House v. NCAA settlement approved: Landmark decision opens door for revenue sharing in college athletics | Page 3 | The Boneyard

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now they're trying to determine the penalties for not adhering to the new rules. SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey has proposed no penalties. I kid. Kind of. :)

Hours after the House v. NCAA settlement was approved on Friday, former MLB executive Bryan Seeley was named CEO of a new enforcement organization called the College Sports Commission. His job will be to lead the team responsible for enforcement of the new rules around revenue sharing, third-party payments to players for NIL deals, and roster limits.

One of the biggest questions, though, is what happens when those rules are broken?

ACC commissioner Jim Phillips, who spoke Monday on a Zoom news conference with fellow commissioners Greg Sankey (SEC), Tony Petitti (Big Ten), Brett Yormark (Big 12) and Teresa Gould (Pac-12), said they've all had ideas, but nothing they're "ready to come forward with." Ultimately, Phillips said, the rules and boundaries will be under Seeley's purview.

www.espn.com

Conference commissioners bullish on new NIL enforcement

College conference commissioners are bullish on their ability to enforce NIL rules in a new system days after a multibillion-dollar legal settlement changed college athletics by allowing schools to directly pay their athletes.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
 
Excerpt from AD in his latest letter regarding the settlement:

As I have conveyed previously, we need to double our overall donor participation in terms of Husky Athletic Fund members and contributions, in order to continue competing at the highest level.
 
Rashadsmask said:
Excerpt from AD in his latest letter regarding the settlement:

As I have conveyed previously, we need to double our overall donor participation in terms of Husky Athletic Fund members and contributions, in order to continue competing at the highest level.
Expand ...
 
HooperScooper said:
Now they're trying to determine the penalties for not adhering to the new rules. SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey has proposed no penalties. I kid. Kind of. :)

Hours after the House v. NCAA settlement was approved on Friday, former MLB executive Bryan Seeley was named CEO of a new enforcement organization called the College Sports Commission. His job will be to lead the team responsible for enforcement of the new rules around revenue sharing, third-party payments to players for NIL deals, and roster limits.

One of the biggest questions, though, is what happens when those rules are broken?

ACC commissioner Jim Phillips, who spoke Monday on a Zoom news conference with fellow commissioners Greg Sankey (SEC), Tony Petitti (Big Ten), Brett Yormark (Big 12) and Teresa Gould (Pac-12), said they've all had ideas, but nothing they're "ready to come forward with." Ultimately, Phillips said, the rules and boundaries will be under Seeley's purview.

www.espn.com

Conference commissioners bullish on new NIL enforcement

College conference commissioners are bullish on their ability to enforce NIL rules in a new system days after a multibillion-dollar legal settlement changed college athletics by allowing schools to directly pay their athletes.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
Expand ...
I don't get how the athletes can be bound like this unless it is part of their scholarship agreement. I would think athletes should collectively bargain for more
 
JohnFSilver said:
I don't get how the athletes can be bound like this unless it is part of their scholarship agreement. I would think athletes should collectively bargain for more
Expand ...
They're not employees, so they can't collectively bargain. They'd have to sue to be employees first, which, well, there's an ongoing case (Johnson vs. NCAA) that the NCAA has been so far unable to keep from progressing that might do that soon. Especially now with revenue sharing compensation adding fuel to the fire and ending the NCAAs amateurism claims. (And then after that you have to solve how some NCAA student athletes would then be public state employees who can't collectively bargain by state law).

But the House judge was a bit concerned with future athletes as well, discussing the potential of each subsequent yearly class of student athletes becoming a new "class" for class action purposes in one of the hearings. But I think in the end she basically just punted on it and said this is about payments to previous athletes and in satisfying those plaintiffs in the settlement the NCAA changed rules. But the agreement does not make a legal consideration as to whether those changes would prevent an anti-trust challenge from future athletes.

And I don't think the NCAA will win a challenge by the booster 3rd parties contesting the NCAA limiting non-employee athletes earning potential. They had to get rid of the transfer sit out year because you can't limit a non-employee's ability to earn compensation, and I see this as similar.
 
.-.
TRest said:
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.
Expand ...

They had spent every nickel of that money before the House settlement. It isn't like there is a new revenue stream, just new expenses.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
They had spent every nickel of that money before the House settlement. It isn't like there is a new revenue stream, just new expenses.
Expand ...
Well some schools did, but plenty of athletic departments with those huge media rights distributions and CFB playoff payouts actually turned a profit on the books more than $20 million, even after removing student fees and state support from the revenue.

But either way, a lot of the spending by the P5 was extravagant, superfluous, and ostentatiously used as a recruiting tool. Or didn't actually generate a competitive advantage and can be reduced now that money is the primary recruiting tool.

Also, in a way the ADs have opened up a new revenue stream. The NCAA allowing the schools to do what the collectives were previously doing now allows those collective donors to donate that money directly to the school to have the same effect in directly supporting roster construction.
 
auror said:
Well some schools did, but plenty of athletic departments with those huge media rights distributions and CFB playoff payouts actually turned a profit on the books more than $20 million, even after removing student fees and state support from the revenue.

But either way, a lot of the spending by the P5 was extravagant, superfluous, and ostentatiously used as a recruiting tool. Or didn't actually generate a competitive advantage and can be reduced now that money is the primary recruiting tool.

