ACC votes to settle House case

pokeresq said:
Along with the Big 12. There are many hurdles to clear and trying to use a lawsuit for past anti-trust violations to permit future anti-trust violations(the 20-22M per year revenue sharing) seems sketchy to me, although I am not an anti-trust expert. While the final terms remain uncertain, in some form this case is going to cause seismic changes.

https://www.espn.com/college-footba...st-agree-settle-house-v-ncaa-case-sources-say
Click to expand...

FTA: ".................There's no clarity on Title IX's role in revenue sharing...." ......

Gonna be a shat-show....and just a few of the RHETORICAL questions that jump off the page include...will non revenue sport participants (beneficiaries) have to pay back some of this money to the revenue sport producers? Will TV ratings slackers like Vandy and Northwestern have to pay more back to the big schools who really generated the TV revenues? If FSU And Clemson should shut up because they knew what they were signing up for....well, you know the rest......

Such fun.
 
I am just seeing this now. Reading the ESPN article you linked above, it seems that:
-This will pave the way for schools to pay players directly which, I assume, might mean signing them to contracts. The proposed pool is $20MM per school, annually.
-There is $2.7B being set aside to pay past athletes, who started playing in 2016 or after, in exchange for them giving up any ability to sue the NCAA moving forward
-Establishing this $2.7B past-athlete-payment-pool will limit the NCAAs ability to distribute $ to member institutions which will create a significant shortfall that schools/conferences will have to figure out how to fill

One article says that while this is being aimed at curbing the power of NIL collectives, it likely just creates a "new floor" at $20MM and that the collectives will operate outside of that.

Big stuff.
 
CameronBornAndBred said:
$20M will get sucked up in the blink of an eye.
Click to expand...

Especially when you have to divide it among football, basketball, and any other sports you plan to compensate. Everything that I have heard indicates this will just be a supplement to the already existing NIL collectives.
 
Billy Dat said:
-Establishing this $2.7B past-athlete-payment-pool will limit the NCAAs ability to distribute $ to member institutions which will create a significant shortfall that schools/conferences will have to figure out how to fill.
.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, I thought that there was so much mon--..........(oh never mind).

And FTR, that shortfall was already here before this settlement. To paraphrase what Nina King supposedly told a female swimmer at Duke (reported by someone on this site)..."in five years, no one will have womens' swimming...."
 
NCAA signs off on settlement

Waiting on Pac 12 and SEC to vote so that the process can move onto next steps. Interestingly Pac12 still voting as if departing members were staying.
 
Small Conferences getting screwed

I am shocked, shocked I say to learn that the the allocation of damages skews in favor of the SEC and B1G. The Power 2 benefit because damages are based on NCAAT revenue shares so the ACC, B12 and B East along with the smaller conferences which don't play big time football get hosed while the SEC and especially the B1G are rewarded for poor performances in hoops.

Keep in mind that the models which have been discussed will give 75% of the money to D1 CFB players (with another 15% to hoopsters). In a touch of irony the House named plaintiff was a collegiate swimmer. Reports are that the P2 used the threat of literally taking their football and basketballs and leaving by creating a separate basketball tourney to coerce everyone else to go along. Effectively the Group of 5 and smaller non D1 football conferences will pay 60% of the damages. The non D1 football schools effectively were presented with a deal in which no one negotiated on their behalf and told either take a smaller piece of NCAAT revenues or risk losing it all if P2 pulls out.

If the remnants of the P5 approve the settlement today I will try to summarize some of the obstacles which will remain in a later post.

https://sports.yahoo.com/with-28b-s...d-what-other-options-are-there-210917099.html

https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...nue-sharing-model-in-house-v-ncaa-settlement/
 
pokeresq said:
Waiting on Pac 12 and SEC to vote so that the process can move onto next steps. Interestingly Pac12 still voting as if departing members were staying.
Click to expand...

I would assume that's due to the retro active part of the agreement...but nothing to worry about, because there's SO MUCH MONEY it's all gonna be paid for no sweat.
 
pokeresq said:
I am shocked, shocked I say to learn that the the allocation of damages skews in favor of the SEC and B1G. The Power 2 benefit because damages are based on NCAAT revenue shares so the ACC, B12 and B East along with the smaller conferences which don't play big time football get hosed while the SEC and especially the B1G are rewarded for poor performances in hoops.

Keep in mind that the models which have been discussed will give 75% of the money to D1 CFB players (with another 15% to hoopsters). In a touch of irony the House named plaintiff was a collegiate swimmer. Reports are that the P2 used the threat of literally taking their football and basketballs and leaving by creating a separate basketball tourney to coerce everyone else to go along. Effectively the Group of 5 and smaller non D1 football conferences will pay 60% of the damages. The non D1 football schools effectively were presented with a deal in which no one negotiated on their behalf and told either take a smaller piece of NCAAT revenues or risk losing it all if P2 pulls out.

