NIL, Title IX, Power 5, future of Lax et al

[1766]

Zero do do with NIL directly. Its about compensating athletes directly via employment.

The legal system has already ruled NIL is legal.

OK. Then why the settlement if it is only tangent to NIL? Isn't that the basis of the settlement?

Part of the settlement is to comp athletes prior to the NCAA for the opportunities they may have missed out on. The second part of suit will allow current athletes to be compensated for playing along with using their images. These huge media rights deals are being made because of what people are watching on the field. They athletes will be directly compensated for playing. Using their images for promo purposes is a smaller piece of that.

The pool of money being discussed which will be distributed is roughly $20MM, with a large percentage going football/basketball. My understanding is there will be some percentage used to comp Olympic sport athletes. How title 9 plays into that and which Olympic sports will probably vary by school to some degree.

There will still be NIL deals made outside of this compensation. Going to be good to be stud football and basketball players in college.

[pcowlax]

Would be curious to hear from one of the lawyers on here about the potential merit of the suit trying to, in essence, recoup NIL money for players from the past who were ineligible at the time to get it (and yes, I realize that most NIL money has nothing to do with NIL and is just pay to play). If a new law is past, newly criminalizing an activity, the legal system is not allowed to retro-actively charge people with the new crime who committed it in the past, prior to it becoming illegal. Putting aside all arguments as to whether the players "should" be able to be paid in the way they are now, what is the legal foundation for retroactively providing something that someone didn't get because it was illegal at the time but isn't now? Genuinely curious. If someone is jailed for a crime and, while still serving their term, the law that they violated is thrown out (not their conviction but the actual law), are they freed from prison?

[wgdsr]

Would be curious to hear from one of the lawyers on here about the potential merit of the suit trying to, in essence, recoup NIL money for players from the past who were ineligible at the time to get it (and yes, I realize that most NIL money has nothing to do with NIL and is just pay to play). If a new law is past, newly criminalizing an activity, the legal system is not allowed to retro-actively charge people with the new crime who committed it in the past, prior to it becoming illegal. Putting aside all arguments as to whether the players "should" be able to be paid in the way they are now, what is the legal foundation for retroactively providing something that someone didn't get because it was illegal at the time but isn't now? Genuinely curious. If someone is jailed for a crime and, while still serving their term, the law that they violated is thrown out (not their conviction but the actual law), are they freed from prison?

not a lawyer...
the bulk of the house settlement that you see a number for ($2.8? billion) is to compensate p5 athletes for nil that they missed out on because nc$$ rules said they couldn't. it goes back to like 2016 because of statute of limitations.
that's not stopping the lawsuits tho, as there are now several filed (including by reggie bush) for damages re: nil/compensation prior to SofL.
nothing has changed legally with regard to nil and rulings. as far as i can tell, outside of o'bannon's suit it hasn't been ruled on. the nc$$ just changed its rules. that came as a result of a nudge from scotus in the alston ruling, which was about education related compensation by the time it got to their desk.

so the nc$$ is settling for what they believe will take out most of the class for which they're liable, with a nod to the statute of limitations. any ex-athlete will have the right to abstain and sue them on their own.

[NovaLax17]

I hope to go back and read the reports on the proposed settlement in House v. NCAA, but the lawsuit is about paying past, present and future student-athletes in the revenue generating sports, also known as basketball and FBS football, a small percentage of the revenue earned by each of the Power5 conferences. The revenue to distributed to the student-athletes will come directly from the conference accounts.

The other 27 or so division one conferences are not involved.

It is my understanding that the NIL generated funds to student-athletes are separate and distinct from the Power 5 revenue. While the conferences party to the lawsuit will be directly involved in the revenue sharing payments, the universities will not be involved in NIL payments, and those payments will come from private NIL collectives.

Of course, this all could change tomorrow.

Presently, some wealthy alumni from a major conference could put millions of dollars into the the NIL collective account and direct that money to a particular student-athlete. The separation between university actions and the NIL actions will arguably be superficial.

If the percentage of revenue sharing with the players is small, than the more profitable financial vehicle will remain NIL. Without regulation, the ceiling on NIL funding does not theoretically exist.