Also, in a way the ADs have opened up a new revenue stream. The NCAA allowing the schools to do what the collectives were previously doing now allows those collective donors to donate that money directly to the school to have the same effect in directly supporting roster construction.
Expand ...

The money was going somewhere. Now there are $20 million of new expenses.

If a business is living off a revenue stream and suddenly $20 million of new expenses show up, it will have an impact.
 
This all depends on how much net revenue is left - a lot of athletic departments spend nearly everything and more already.

But if UConn athletics has $20M to distribute, it has to be applied across all teams. Basketball is an 'equivalency' sport now.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
The money was going somewhere. Now there are $20 million of new expenses.
Expand ...
Yes, the money will be going somewhere else now. In a lot of cases, the point was that it wasn't really needed where it was going before. The SEC and Big Ten have plenty of money to run an athletic department and share 20 million of their revenue. The Big 12 and ACC can do it, but have to be a bit more tight with their expenses.
 
Lafayette said:
This all depends on how much net revenue is left - a lot of athletic departments spend nearly everything and more already.

But if UConn athletics has $20M to distribute, it has to be applied across all teams. Basketball is an 'equivalency' sport now.
Expand ...
I’m not sure that is true… do you have a link to where it mandates the revenue be shared across all sports in the AD portfolio?
 
.-.
auror said:
Yes, the money will be going somewhere else now. In a lot of cases, the point was that it wasn't really needed where it was going before. The SEC and Big Ten have plenty of money to run an athletic department and share 20 million of their revenue. The Big 12 and ACC can do it, but have to be a bit more tight with their expenses.
Expand ...

It wasn't needed where it was going before unless you were the one getting it. Do you know a lot of universities that are flush and have $20 million lying around every year that they can spend on things they were not spending it on before? Which universities are those?
 
nelsonmuntz said:
It wasn't needed where it was going before unless you were the one getting it. Do you know a lot of universities that are flush and have $20 million lying around every year that they can spend on things they were not spending it on before? Which universities are those?
Expand ...
Considering basically every high major is going to spend the $20 mil on revenue sharing seemingly without drastic changes, it does appear many did have it lying around, or at least within arm's reach.
 
Well it was nice enjoying college athletics for the last 30+ years. This is the beginning of the end. It's all based on an utterly flawed assumption that the athletic contributions of these players, without the marketing power of these schools is worth something. It's really not, or at least, very little.
 
HuskyHawk said:
Well it was nice enjoying college athletics for the last 30+ years. This is the beginning of the end. It's all based on an utterly flawed assumption that the athletic contributions of these players, without the marketing power of these schools is worth something. It's really not, or at least, very little.
Expand ...
I can take only so many Auburn and Alabama games. Boring as sheet
 
HuskyHawk said:
Well it was nice enjoying college athletics for the last 30+ years. This is the beginning of the end. It's all based on an utterly flawed assumption that the athletic contributions of these players, without the marketing power of these schools is worth something. It's really not, or at least, very little.
Expand ...
They’ll learn the hard way once the golden goose is cooked. We root for the jersey on the front not the back.
 
auror said:
Considering basically every high major is going to spend the $20 mil on revenue sharing seemingly without drastic changes, it does appear many did have it lying around, or at least within arm's reach.
Expand ...
Michigan must have short arms because they project they are $15m short after budget gimmicks and revenue adjustments…
 
.-.
huskymedic said:
Michigan must have short arms because they project they are $15m short after budget gimmicks and revenue adjustments…
Expand ...
Michigan budgeted 250 million in "expenses". UConn spent 100 million in expenses. One of those programs is actively monitoring its budget, the other is throwing money around and could reduce its budget if it actually got serious.

Michigan isn't actually reducing its budget because they're hosting less home football games this year. They'll make $20 mil more next year so it'll be a wash with the shortfall this year.

They're adding 82 new scholarships. They're not actually trying to reduce their budget, because they don't have to.
 
auror said:
Michigan budgeted 250 million in "expenses". UConn spent 100 million in expenses. One of those programs is actively monitoring its budget, the other is throwing money around and could reduce its budget if it actually got serious.

Michigan isn't actually reducing its budget because they're hosting less home football games this year. They'll make $20 mil more next year so it'll be a wash with the shortfall this year.

They're adding 82 new scholarships. They're not actually trying to reduce their budget, because they don't have to.
Expand ...

It is amusing to read posts by “financial experts” that have no idea about the F5 tornado ripping through college finances right now.
 
BigTenFan said:
How will the 20 million be split among all sports?
Expand ...
The conferences, especially the power conferences, are suggesting that schools follow the formula for the back pay to also dictate the revenue sharing. But they aren't bound to that, so schools can decide to do whatever they want.

Well whatever they want until somebody sues over title IX.
 
.-.
huskymedic said:
Expand ...

This actually makes sense. It's like everyone is forgetting the REVENUE piece of revenue sharing. Track isn't drawing flies.

There is a reason BC is seen as in a dilemma here - their basketball stinks, and you could easily see them trying to outspend everyone in hockey, to the detriment of it.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,160
Messages
4,555,267
Members
10,438
Latest member
UConnheart


Top Bottom