House v. NCAA settlement approved: Landmark decision opens door for revenue sharing in college athletics

[auror]

The women's team isn't requiring anywhere near the men's team in NIL now orngoing forward. The big deals Paige got were brand deals.

And UConn women will be much more likely to get those big brand deals than any other team's athletes just by the power of the UConn brand.

 

[huskymedic]

 

[dvegas]

Kind of ironic, Grant House is a swimmer, and swimming is one of the Olympic sports that's going to ruined (on the mens side) by winning the lawsuit

 

[champs99and04]

Do you actually think a SEC school with millions tied up in football is going to concede a recruiting battle in basketball to a Big East program sans football because, you know, the money just isn't in the budget, according to the rules? LOL. When it comes to that, not all basketball staffs, but certainly lots, will simply do what they've always done, i.e., find a way to get the player even if it requires circumventing the rules.

House v. NCAA settlement quells issues in college sports? No, but be prepared for a whole new type of chaos

The landmark decision passed down on Friday opens the door for a new slew of issues across the landscape

www.cbssports.com

I don't think anyone's suggesting that the Big East is going to have this massive advantage over the SEC and Big Ten. When all is said and done, it'll probably still be at a slight disadvantage.

But it's also quite the departure from the doomsday scenarios people have been forecasting here for years. Anything that levels the playing field financially even a little bit works in the Big East's favor because of the advantage it has in geography, fan support, and tradition. The days of John Calipari riding a helicopter into South Orange and taking Seton Hall's best player without any resistance are likely over, and that should come as a major relief to the conference.

 

[HooperScooper]

I don't think anyone's suggesting that the Big East is going to have this massive advantage over the SEC and Big Ten.

Isn't that exactly what many articles recently have been saying, including one I posted above?

Here are a few articles on the subject that I found with a Google search. I don't know if this is what will happen but it seems it's a lot more than nobody suggesting this.

Could impending rev-share changes help Cinderellas in the future? 'Everybody will be in the game'

As the college sports industry sits on the brink of historic change, an unexpected spending disparity looms — and some mid-majors will be able to take advantage of it in basketball.

sports.yahoo.com

Basketball-centric schools without football may soon gain major advantage. Here's how.

If House vs. NCAA settlement is approved, opening door to revenue-sharing with athletes, schools that care more about basketball may have an edge.

www.usatoday.com

Big East Basketball’s Huge Potential to Lead Revenue-Sharing After House Settlement

Monday could be an enormous day in college sports — and not just because March Madness will come to an end with the national championship game.

www.si.com

The Big East Is Taking Over College Basketball—Here’s Why | College Sports Recruiting | 2aDays News

College Sports Recruiting: Big East basketball is booming—find out how revenue sharing and no football focus could give them a recruiting edge over Power Five rivals.

www.2adays.com

With Revenue Sharing on the Way, Is the Big East Sitting Pretty?

Once Upon A Time, the Big East Conference reigned supreme over the Land of College Basketball. Born in 1979, this brainchild of a mad genius named Dave Gavitt enjoyed a rapid rise by monopolizing major media markets from Washington, D.C., to New York City to Syracuse, N.Y. Behind great players...

www.hoopshq.com

The biggest winners and losers from House v. NCAA settlement: Amateurism is dead and the class divide grows

Down to the availability of all "student-athletes" to enjoy the free dining, college athletics will never be the same

www.cbssports.com

 

[Dogdeacon]

And UConn women will be much more likely to get those big brand deals than any other team's athletes just by the power of the UConn brand.

That’s good if true and those deals are legit and will be approved by the official NIL collective.

I don’t follow it (eg Paige’s deals though I think I read a headline that she was getting as much NIL money as any college athlete) but generally there is the feeling that lots of the NIL is fabricated pass thru of alumni monies paying players.

 

[husky429]

That’s good if true and those deals are legit and will be approved by the official NIL collective.

I don’t follow it (eg Paige’s deals though I think I read a headline that she was getting as much NIL money as any college athlete) but generally there is the feeling that lots of the NIL is fabricated pass thru of alumni monies paying players.

I think you're fundamentally misnderstanding how the process works. The collectives have nothing to do with Paige's big Nike/Gatorade/Madison Reed deals and whatever else there is. All they do is distribute the money they collect as far as I understand. They don't have any influence to negate any secondary deals.

Paige's NIL deals are legitimate markets contracts: pump our product on social media, get x amount. Her influence online has real value to national brands.

The collectives are the sketchy bit. Some kids are getting big money for taking a couple pictures for a billboard and signing autographs for an hour at a car dealership.

 

[SubbaBub]

You'll never put the money genie back in the bottle. They only way forward is to have these guys sign contracts and put some constraints on transfers. Both of which the NCAA has the power to do. No one is entitled to eligibility.