[Asgot]

I heard a scary scenario regarding the NCAA lawsuit and the settlement. supposedly, schools that plan on participating in any D1 athletics including lacrosse would have to set aside 20 million for NIL up front. I have spoken to a few college coaches and this would be a change from what they had heard but it is not out of the question and if this is true how many non-power 4 teams would have the money to do this? I am assuming that the Ivies could do this but could Scared Heart or Jacksonville do this. I would imagine that the Big East could because of Basketball. What about the Patriot league? I am assuming that Army, Navy and Air Force get exemptions. Not sure this is true but if it is it could have a big impact on Non-Revenue D1 sports including lacrosse

This makes ZERO sense. Outside of the ACC and B1G and maybe the Ivies, what schools received a significant portion of revenues that can be tied to NIL? As good as some athletes are, how many of them actually can say their NIL was used to generate $$$ for their respective colleges? It is a tiny %. A settlement under those terms would cause numerous sports to be dropped. If, as some have pointed out, that schools/conferences can opt out of the settlement, I doubt any would voluntarily agree to this.

On top of this, how would they justify schools with a single D I program coming up with $20mm?? Hobart, and Hopkins (doubt Mike Bloomberg wants any of the $1 Bn going to a settlement for men's lax) in men's lacrosse. RIT and Union men's and women's ice hockey are D 1, but don't bring in anything near the revenues to justify making that kind of payment.

I heard this from a coach in one of the conferences that you mentioned. The bigger issue is that it appears that the coaches have no idea how this is going to work. I have spoken to other coaches who have said different things

[1766]

Hard to know how something will work before a ruling has even been made, but likely, the schools from conferences with the biggest media rights deals are going to be paying their athletes (mostly football and basketball) from the revenue generated from said deals. Some small percentage of that will flow to Olympic athletes.

The question becomes what do schools do that aren't receiving the same media rights payouts do such as the Acc and B12? If athletes comp starts at $20MM and going up from there, that's a large percentage of their per school payouts going straight to athlete compensation (Acc payouts were roughly $45MM last cycle). Cutting costs (sports) seems like the obvious answer, even at the P2 level maybe. The Big East is in an interesting spot. In 22 they paid Villanova $7.2MM, which was higher than the rest of the conference due to winning the national championship. They don't have D1 football so they won't have to pay those athletes but their entire payout is less than half of what P5 conferences are alleged to have as a pool of money for athlete compensation. The teams that didn't win had payouts around $4MM in the Big East. How can Providence's basketball team as an example compete when their pool of player comp is say $2MM as compared to P5 schools which will have at least double for their basketball programs? Where do women's/men's sit on the pay scale and what is the calculus to come up with those figures?

When all is said and done I believe there will be two conferences and they will have playoffs which will keep the media rights rolling and they will ultimately meet for the college super bowl. They will generate enough to substantially pay their football/basketball athletes. Some schools won't make it and will de-emphasize sports all together. It's a dangerous time for college sports beyond those super conferences and Olympic sports all together.

[oldbartman]

Are D I baseball and softball revenue positive sports. I think we've all tried to watch a lacrosse game on ESPNU only to find a baseball or softball game still playing. Shots of the crowds at top ranked teams put most lax games to shame from what I've seen.

[wgdsr]

I hope to go back and read the reports on the proposed settlement in House v. NCAA, but the lawsuit is about paying past, present and future student-athletes in the revenue generating sports, also known as basketball and FBS football, a small percentage of the revenue earned by each of the Power5 conferences. The revenue to distributed to the student-athletes will come directly from the conference accounts.
many if not all athletes will be offered to be involved in revenue sharing large and small, not just football and mens bb, same with legacy nil. they will just get the lion's share, at least as it looks for now pre-title ix lawsuits. it will come from individual schools, not conference accounts.

The other 27 or so division one conferences are not involved.
yes and no. a) they can opt in to revenue sharing if they wish. b) as of now, they're in for paying a huge chunk of the legacy nil money. billions. there have already been 2 startup attempts to block this aspect, and there will most definitely be lawsuits if/when a settlement is reached.

