Ivy League Opts Out

[upstater]

Ivy League To Opt Out of NCAA Settlement, Rejecting Revenue Sharing for Athletes | News | The Harvard Crimson

The Ivy League announced Tuesday that it will opt out of a proposed National Collegiate Athletic Association settlement, declining to provide current and former student athletes with direct compensation through revenue sharing.

www.thecrimson.com

A little confused as to what Opting Out means. You can certainly opt in and then just give your athletes $1. Give them a bottle of water.

So why officially "Opt Out" of the entire settlement?

The payments to former Alabama or Clemson football players goes through the NCAA. The Ivies have nothing to do with that.

 

[huskymedic]

 

[Chuck]

Ivy League To Opt Out of NCAA Settlement, Rejecting Revenue Sharing for Athletes | News | The Harvard Crimson

The Ivy League announced Tuesday that it will opt out of a proposed National Collegiate Athletic Association settlement, declining to provide current and former student athletes with direct compensation through revenue sharing.

www.thecrimson.com

A little confused as to what Opting Out means. You can certainly opt in and then just give your athletes $1. Give them a bottle of water.

So why officially "Opt Out" of the entire settlement?

The payments to former Alabama or Clemson football players goes through the NCAA. The Ivies have nothing to do with that.

It's interesting, but I tend to trust the Ivy League's decision that is determined by really smart people that get guidance from other really smart people. I assume it's partially because the settlement is fully negotiated by the NCAA and P5(-1) and is a net-negative to the Ivy League.

The settlement is really just about the past NIL payments that players weren't able to get. That seems like a normal settlement. "We should have allowed you to get NIL so we owe you $X in lost opportunity." But the NCAA caved and is paying that money from unpaid tournament credits. The non-P5 had no say in that. My GUESS is that the former Ivy players still get their cut because the NCAA isn't allowing leagues to opt-out of using the credits.

By opting out, I guess the Ivy League can be sued by its past athletes, but if those athletes got their payouts, it would be hard to sue for more when their NIL opportunities were probably less than the settled amount that factored in the P5 players.

The future stuff isn't really a settlement. Everything seems to focus on what the leagues CAN do going forward, not what they MUST do. It's more like collective bargaining, but without a union. The school CAN pay up to 22% of revenue. The school CAN increase roster spots. I don't even see how it's enforceable on future athletes. They didn't opt-in (or have a chance to opt-out) of the class action. And these things can just have been done as part of a change in NCAA rules.

The Ivy League wasn't named in the lawsuit, they don't plan on paying athletes and may or may not expand their rosters. Should they choose to pay their athletes in the future or expand roster spots, they'll be doing that pursuant to NCAA rules anyway (if the NCAA continues to exist) and future players can still sue to say it's not enough (whether in the settlement or not). So what does opting in get them besides admitting to the facts (even though the settlement will say they don't admit to any liability)? I'm assuming the Ivy League has the best lawyers available and they made a determination that opting in is worse than not.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

It's interesting, but I tend to trust the Ivy League's decision that is determined by really smart people that get guidance from other really smart people. I assume it's partially because the settlement is fully negotiated by the NCAA and P5(-1) and is a net-negative to the Ivy League.

The settlement is really just about the past NIL payments that players weren't able to get. That seems like a normal settlement. "We should have allowed you to get NIL so we owe you $X in lost opportunity." But the NCAA caved and is paying that money from unpaid tournament credits. The non-P5 had no say in that. My GUESS is that the former Ivy players still get their cut because the NCAA isn't allowing leagues to opt-out of using the credits.

By opting out, I guess the Ivy League can be sued by its past athletes, but if those athletes got their payouts, it would be hard to sue for more when their NIL opportunities were probably less than the settled amount that factored in the P5 players.

The future stuff isn't really a settlement. Everything seems to focus on what the leagues CAN do going forward, not what they MUST do. It's more like collective bargaining, but without a union. The school CAN pay up to 22% of revenue. The school CAN increase roster spots. I don't even see how it's enforceable on future athletes. They didn't opt-in (or have a chance to opt-out) of the class action. And these things can just have been done as part of a change in NCAA rules.

The Ivy League wasn't named in the lawsuit, they don't plan on paying athletes and may or may not expand their rosters. Should they choose to pay their athletes in the future or expand roster spots, they'll be doing that pursuant to NCAA rules anyway (if the NCAA continues to exist) and future players can still sue to say it's not enough (whether in the settlement or not). So what does opting in get them besides admitting to the facts (even though the settlement will say they don't admit to any liability)? I'm assuming the Ivy League has the best lawyers available and they made a determination that opting in is worse than not.

Is their reasoning because they haven't given scholarships to athletes and therefore aren't like the rest of the universities that settled the class action?

 

[Chuck]

Is their reasoning because they haven't given scholarships to athletes and therefore aren't like the rest of the universities that settled the class action?

I think so. It seems to be as much about the revenue share, but that's kind of the same concept. They don't pay players, whether its with scholarships or cash.