The constraint will be the greed of the P2/P4 programs. Their model is based on limiting competition.

 

[Greg]

From reading the article/decision it seems like 'losers' will also be schools with big football and basketball programs AND any school that features a top echelon women's hoop team.

My read is there's roughly $20.5M to allocate to major sports. So it could be that say at Florida it'll be tough for them to continue basketball resurgence given football's prominence and need for much of the $20.5M they can pay out. For example I saw elsewhere the Texas is pre-planning to allocated 75% to football and 15% to men's basketball - that leave 2M (not much) for all other sports including all women's sports.

Meanwhile the problem UConn might face is the Women's hoop team commanding comparatively more money especially if they continue to get/want a big share of the most highly ranked players. I guess it matters most what the UConn Women's team will be competing against though and other schools with great women's hoop teams have football to compete against and likely men's basketball as well.

Any guesses on the UConn split for those 3 biggest revenue generating sports?
What about Soccer? Field Hockey, Hockey?! I'm sure there's more.

I think this is a huge win for uconn hoops. Uconn should not apply 75pct to foot ball. Probably 50 pct 25 for mbb 20 for wbb and 5 for everyone else. Should allow for long term hoops dominance.

 

[Dogdeacon]

I think you're fundamentally misnderstanding how the process works. The collectives have nothing to do with Paige's big Nike/Gatorade/Madison Reed deals and whatever else there is. All they do is distribute the money they collect as far as I understand. They don't have any influence to negate any secondary deals.

Paige's NIL deals are legitimate markets contracts: pump our product on social media, get x amount. Her influence online has real value to national brands.

The collectives are the sketchy bit. Some kids are getting big money for taking a couple pictures for a billboard and signing autographs for an hour at a car dealership.

My understanding of the new rules/law is that there is a separate special committee that approves every NIL deal. So as I And you said if the deals are legit that’s fine but in theory they are all now scrutinized.

 

[husky429]

My understanding of the new rules/law is that there is a separate special committee that approves every NIL deal. So as I And you said if the deals are legit that’s fine but in theory they are all now scrutinized.

Your comment I responded wasn't about deals going forward.

 

[husky8273]

My understanding of the new rules/law is that there is a separate special committee that approves every NIL deal. So as I And you said if the deals are legit that’s fine but in theory they are all now scrutinized.

NIL Go by Deloitte is the NIL clearinghouse, “NIL Go”: Deloitte Establishes Basic Framework to Review Third-Party NIL Deals

 

[huskymedic]

There will be a lot of AD arm-wrestling/tug of wars across the landscape over the next year:

 

[Dogdeacon]

Your comment I responded wasn't about deals going forward.

Not sure I understand, isn't all we are talking about the new legislation and how it impacts everything going forward?

The article huskymedic links that is mostly about BC also highlights the problem but in a different way (all BC major sport teams suck). The UConn conundrum is that the women's hoop team legit deserves more than typical model allocations of the 20.5M AND by far recruits the most prominent women's athletes, possibly in any sport. I'm simply saying it will be complicated and may be tough to feed all of those mouths.

 

[CL82]

Do you actually think a SEC school with millions tied up in football is going to concede a recruiting battle in basketball to a Big East program sans football because, you know, the money just isn't in the budget, according to the rules? LOL. When it comes to that, not all basketball staffs, but certainly lots, will simply do what they've always done, i.e., find a way to get the player even if it requires circumventing the rules.

House v. NCAA settlement quells issues in college sports? No, but be prepared for a whole new type of chaos

The landmark decision passed down on Friday opens the door for a new slew of issues across the landscape

www.cbssports.com

And third-party NIL is a convenient and proven methodology to do just that.

 

[UCann]

I think way too much of the thinking about all this is ignoring that NIL is still a thing. This $20.5M now becomes the floor for most competitive schools, not the ceiling. As far as I know, there is no limit on NIL, so all that gets added on top.

This means, for example, that UConn could decide to use the entire amount on sports other than Basketball because we know we can generate lots of NIL for those programs but not for things like Football. As another example. the Big10 and SEC schools could allocate the vast majority to basketball because they know they can raise tons of $ in NIL for football, meaning its not as much of a win for the Big East as people may seem to think. Who knows how it plays out, ideally there should be a cap on NIL to level the playing field.

 

[JDForever]

And third-party NIL is a convenient and proven methodology to do just that.

A few questions.
I thought the 20.5 million was a cap that each School was limited by. Where do the schools get the 20.5 million to give to the student athlete? Does it have to come from revenue that the sports return to the school? Who exactly decides which students get how much?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Do you actually think a SEC school with millions tied up in football is going to concede a recruiting battle in basketball to a Big East program sans football because, you know, the money just isn't in the budget, according to the rules? LOL. When it comes to that, not all basketball staffs, but certainly lots, will simply do what they've always done, i.e., find a way to get the player even if it requires circumventing the rules.

