19 or you graduate HS seems to be the number one Some exceptions it seems: Redshirt, Maternity leave, Military, Missions Division 1 hockey coaches are losing their minds over this. 1 Quote
Coach Nowlin Posted April 8 Posted April 8 2 hours ago, PDB26 said: Division 1 hockey coaches are losing their minds over this. they have a system set up differently from my understanding. something like they can have player drafted by NHL, but they can still play College until they use up their 4 years or something like that Quote
PDB26 Posted April 8 Posted April 8 (edited) 2 hours ago, Coach Nowlin said: they have a system set up differently from my understanding. something like they can have player drafted by NHL, but they can still play College until they use up their 4 years or something like that Oh yeah, I don't think this rule affects any players whose professional rights are owned, but the eligibility clock starting at the earlier of high school graduation or a 19th birthday will certainly squeeze the many programs that rely on fielding an older roster to compete with the few programs. For example, Michigan has 11 players aged 20 or younger, while Notre Dame has 3. Ferris State has 6 players under 22. Edited April 8 by PDB26 1 Quote
Bobref Posted April 8 Author Posted April 8 39 minutes ago, PDB26 said: Oh yeah, I don't think this rule affects any players whose professional rights are owned, but the eligibility clock starting at the earlier of high school graduation or a 19th birthday will certainly squeeze the many programs that rely on fielding an older roster to compete with the few programs. For example, Michigan has 11 players aged 20 or younger, while Notre Dame has 3. Ferris State has 6 players under 22. Not sure I understand the significance of an “older” roster with respect to the proposed new rule, so long as they are in compliance. Just curious, but did Notre Dame field any players last season who would have been ineligible if this rule had been in effect then? Quote
Irishman Posted April 8 Posted April 8 What is unique for college hockey is a lot of players will have played what is called junior hockey before going to college. The USHL is a junior hockey league. There are a few leagues in Canada as well as some in Europe. I really enjoy watching the junior world championships. I think this is what creates the unusual collegiate path. the IIHF has an age restriction of 20 for players in the World Championship tournaments also known as U20. So players will attempt that path before going to college. There is also a U18 tournament. So players will choose either a minor league path or college hockey after that. I think baseball and hockey are the only two sports where kids can be the property of a pro team and still compete at the college level. Quote
PDB26 Posted April 9 Posted April 9 16 hours ago, Bobref said: Not sure I understand the significance of an “older” roster with respect to the proposed new rule, so long as they are in compliance. Just curious, but did Notre Dame field any players last season who would have been ineligible if this rule had been in effect then? Good question. Here is the framework: in general, each year a small group of players can and will play in college directly out of their u18 season. These guys get drafted in their u18 year, a portion of them will represent their country, typically the US, once or twice at World Juniors while they are in college, and many of them will not play four years of college hockey because they're already close to prepared to play professional hockey. Players from this group form a steady stream of talent to a small group of programs, and these programs are traditionally and almost always "young" relative to the rest and especially the bottom third of D1. The rest of the field will attempt to season as many less-talented recruits as they can in the junior hockey system for as long as they deem necessary––or as long as they can without losing them to another program––to build an older roster to level the playing field. Add in the possibility of a redshirt and/or a medical year and a program could have at least a few actual men on the team. This effect is graduated and most pronounced when you get to the bottom third of D1 hockey programs. Basically, it's about pitting men vs boys, and it's sort of the M.O. among conference bottom feeders and teams in relatively bad conferences like the CCHA and Atlantic Hockey. ANSWER 1. The proposed rule will prevent teams from employing a strategy that lets them field more competitive teams by aging less-talented players longer in junior hockey as a way to counter the overwhelming talent of the younger teams in division 1. I can't remember exactly when, maybe 10 years ago, Michigan and some of the other blue bloods were campaigning for a maximum freshman age to limit the effectiveness of aging rosters. ANSWER 2. It looks like ND would have had two ineligible players this year with two more on the margin depending on when they graduated high school. Somehow, ND managed to be both not very old and also terrible, so that's really something in the college game. There is a lot to research here, and the best source also makes computers want to die under the weight of ads, so I've given up going through too many rosters. Army and Ferris would have had around 10 ineligible players this season under this rule. Bentley got the Atlantic Hockey tournament qualifier, and they would have had 10 players ineligible or in danger depending on their graduation date. This would likely be the case for the bottom third of D1. Teams in the middle would have a smaller number of these guys. Finally, it's been a while, but Malcolm Gladwell wrote an interesting essay about the concept of relative age in hockey and how the best players frequently come from those born in the early months of the calendar year. Quote
Irishman Posted April 9 Posted April 9 The one sport that does not get mentioned in this that will be impacted in wrestling. There are wrestlers on the 6th, 7th, and 8th year in college from this past season. Still a few from the covid era, but some have had Olympic exemptions along with red shirt years. As PDB put it, it becomes a men vs. boys thing. Quote
Bash Riprock Posted April 17 Posted April 17 On 4/8/2026 at 9:59 AM, Coach Nowlin said: That post got the classic Community Note !! NCAA is set to potentially announce new eligibility rules: Age limits : 5 years , from time you are 19 or you graduate HS seems to be the number one Some exceptions it seems: Redshirt, Maternity leave, Military, Missions NCAA? Does anyone in Div 1 listen to them anymore? Doesn't seem like Power 4 conferences pay much attention. (at least by the major revenue generating sports) OK..being a tad sarcastic.... Quote
Coach Nowlin Posted April 17 Posted April 17 Why would they when NCAA and their HUBRIS started all this..... They have got their ..... handed to them in every court case and still have yet to figure out how to get it back rolling and under control and now are just waiting for good ole UNCLE SAM to bail their mess they created out. HARD PASS. No Pity here 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.