It is my understanding that the NIL generated funds to student-athletes are separate and distinct from the Power 5 revenue. While the conferences party to the lawsuit will be directly involved in the revenue sharing payments, the universities will not be involved in NIL payments, and those payments will come from private NIL collectives.
mostly the opposite. the nc$$ is attempting to regulate and get their claws around nil with this agreement, bringing oversight and even support to it within universities. and bounce collectives that aren't really for branding. the judge thus far doesn't like their proposal.
Of course, this all could change tomorrow.

Presently, some wealthy alumni from a major conference could put millions of dollars into the the NIL collective account and direct that money to a particular student-athlete. The separation between university actions and the NIL actions will arguably be superficial.

If the percentage of revenue sharing with the players is small, than the more profitable financial vehicle will remain NIL. Without regulation, the ceiling on NIL funding does not theoretically exist.

[1766]

I hope to go back and read the reports on the proposed settlement in House v. NCAA, but the lawsuit is about paying past, present and future student-athletes in the revenue generating sports, also known as basketball and FBS football, a small percentage of the revenue earned by each of the Power5 conferences. The revenue to distributed to the student-athletes will come directly from the conference accounts.
many if not all athletes will be offered to be involved in revenue sharing large and small, not just football and mens bb, same with legacy nil. they will just get the lion's share, at least as it looks for now pre-title ix lawsuits. it will come from individual schools, not conference accounts.

The other 27 or so division one conferences are not involved.
yes and no. a) they can opt in to revenue sharing if they wish. b) as of now, they're in for paying a huge chunk of the legacy nil money. billions. there have already been 2 startup attempts to block this aspect, and there will most definitely be lawsuits if/when a settlement is reached.

It is my understanding that the NIL generated funds to student-athletes are separate and distinct from the Power 5 revenue. While the conferences party to the lawsuit will be directly involved in the revenue sharing payments, the universities will not be involved in NIL payments, and those payments will come from private NIL collectives.
mostly the opposite. the nc$$ is attempting to regulate and get their claws around nil with this agreement, bringing oversight and even support to it within universities. and bounce collectives that aren't really for branding. the judge thus far doesn't like their proposal.
Of course, this all could change tomorrow.

Presently, some wealthy alumni from a major conference could put millions of dollars into the the NIL collective account and direct that money to a particular student-athlete. The separation between university actions and the NIL actions will arguably be superficial.

If the percentage of revenue sharing with the players is small, than the more profitable financial vehicle will remain NIL. Without regulation, the ceiling on NIL funding does not theoretically exist.

The ruling seems pretty clear on NIL. There are no restrictions on what someone can pay someone else under the guise of NIL. Dave Portnoy recently came out and said he's willing to pay $3MM for a top flight QB to go to Michigan. $3MM or $200MM is irrelevant. He can do that with no fear of breaking the law.

It won't be the majority but there are going to be a few players across the landscape that are going to become wealthy from playing college sport. NIL is definitely a game changer. Rutgers has 2 projected top 5 NBA lottery picks as freshmen. The program has never had one in it's history. NIL pushed that over the edge to make it possible.

[wgdsr]

I hope to go back and read the reports on the proposed settlement in House v. NCAA, but the lawsuit is about paying past, present and future student-athletes in the revenue generating sports, also known as basketball and FBS football, a small percentage of the revenue earned by each of the Power5 conferences. The revenue to distributed to the student-athletes will come directly from the conference accounts.
many if not all athletes will be offered to be involved in revenue sharing large and small, not just football and mens bb, same with legacy nil. they will just get the lion's share, at least as it looks for now pre-title ix lawsuits. it will come from individual schools, not conference accounts.

The other 27 or so division one conferences are not involved.
yes and no. a) they can opt in to revenue sharing if they wish. b) as of now, they're in for paying a huge chunk of the legacy nil money. billions. there have already been 2 startup attempts to block this aspect, and there will most definitely be lawsuits if/when a settlement is reached.

