As House v. NCAA settlement unravels, Big Ten ADs are rethinking plans and seeking clarity

[BleedGopher]

Per Scott:

As NCAA officials and conference commissioners alter their tactics amid settlement renegotiations in the landmark House v. NCAA lawsuit, Big Ten athletic department officials are trying to piece together strategies regardless of the outcome.

“We’re remodeling a bunch of different things,” Iowa athletic director Beth Goetz said.

The original settlement, which was agreed to in May, established roster caps to replace scholarship limits for each sport. It also allowed for schools to share 20 percent of an average power-conference athletic department revenue with athletes, which would be roughly $22 million per year beginning in 2025. At a hearing last week, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken expressed concern over the NCAA’s plans to limit outside compensation to athletes and advised attorneys on both sides to “go back to the drawing board.” The sides reconvene Sept. 26.

That leaves Goetz, her fellow Big Ten athletic directors and their coaches in limbo on several key issues, from what to pay players to how many athletes are on a roster. With roster limits set to begin in 2025, football programs are allowed up to 105 scholarships, up from 85. Among scholarship players, Iowa has 69 players returning next year plus 15 committed high school seniors. In addition, the Hawkeyes have 41 walk-on players either committed or with eligibility on the roster. From that group alone, Iowa will have to subtract 20 players just to meet the 105 roster cap. But with no settlement in place, there’s uncertainty at all levels.

“There’s going to be a lot of kids in the portal left without homes, which is a bad situation,” Iowa football general manager Tyler Barnes said. “We’re waiting for a little more clarity from the NCAA, obviously, but I’m going to have to notify parents that, ‘Hey, this 105 is coming. It’s not our choice, but it is coming.’”

The same scenario applies to every power-conference school, and there’s a Title IX component involved with scholarship numbers: Any scholarship increase in a male sport must apply proportionally to the university’s male-female undergraduate enrollment numbers. At Iowa, that balance is 53 percent female; at Minnesota, it’s 55 percent female. So if football or baseball (which was set to move from an 11.7 scholarship limit to a 34-player roster cap) provides full scholarships to every athlete, the athletic department must reciprocate in some way on its women’s teams to stay in Title IX compliance.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5761263/2024/09/12/house-ncaa-settlement-big-ten-finances/?source=dailyemail&campaign=601983&userId=3541214

Go Gophers!!

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Beth’s remodel budget may be squeezed a bit. More sharks emerging. New cases involving former athletes asking for backpay, and equity concerns over football getting more money. This is seemingly just the beginning of what’s possible. Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m making some popcorn.





Then, on Friday, attorneys for college athletes in two other college athlete antitrust cases—Fontenot v. NCAA and Cornelio v. NCAA—similarly asked Wilken to deny preliminary approval. Their overarching concern is that their cases, which, like House/Carter/Hubbard, accuse the NCAA and its member schools of violating antitrust law by conspiring to limit athlete compensation, remain separate and not preempted by settlement terms. They also find the settlement to be woefully inadequate for athletes and critique it for “adopting economic assumptions favorable to the NCAA.” They argue claims in Fontenot are worth over $24 billion but would net just $600 million under the settlement. They also argue the settlement offers nothing for claims raised by Cornelio, which concerns partial scholarship amounts and are (allegedly) worth over $300 million.

Back to the objectors. Their core argument is the settlement would continue to deprive college athletes, particularly women athletes, of their rightful compensation and illogically substitute one illegal cartel for another.

House Settlement Faces New Onslaught of Athlete Challenges

The settlement process for House v. NCAA is entering a more contentious stage as objections and oppositions are filed.

www.sportico.com

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Judge Wilkin has heard the revised settlement proposal



The ball is now in Wilken’s court. She could schedule another hearing or directly rule on the motion. Wilken could also permit other interested parties to file objections (there are already objections from attorneys representing crew athletes and Division I athletes waging antitrust litigation in Colorado) and hold hearings to evaluate their arguments.

Wilken is obligated under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the settlement is “fair, reasonable and adequate.” The judge is mindful that the NCAA, conferences and colleges are accused of price fixing, colluding and other violations of federal antitrust law. She’s unlikely to authorize a settlement that fails to correct the underlying behavior that has inflicted economic harms on athletes.

Even if Wilken grants preliminary approval, that doesn’t mean she’ll grant final approval. She’ll then look at how many athletes opt out and hear concerns raised in a fairness hearing. There’s also the possibility the settlement could be challenged at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and then at the U.S. Supreme Court. It could be years before the settlement is actually in force. The settlement could also collapse along the way, and the three lawsuits would then return to the docket. The NCAA could rationally decide that it would likely win the three lawsuits given applicable precedent.