House v. NCAA settlement quells issues in college sports? No, but be prepared for a whole new type of chaos

The landmark decision passed down on Friday opens the door for a new slew of issues across the landscape

www.cbssports.com

There are few news articles that reflect a bigger ignorance gap than when a sportswriter tries to write about college finances.

UConn should have a big advantage over most schools in NIL deals for men's and women's basketball, and if they don't, then the school needs to do something about it. UConn is the only show in town in a rich state with lots of corporations headquartered here.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I don't think anyone's suggesting that the Big East is going to have this massive advantage over the SEC and Big Ten. When all is said and done, it'll probably still be at a slight disadvantage.

But it's also quite the departure from the doomsday scenarios people have been forecasting here for years. Anything that levels the playing field financially even a little bit works in the Big East's favor because of the advantage it has in geography, fan support, and tradition. The days of John Calipari riding a helicopter into South Orange and taking Seton Hall's best player without any resistance are likely over, and that should come as a major relief to the conference.

Nothing enrages about 10% of our fanbase more than an article that is remotely positive about the conference or the future of UConn athletics. I am talking berserker, smashing the keyboard as they type kind of rage.

 

[TRest]

A few questions.
I thought the 20.5 million was a cap that each School was limited by. Where do the schools get the 20.5 million to give to the student athlete? Does it have to come from revenue that the sports return to the school? Who exactly decides which students get how much?

Me too, just because Seton Hall can spend up to $20 million doesn’t mean it has that much available. Or UConn for that matter.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Me too, just because Seton Hall can spend up to $20 million doesn’t mean it has that much available. Or UConn for that matter.

The same goes for all the SEC and Big 10 schools. There isn't $20 million just lying around at any school.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

I've not been convinced that the Big East will top to bottom have an advantage - UConn, St John's seem "in" to spend. Marquette doesn't seem in. There are several others that are definitely not in, including Seton Hall. Time will tell.

First of all UConn doesn’t count as a Big East School for obvious reasons
Second of all,;
The assumption that a school like Villanova
With the Big East’s second largest entire athletic budget at less than $40,000,000 is going to come up with an extra amount of money approaching $20,000,000 is being a tad optimistic.
These numbers get thrown around of millions of $$ but the reality only the top schools can realistically approach additions to their athletic budgets in those amounts as most are already losing money
These things tend to have a life of their own it’s too soon to predict how this decisions will shake out.but other than a small % of scholar athletes it looks like everyone else loses unless you think eliminating competition is a good thing .
As for financials ,
I think initially the NCAA is coming up with a % of the money for past players out of a contingency fund . Stealing money from men’s basketball to pay football players is typical. . My understanding is that is a one time thing . After that it up to the schools . For a school like Ct that means the taxpayers who subsidize the annual shortfall . At least NIL was voluntary.
However a possible extremely negative outcome is large loss of total athletic scholarships, That would be a loss to society.

 

[CL82]

A few questions.
I thought the 20.5 million was a cap that each School was limited by. Where do the schools get the 20.5 million to give to the student athlete? Does it have to come from revenue that the sports return to the school? Who exactly decides which students get how much?

Theoretically, this settlement involved a sharing of athletic department revenue with athletes. I believe the $20.5 million figure was an agreed-upon "average athletic department revenue" figure. So the dollar amount is a figure of convenience and schools can pay up to that amount to student athletes. But all that is based upon briefly, glancing at articles and participating in this thread, so take it with a grain of salt.

@huskymedic is usually pretty up-to-date on this stuff. I'm tagging him so he can fill in the blanks and correct any statements.

 

[auror]

I think way too much of the thinking about all this is ignoring that NIL is still a thing. This $20.5M now becomes the floor for most competitive schools, not the ceiling. As far as I know, there is no limit on NIL, so all that gets added on top.

This means, for example, that UConn could decide to use the entire amount on sports other than Basketball because we know we can generate lots of NIL for those programs but not for things like Football. As another example. the Big10 and SEC schools could allocate the vast majority to basketball because they know they can raise tons of $ in NIL for football, meaning its not as much of a win for the Big East as people may seem to think. Who knows how it plays out, ideally there should be a cap on NIL to level the playing field.

As part of the agreement, the NCAA is trying to limit 3rd party/booster/collective NIL deals with athletes that are purely pay to play payments disguised as NIL. They agreed to a mechanism where NIL deals must be for legitimate business purposes and within a range of compensation that reflects fair market value for similarly situated athletes without considering recruiting and the player's roster value.

So yes, schools can still work to get players NIL on top of the revenue sharing. But it is likely to be trickier to do than it used to be in recent years. At least legally. There is a lot of speculation that these new rules will cause a lot of the money to go back underground, but that does limit some of the contributions that were able to happen because it was mostly above board.