It is my understanding that the NIL generated funds to student-athletes are separate and distinct from the Power 5 revenue. While the conferences party to the lawsuit will be directly involved in the revenue sharing payments, the universities will not be involved in NIL payments, and those payments will come from private NIL collectives.
mostly the opposite. the nc$$ is attempting to regulate and get their claws around nil with this agreement, bringing oversight and even support to it within universities. and bounce collectives that aren't really for branding. the judge thus far doesn't like their proposal.
Of course, this all could change tomorrow.

Presently, some wealthy alumni from a major conference could put millions of dollars into the the NIL collective account and direct that money to a particular student-athlete. The separation between university actions and the NIL actions will arguably be superficial.

If the percentage of revenue sharing with the players is small, than the more profitable financial vehicle will remain NIL. Without regulation, the ceiling on NIL funding does not theoretically exist.

The ruling seems pretty clear on NIL. There are no restrictions on what someone can pay someone else under the guise of NIL. Dave Portnoy recently came out and said he's willing to pay $3MM for a top flight QB to go to Michigan. $3MM or $200MM is irrelevant. He can do that with no fear of breaking the law.

It won't be the majority but there are going to be a few players across the landscape that are going to become wealthy from playing college sport. NIL is definitely a game changer. Rutgers has 2 projected top 5 NBA lottery picks as freshmen. The program has never had one in it's history. NIL pushed that over the edge to make it possible.

what ruling?
rutgers hoops will be interesting to watch.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/o ... s-say/amp/

And this is at The Ohio State University

Also see the “The” in the school name. It’s the name of the school….not football players being cute.

[wgdsr]

https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/o ... s-say/amp/

And this is at The Ohio State University

Also see the “The” in the school name. It’s the name of the school….not football players being cute.

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.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/o ... s-say/amp/

And this is at The Ohio State University

Also see the “The” in the school name. It’s the name of the school….not football players being cute.

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?

[wgdsr]

https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/o ... s-say/amp/

And this is at The Ohio State University

Also see the “The” in the school name. It’s the name of the school….not football players being cute.

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.

[pcowlax]

https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/o ... s-say/amp/

And this is at The Ohio State University

Also see the “The” in the school name. It’s the name of the school….not football players being cute.

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?

I personally don’t understand the back pay part at all. It wasn’t legal then, it is now. It doesn’t matter if based on the present rulings it SHOULD have been legal then, or so one would think. Not, obviously, that they could play now but back in the day freshman were not eligible to play in college sports. If they sued, would they now get another year of eligibility?

[wgdsr]

https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/o ... s-say/amp/

And this is at The Ohio State University

Also see the “The” in the school name. It’s the name of the school….not football players being cute.

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?

I personally don’t understand the back pay part at all. It wasn’t legal then, it is now. It doesn’t matter if based on the present rulings it SHOULD have been legal then, or so one would think. Not, obviously, that they could play now but back in the day freshman were not eligible to play in college sports. If they sued, would they now get another year of eligibility?

i don't think it's ever been ruled on whether it's illegal or not beyond the o'bannon case, which is now quite a long time ago (and i don't know all the details). scotus in alston was ruling on something else (educated related compensation, and the revenue sharing had already been kicked in lower courts in that case). but in the scotus opinion, they made it clear that blocking nil any longer would be a loser, even though they weren't ruling on that. so the nc$$ was essentially forced to open it up without the formalities of another suit. the past player payments (to 2016 bc of the nc$$'s interpretation of liability through statute of limitations) are because of that same sentiment.
that what they had restricted would in fact be a loser in any case brought forth, subject to statute of limitations, so they're settling. for what some say is 10-15 cents on the dollar.

[a fan]

https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/o ... s-say/amp/

And this is at The Ohio State University

Also see the “The” in the school name. It’s the name of the school….not football players being cute.

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.....

[wgdsr]

https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/o ... s-say/amp/

And this is at The Ohio State University

Also see the “The” in the school name. It’s the name of the school….not football players being cute.

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.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/o ... s-say/amp/

And this is at The Ohio State University

Also see the “The” in the school name. It’s the name of the school….not football players being cute.

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.

They owe Othell Wilson!! He was robbed. UVA owes him back pay!!

[AreaLax]

National Letter of Intent To be eliminated.

https://www.on3.com/news/ncaa-announces ... ntent-nli/