One structural problem for the settlement is that it resembles a labor agreement without labor having a voice. So long as college athletes aren’t recognized as employees, they won’t be able to unionize. That means any restraints on their economic opportunities will be fair game for antitrust litigation, since the non-statutory labor exemption only insulates collectively bargained terms from antitrust exposure. And no matter what happens with the settlement, it can’t stop labor and employment lawsuits (including Johnson v. NCAA), NLRB charges (including those involving Dartmouth and USC athletes) and, especially given that male athletes would receive more money than female athletes under the settlement, lawsuits brought under Title IX.

Wilken has also indicated she’s keeping tabs on college sports developments. She surely noticed Wednesday’s controversy involving UNLV and quarterback Matthew Sluka, who claims the school promised him $100,000 to transfer from Holy Cross (UNLV denies the allegation). Wilken might surmise the situation is emblematic of her view that NIL has morphed into a marketplace. She might figure attempts to restrain or guardrail that market ought not to emerge through a litigation settlement, but instead through athletes having a direct voice.

But the NCAA doesn’t seem deterred. In a statement, the association said the amended settlement proposal “addresses questions” that were “raised by the judge during the preliminary hearing.” The association also says the revisions will “limit future enforcement authority over third-party NIL deals” and enlarge “opportunities for student-athletes to profit from their NIL and provide both clarity and transparency to those seeking to offer or accept NIL deals.”

NCAA, Players File Revised House Antitrust Settlement

The future of the NCAA rests in the hands ofJudge Claudia Wilken, who will decide whether to grant preliminary approval of the House settlement.

www.sportico.com

 

[short ornery norwegian]

I am no lawyer, but based on what I've read about the case - and the Judge's comments - I think the heart of the matter comes down to whether the NCAA will be allowed to place any controls on 'outside' NIL payments.

from the NCAA's point of view, they were hoping that the settlement would bring some certainty to the question of NIL - by having the schools make direct payments to athletes, and simultaneously imposing new limits or controls on outside NIL payments by collectives or individuals.

But, if the Judge says that any limits or controls on NIL will not be allowed, then from the NCAA's point of view, the settlement could turn out to be worse than the current state of affairs - because the schools would be on the hook for millions in direct payments, and the 'pay for play' NIL would continue unchecked. in that case - I could see the NCAA saying "screw it, we'll take our chances at trial." I have seen at least some legal analysts suggest that the NCAA might actually have a decent chance of winning at trial.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I am no lawyer, but based on what I've read about the case - and the Judge's comments - I think the heart of the matter comes down to whether the NCAA will be allowed to place any controls on 'outside' NIL payments.

from the NCAA's point of view, they were hoping that the settlement would bring some certainty to the question of NIL - by having the schools make direct payments to athletes, and simultaneously imposing new limits or controls on outside NIL payments by collectives or individuals.

But, if the Judge says that any limits or controls on NIL will not be allowed, then from the NCAA's point of view, the settlement could turn out to be worse than the current state of affairs - because the schools would be on the hook for millions in direct payments, and the 'pay for play' NIL would continue unchecked. in that case - I could see the NCAA saying "screw it, we'll take our chances at trial." I have seen at least some legal analysts suggest that the NCAA might actually have a decent chance of winning at trial.

Yep, AFAIK we only have one Supreme Court justice Kavanaugh on record as saying the NCAA’s pro-competitive rules don’t pass the rule of reason tests. Whether the majority agree… especially given the shot show we’re witnessing is arguable.

Reading between the lines of Wilkens statements and questions she is highly suspicious of this baby splitting. It doesn’t make any sense, solves nothing.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Maybe it's time for schools to get out of the sports game.

 

[GopherinPhilly]

Time for collective bargaining and employment contracts since there is no amateur anymore playing football or men's basketball.

 

[csom_1991]

The same scenario applies to every power-conference school, and there’s a Title IX component involved with scholarship numbers: Any scholarship increase in a male sport must apply proportionally to the university’s male-female undergraduate enrollment numbers. At Iowa, that balance is 53 percent female; at Minnesota, it’s 55 percent female. So if football or baseball (which was set to move from an 11.7 scholarship limit to a 34-player roster cap) provides full scholarships to every athlete, the athletic department must reciprocate in some way on its women’s teams to stay in Title IX compliance.

Literally everything wrong with college and college sports today - forcing a product on consumers that they have no willingness to purchase otherwise. Applies equally to women's sports (in a day and age where our Supreme Court nominees cannot even define a woman) as it does to 3rd World Literature classes at the U. You want a degree - you take the useless courses that do not prepare you for life or a career. You want football - you must subsidize women's rowing and whole host of other sports where the only fanbase consists of blood relatives of the players.