Upstater was rightfully questioning why they don't opt-in and then just not pay any of the revenue. The settlement doesn't require rev sharing, it just allows it. I'm thinking they determined that they get no benefit from being in the settlement and don't want to be tied to the settlement in any way acknowledging that there should be payment.

I wouldn't be shocked if the Patriot follows their lead. The Patriot wanted to be a mini-Ivy, but they gave in on scholarships. I'd be surprised if they pay rev share (not that there is much to share).

 

[huskymedic]

While the actual revenue share amount is flexible up to the maximum allowed, If you opt in you are bound by the roster limits across all sports.

 

[upstater]

It's interesting, but I tend to trust the Ivy League's decision that is determined by really smart people that get guidance from other really smart people. I assume it's partially because the settlement is fully negotiated by the NCAA and P5(-1) and is a net-negative to the Ivy League.

The settlement is really just about the past NIL payments that players weren't able to get. That seems like a normal settlement. "We should have allowed you to get NIL so we owe you $X in lost opportunity." But the NCAA caved and is paying that money from unpaid tournament credits. The non-P5 had no say in that. My GUESS is that the former Ivy players still get their cut because the NCAA isn't allowing leagues to opt-out of using the credits.

By opting out, I guess the Ivy League can be sued by its past athletes, but if those athletes got their payouts, it would be hard to sue for more when their NIL opportunities were probably less than the settled amount that factored in the P5 players.

The future stuff isn't really a settlement. Everything seems to focus on what the leagues CAN do going forward, not what they MUST do. It's more like collective bargaining, but without a union. The school CAN pay up to 22% of revenue. The school CAN increase roster spots. I don't even see how it's enforceable on future athletes. They didn't opt-in (or have a chance to opt-out) of the class action. And these things can just have been done as part of a change in NCAA rules.

The Ivy League wasn't named in the lawsuit, they don't plan on paying athletes and may or may not expand their rosters. Should they choose to pay their athletes in the future or expand roster spots, they'll be doing that pursuant to NCAA rules anyway (if the NCAA continues to exist) and future players can still sue to say it's not enough (whether in the settlement or not). So what does opting in get them besides admitting to the facts (even though the settlement will say they don't admit to any liability)? I'm assuming the Ivy League has the best lawyers available and they made a determination that opting in is worse than not.

Good explanation.

This is just them saying they want no part of any of it, come what may.

 

[Patman]

It's interesting, but I tend to trust the Ivy League's decision that is determined by really smart people that get guidance from other really smart people. I assume it's partially because the settlement is fully negotiated by the NCAA and P5(-1) and is a net-negative to the Ivy League.

The settlement is really just about the past NIL payments that players weren't able to get. That seems like a normal settlement. "We should have allowed you to get NIL so we owe you $X in lost opportunity." But the NCAA caved and is paying that money from unpaid tournament credits. The non-P5 had no say in that. My GUESS is that the former Ivy players still get their cut because the NCAA isn't allowing leagues to opt-out of using the credits.

By opting out, I guess the Ivy League can be sued by its past athletes, but if those athletes got their payouts, it would be hard to sue for more when their NIL opportunities were probably less than the settled amount that factored in the P5 players.

The future stuff isn't really a settlement. Everything seems to focus on what the leagues CAN do going forward, not what they MUST do. It's more like collective bargaining, but without a union. The school CAN pay up to 22% of revenue. The school CAN increase roster spots. I don't even see how it's enforceable on future athletes. They didn't opt-in (or have a chance to opt-out) of the class action. And these things can just have been done as part of a change in NCAA rules.

The Ivy League wasn't named in the lawsuit, they don't plan on paying athletes and may or may not expand their rosters. Should they choose to pay their athletes in the future or expand roster spots, they'll be doing that pursuant to NCAA rules anyway (if the NCAA continues to exist) and future players can still sue to say it's not enough (whether in the settlement or not). So what does opting in get them besides admitting to the facts (even though the settlement will say they don't admit to any liability)? I'm assuming the Ivy League has the best lawyers available and they made a determination that opting in is worse than not.

I mean if their position is they would never and will never pay their players that can be their position or they disagree about the rate they would pay. I'm sure the ivy league could with all honesty say that they would pay the minimal allowed.

The real question, are all forms of externally imposed amateurism considered illegal? Does the local 5k owe us all appearance fees? Where's the line? Is it sponsorship that defines this? Rec hockey leagues get sponsored all the time and are just as non profit as Harvard

 

[uconndogs]

This makes total sense for the Ivies and it's going to make a lot of sense for a lot of other universities as well.

 

[RSTuthill]

First, I think the reporting is slightly inaccurate. The House settlement applies to only the Power Four (Five) conferences with other universities playing D-1 sports having the option to opt in by 3/1. So what the Ivy League really did was to announce that none of it members were going to opt in. All that means for them, I guess, is that they will not be involved in NIL since they do not give scholarships. It does not mean that they can prevent external NIL.