A lot of the booster money that was going to players as pay to play through collectives for NIL is going to get donated directly to universities again in part to fund the $20.5 million in revenue sharing (as a tax deduction). Schools that can fully fund that 20.5 million themselves with revenue will probably be able to find more money to give to players from boosters underground or through legitimate NIL deals that will be approved by the new enforcement.

 

[champs99and04]

Isn't that exactly what many articles recently have been saying, including one I posted above?

Here are a few articles on the subject that I found with a Google search. I don't know if this is what will happen but it seems it's a lot more than nobody suggesting this.

Could impending rev-share changes help Cinderellas in the future? 'Everybody will be in the game'

As the college sports industry sits on the brink of historic change, an unexpected spending disparity looms — and some mid-majors will be able to take advantage of it in basketball.

sports.yahoo.com

I think there's a bit of gamesmanship going on with the P4 in the same way an experienced coach might try to work the officials for a few more calls. You're right in that it'd be very easy to interpret some of the headlines that way, but reading between the lines it seems like a lot of it is just sour grapes from p4 coaches lamenting the fact that they won't be able to maintain the same advantage they've had the last few years. Perhaps I'm wrong though and that the Big East really will be at a huge advantage.

 

[champs99and04]

So yes, schools can still work to get players NIL on top of the revenue sharing. But it is likely to be trickier to do than it used to be in recent years. At least legally. There is a lot of speculation that these new rules will cause a lot of the money to go back underground, but that does limit some of the contributions that were able to happen because it was mostly above board.

The thing about the old way of paying players is that they were actually getting far closer to market value than what they've been getting legally the past few years. Deandre Ayton was offered, what, $200k? Now we have kids that were second team all-SWAC commanding close to $1 million. The market was wildly, wildly inflated by the absence of guardrails, and that was never going to continue.

The question moving forward isn't whether boosters will be able to continue paying players. That's always going to happen, whether it's legal or not. The question is whether the money boosters can offer will even be financially significant compared to what they're getting from the schools (and in some cases, real NIL), particularly if we return to a system where players can't be free agents every year.

The reality is that most of these college players - even the good ones - simply aren't worth that much. The people that shelled out $2 million for a Rutgers transfer to average 8 & 7 were either flatly duped or way too attached to the program. That's never going to happen again, and for good reason.

 

[HooperScooper]

I think there's a bit of gamesmanship going on with the P4 in the same way an experienced coach might try to work the officials for a few more calls. You're right in that it'd be very easy to interpret some of the headlines that way, but reading between the lines it seems like a lot of it is just sour grapes from p4 coaches lamenting the fact that they won't be able to maintain the same advantage they've had the last few years. Perhaps I'm wrong though and that the Big East really will be at a huge advantage.

I'm also skeptical that the SEC and B1G, with all of their resources, are going to let the Big East teams gain an advantage. We'll see what happens.

 

[TRest]

The same goes for all the SEC and Big 10 schools. There isn't $20 million just lying around at any school.

Those schools have a massive advantage from media contracts, they all make over $20 million in conference payouts now. They will get creative in how it’s allocated in the future.

 

[auror]

Those schools have a massive advantage from media contracts, they all make over $20 million in conference payouts now. They will get creative in how it’s allocated in the future.

It's a lot easier to cut out 20% of fat from the budget then generate $20 million in extra revenue.

 

[UCann]

As part of the agreement, the NCAA is trying to limit 3rd party/booster/collective NIL deals with athletes that are purely pay to play payments disguised as NIL. They agreed to a mechanism where NIL deals must be for legitimate business purposes and within a range of compensation that reflects fair market value for similarly situated athletes without considering recruiting and the player's roster value.

So yes, schools can still work to get players NIL on top of the revenue sharing. But it is likely to be trickier to do than it used to be in recent years. At least legally. There is a lot of speculation that these new rules will cause a lot of the money to go back underground, but that does limit some of the contributions that were able to happen because it was mostly above board.

A lot of the booster money that was going to players as pay to play through collectives for NIL is going to get donated directly to universities again in part to fund the $20.5 million in revenue sharing (as a tax deduction). Schools that can fully fund that 20.5 million themselves with revenue will probably be able to find more money to give to players from boosters underground or through legitimate NIL deals that will be approved by the new enforcement.

This is helpful, thanks. Agree it becomes "trickier" but let's be real, there's no way to really argue what is "market value" and what is not. Market value or roster value is whatever someone is willing to pay for something. I don't think schools will have trouble defending whatever they want to pay. I think the key would be a cap on NIL budget. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

We should be at an advantage as a state school, and being the only game in town. I mean a tax of $5-10 per person in the state per year would more than fund the $20.5M. Would people really push back against that for teams that mean so much to the state? Private schools have more of a challenge and larger states would have to deal with multiple schools with large programs.