Vote expected this week to settle NCAA class-action lawsuit

More craziness - will jack up costs into more $billions and lead to labor unions among players. This is what happens when federal judges mess up local governing bodies. The NCAA had it right for decades: full ride scholarships were pay enough.
 

on the collectives - I've seen people speculating that the "pay for play" form of NIL will be rolled into the revenue-sharing system and administered through the schools, which would essentially eliminate the collectives.

but I've also seen people speculating that the collectives will continue to operate as a supplement to the official revenue-sharing. it all depends on how the details are worked out over the next 6 to 9 months.

either way, I presume that individual athletes will retain the right to pursue their own personal NIL deals for jerseys, posters, endorsements, camps, autograph signings, etc.

IF that were to happen we might get a better idea of the actual number and amount of deals out there. Will it eliminate the bagmen funneling donations to Big21 LLC though, if the official channel will “ask questions” and throw up compliance roadblocks. And, I have questions on the ability of a suddenly cash flow poor NCAA and athletic departments to enforce any rules or their incentive to enforce any rules.
 

More craziness - will jack up costs into more $billions and lead to labor unions among players. This is what happens when federal judges mess up local governing bodies. The NCAA had it right for decades: full ride scholarships were pay enough.

Already reading diametrically opposed opinions on distributions and eg Title IX or non-rev players. Some are already allowing themselves to think about the money.

The math is pretty startling though. If a school with say, 600 athletes divides a hypothetical $20M equally that’s $33K each/yr. If 96% goes to football/basketball players that’s $198k each/yr. Assumes equal divisions. The initial euphoria over the settlement will soon lead to warfare over equal pay. Eligibility challenges. Sounds like the settlement gives no guidance, each school or conference is on the hook to decide…
 

More craziness - will jack up costs into more $billions and lead to labor unions among players. This is what happens when federal judges mess up local governing bodies. The NCAA had it right for decades: full ride scholarships were pay enough.
From a strictly black and white perspective, I can't disagree with your statement that the NCAA had it right in the beginning with full rides being it. However, the NCAA had a responsibility to alter their rules to let the players make money in different ways once the schools started making exponentially egregious amounts of cash in football and basketball. Instead, if a kid tried to sell his autograph, he got jettisoned from being able to compete at an amateur level. The NCAA failed to evolve. They could've made small changes for athletes to make money that would've maintained a sense of integrity and legitimacy throughout the system and keep everyone sated, but they didn't bother and here we are.
 

From a strictly black and white perspective, I can't disagree with your statement that the NCAA had it right in the beginning with full rides being it. However, the NCAA had a responsibility to alter their rules to let the players make money in different ways once the schools started making exponentially egregious amounts of cash in football and basketball. Instead, if a kid tried to sell his autograph, he got jettisoned from being able to compete at an amateur level. The NCAA failed to evolve. They could've made small changes for athletes to make money that would've maintained a sense of integrity and legitimacy throughout the system and keep everyone sated, but they didn't bother and here we are.

This doesn’t really settle anything, but uncorks a lot of new questions.

Collusion to limit compensation is still at the top of the list. Instead of scholarships and cost of attendance insert capped and potentially fixed revenue payments. Some hope congress will now say, hey, sure they threw some fractional percentage, 20% instead of 10% of revenue -and likely in some unfair way - to the athletes and the schools are immune from antitrust law. Justice Kavanaugh would set down his Hamm’s before busting out in laughter.
 


Already reading diametrically opposed opinions on distributions and eg Title IX or non-rev players. Some are already allowing themselves to think about the money.

The math is pretty startling though. If a school with say, 600 athletes divides a hypothetical $20M equally that’s $33K each/yr. If 96% goes to football/basketball players that’s $198k each/yr. Assumes equal divisions. The initial euphoria over the settlement will soon lead to warfare over equal pay. Eligibility challenges. Sounds like the settlement gives no guidance, each school or conference is on the hook to decide…
Does it say that is the only money that can be used?
 

Anyone who thinks Congress will do anything about this no matter who is in control needs to lay off the LSD...
 

Does it say that is the only money that can be used?

If I’m understanding your question right then yes, there is a revenue “salary cap” at some percent (starts at 22%) of the 69 power conference school average revenues which was about 100M. That can include the existing cost of living payments. The 22% is in addition to scholarship costs estimated at 15% of average revenues for a P5. Obviously Ohio State can absorb the hit much easier than Minnesota.

So, combined costs are getting closer to the NFL’s ~50% revenue share except the college players have to share their revenue with 400-800 other athletes at their schools…and a laughably bloated administrative employee pool.

One can see where if players are compensated based on value that creates incentives for schools to cut costs and dead weight to extent allowable under law, if they want to compete in a marketplace. From the revenue players perspective if revenues are distributed equally across a department they are absolutely getting screwed which should stimulate interest in even more antitrust suits, but versus the schools and conferences this time. That’s why everyone is eager to get this donkey of a deal across the finish line. Hoping the players take the bait.

If somebody with ulterior motives is urging you to take the deal, it’s probably a bad one. What will Huma be Stahl be able to organize in the short time they have to help the players avoid this, opt out.
 

The future of non-revenue sports is going to be interesting.
 



I'm surprised this isn't getting more discussion.


"The $2.8 billion settlement in the House v. NCAA case, a landmark legal battle, has far-reaching implications anchored by revenue sharing and the expansion of roster sizes, which might also spark more legal battles with Title IX implications. In the immediate future, the legal settlement is transformative for players because not only will past athletes be compensated for prior restrictions on earning from their name, image, and likeness via the $2.8 billion settlement, but the agreement sets the stage for a future revenue-sharing model, a first in the NCAA's long history, benefiting thousands of collegiate athletes starting as soon as Fall 2025."




"It also creates a new system that allows schools to use up to $21 million a year to pay student-athletes. Geoff Bennett discussed the deal with Pat Forde."

 

Can anyone read this thread...and have any interest whatsoever in 'college' football?
 





Top Bottom