So my first question pertains to hockey. There is only one Power Four school in Hockey East. What are the other schools going to do? Have any of them announced yet? I assume UConn would opt in, but have they announced? I have lost track although a collective is winding down in favor of the new arrangement. Btw, I have it from a pretty good source that the ONLY school in ECAC hockey even considering opting in is Quinnipiac. But there are a LOT of schools playing D-1 hockey who are not P4. What are they gonna do? The deadline is approaching fast.

 

[huskymedic]

 

[RSTuthill]

This confuses me. If a school opts in, the scholarships for football will go from 85 to 105, for hockey from 18 to 26, for baseball from 11.7 to 34. But that X post says that scholarship limits will go away. Can someone explain the nuance that I appear to be missing? Am I confusing roster sizes with scholarship limits

EDIT: AI is telling me that roster size limits are the only things that are regulated. That the de facto scholarship upper limit is the roster size limit. What is left unexplained is whether a school can give scholarships to SA's not on the current roster. Common sense would say no, but when did that mean anything.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

Ivy League To Opt Out of NCAA Settlement, Rejecting Revenue Sharing for Athletes | News | The Harvard Crimson

The Ivy League announced Tuesday that it will opt out of a proposed National Collegiate Athletic Association settlement, declining to provide current and former student athletes with direct compensation through revenue sharing.

www.thecrimson.com

A little confused as to what Opting Out means. You can certainly opt in and then just give your athletes $1. Give them a bottle of water.

So why officially "Opt Out" of the entire settlement?

The payments to former Alabama or Clemson football players goes through the NCAA. The Ivies have nothing to do with that.

The Ivies contributed more to the NCAA than Alabama and Clemson football who contributed $0 .

 

[Patman]

I don't understand why the settlement permits this. This all screams of judicial legislating

 

[bobbyinaz]

I don’t think there are scholarship limits anymore.

These are now roster limits and schools can choose to give any number of scholarships.

The SEC announced that they are limiting scholarships to 85 meaning if schools choose they can add 20 walk ons which seems like what most P4 schools will do.

SEC maintains 85-scholarship limit for 2025 season ahead of transformative House v. NCAA settlement

 

[huskymedic]

I don’t think there are scholarship limits anymore.

These are now roster limits and schools can choose to give any number of scholarships.

The SEC announced that they are limiting scholarships to 85 meaning if schools choose they can add 20 walk ons which seems like what most P4 schools will do.

SEC maintains 85-scholarship limit for 2025 season ahead of transformative House v. NCAA settlement

Yup and it will depend on the schools and how they prioritize their sport portfolio.



Schools can also give partial scholarships across all sports (not just the /fka equivalency sports)

 

[RSTuthill]

Schools can also give partial scholarships across all sports (not just the /fka equivalency sports)

Partials have always been a thing for all sports, haven't they? No? You could not give partials in FB, or BB for instance?

 

[ScottVib]

Partials have always been a thing for all sports, haven't they? No? You could not give partials in FB, or BB for instance?

Division 1 Basketball & 1A/FBS Football were full counter sports and as a result even if you did for some reason award only a partial scholarship to someone it counted the same towards the scholarship limits as if you gave them a full scholarship.

 

[Patman]

Partials have always been a thing for all sports, haven't they? No? You could not give partials in FB, or BB for instance?

you could not give partials in football, basketball, and (at least) men's ice hockey

 

[RSTuthill]

Hmm ... I thought I remembered certain friends of ours being offered partials in hockey. But that is a moot point.

Has anyone heard what the 10 Hockey East schools who are not P4 are going to do?

Somehow this, for hockey, feels like the equivalent schism analogous to the D-1/D-1A split in football. And it is happening with very little publicity. And I suspect this may produce some hockey conference realignment. For instance, if Quinnipiac opts in and the rest of the ECAC does not, will they be encouraged to leave to be replaced by a school, say in HE or AHA, that does not opt in?

 

[RSTuthill]

you could not give partials in football, basketball, and (at least) men's ice hockey

Well, for hockey, teams dress four lines, three defensive pairs, and two goalies. Additionally every game I have been to, each team has 2-4 healthy or injured scratches watching from the stands. That adds up to more than 18 scholarships unless some players are on partials. Are you sure about hockey?

EDIT: AI is telling me that ice hockey is an equivalency sport and can offer partials now. It has been wrong before, but it sounds like it knows the subject this time.

 

[huskymedic]

Well, for hockey, teams dress four lines, three defensive pairs, and two goalies. Additionally every game I have been to, each team has 2-4 healthy or injured scratches watching from the stands. That adds up to more than 18 scholarships unless some players are on partials. Are you sure about hockey?

Some hockey programs have non-athletic scholarship players (full or partial) on their rosters.

This has been updated to account for the new world in 2026:

NCAA Men's Ice Hockey Scholarships: Limits, Teams, Rosters

View men's hockey scholarships by division level and learn how to get a hockey scholarship with expert guidance from former hockey coaches.

www.ncsasports.org

 

[Patman]

While mens hockey didn't do partials you didn't have to get one every year. It was common to have agreements where 2 of 4 or 3 of 4 would get covered.

But yes, all sports are equivalency now