a fan wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 10:44 pm
wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 7:29 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2024 9:54 pm
wgdsr wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2024 9:43 pm
gene smith laid it all out around the time of his retirement:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footb ... ettlement/
already in the plan. and yes, that is 1st or 2nd in the country in revenue the ohio state university. with an extra $30 million coming in this year withoit lifting a finger. crazy times.
Yep…. I see Terrell Pryor is suing for back pay as well as a few others, most notably Reggie Bush…. I am waiting on Jimmy King and Cory Alexander to ask for back pay! Did Jeff Lamp get paid?
well, off we go:
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/sto ... y-approval
baker says the nc$$ still has to hit up congress to get the requisite antitrust protections so their self-constructed deal can dismiss these pesky lawsuits. need title ix signoffs also.
lamp is still being marketed around town, if he's not getting a shred of licensing money, he should be. ralph should be raking.
Judge Claudia Wilken just gave an initial sign off on a deal....that doesn't include representatives of, oh, I don't know......the players that this deal will directly effect? Wait....what?
American law is just.....weird. Or is the idea that this settlement is about the past, and has nothing to do with the future? Because it sure sounds like it's pertaining to the future.....
it is about both past and future. we're all calling it the house settlement, but it's actually 3 different lawsuits that they're intending to settle. name given for brevity or our lack of attention span.
house - nil dating to 2016 (for statute of limitations). it's the big bag in the $2.8 billion number thrown around, and will be set as money's def coming (over 10 years). also going fwd as nil is now allowed, setting what the nc$$ wants to put as regulations on it.
hubbard - past education related expenses, which scotus didn't rule on in alston, they ruled on going forward rules. so creating a new class of plaintiffs.
carter - challenging revenue sharing rules, or pay for play directly from the institutions.
in all of these, if you could be considered part of a class of plaintiffs, you can opt in or not. if you don't, you retain the right to sue or be part of a class of future suits. if you do, you're signing away rights outside of what gets settled.
in parallel, as i've relayed the nc$$ is now going to be arm twisting congress to try to get antitrust protections from multiple fronts. including from challenges re: athletes being employees. i'm no labor attorney, but my understanding that qualification might be necessary for athletes to engage in collective bargaining. at least efficiently.
will there be lawsuits beyond that from athletes that don't like the revenue sharing number, or nil restrictions? probably. will there be lawsuits from non-p5 conferences that aren't cool with paying the lion's share of legacy p5 athletes? definitely. will there be title ix lawsuits from people that want to test the ambiguous rules around that and men getting 90% of the money? of course. and will there continue to be lawsuits that challenge the statute of limitations dating only to 2016? yes.
think that's a lot of it.