If the remnants of the P5 approve the settlement today I will try to summarize some of the obstacles which will remain in a later post.

https://sports.yahoo.com/with-28b-s...d-what-other-options-are-there-210917099.html

https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...nue-sharing-model-in-house-v-ncaa-settlement/
Click to expand...

My understanding is the ACC will "pay" more per school for the damages portion because it has overachieved in the NCAAT, thus earning shares for advancement.

Regarding non-P5 schools "paying" more, keep in mind no conference or school is writing a check for the settlement of the damages class. They are "paying" by having their NCAA money distribution reduced. That money comes almost entirely from the NCAAT. To judge fairness, one must start with asking whether the current way of distributing NCAAT money is fair. For example, I think a certain but small percentage is paid to DIII and DII schools even thought they can't be in the NCAAT - that's just welfare/charity. Also, which schools really add the most value to the NCAAT? While everyone loves a Cinderella story, I contend that it's the big hoops brands that drive eyeballs/value-generation the most. A large fraction of those big hoops brands are P5.
 
LeadingEdge said:
My understanding is the ACC will "pay" more per school for the damages portion because it has overachieved in the NCAAT, thus earning shares for advancement.

Regarding non-P5 schools "paying" more, keep in mind no conference or school is writing a check for the settlement of the damages class. They are "paying" by having their NCAA money distribution reduced. That money comes almost entirely from the NCAAT. To judge fairness, one must start with asking whether the current way of distributing NCAAT money is fair. For example, I think a certain but small percentage is paid to DIII and DII schools even thought they can't be in the NCAAT - that's just welfare/charity. Also, which schools really add the most value to the NCAAT? While everyone loves a Cinderella story, I contend that it's the big hoops brands that drive eyeballs/value-generation the most. A large fraction of those big hoops brands are P5.
Click to expand...

Well, it's absolutely ridiculous IMHO that they're "garnishing wages" essentially from NCAA revenues (i.e. coming from basketball) for this settlement but NOT doing so for football revenues (as that sits outside the NCAA) yet the PAYMENTS themselves are hugely going to football players. Conferences like Big East going to be the hook for more than the SEC?!!? Simply because they've had more basketball success in the 2016-22 range. Yet the SEC schools are the ones reaping the benefits of a huge college football market. Makes no sense. Your point of distributing NCAA tournament revenue "fairness" makes sense if this settlement didn't have any money go to football players, but it does....
 
Many tough issues not answered

Below are some articles summarizing where the settlement is and where, in many cases, it is not. For instance one of the big issues moving forward with the 20-22M in direct revenue share is how is that distributed to athletes given Title IX requirements. Kessler says that is for somebody else to figure out and should not effect the settlement in House and the 2 aligned cases. A cynical observer might conclude that can be translated as "I don't care just pay me my 100's of Millions in fees."

Similarly, the two lead counsel have made clear they don't care where the money comes from so long it gets paid. So basically, the negotiating was between lawyers interested in maximizing total settlement dollars (coincidentally a factor upon which fees will be based) on one side and on the other a jointly interested NCAA which wants to keep P4 schools in the fold to ensure its continued existence and the P4 (consisting of the B1G/SEC and to a lesser extent the ACC and Big12). This explains how terms such as 20-22M in CAPPED revenue sharing which increases total recovery and fees while artificially restricting the amount of revenue sharing were reached.

There is a different anti-trust case, Fontenot, pending in Colorado federal court and the Judge presiding over that case declined to move it to the Cali Judge overseeing the House and two related cases. Fontenot is represented by a different group of attorneys and raises somewhat different issues. Often such situations are resolved by the two attorney groups with competing cases working out a fee split, which miraculously results in their legal differences going away.

As multiple people have noted the NCAA in 2021 argued to SCOTUS that allowing up to 6K in non-cash benefits (computers, tutoring post graduation tuition,, paid internships) would destroy college sports. After losing 9-0, the NCAA now is going to ask a court to permit direct cash payments of up to 22M per school. The times keep changing.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/how-historic-house-v-ncaa-settlement-will-impact-college-athletics-on-and-off-the-field-for-years-to-come/

https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-power-five-conferences-vote-to-approve-28b-settlement-in-house-hubbard-and-carter-cases-001736810.html

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/40206364/ncaa-power-conferences-agree-allow-schools-pay-players
 
Ross provides many details

The long thread below from Ross Delenger gives an excellent breakdown of the details and unresolved issues. One of the biggest items unless Congress gives exemption is the "true NIL" limit for actual endorsement value instead of inducement given that such a limit clearly restricts earnings and has been enjoined by Tenn Fed Court. Doing math, back pay in ballpark of $415K per D1 CFB and MBB player (2.77B x .90 /6000 players).

Roster Change
- Eliminates scholarship caps
- Implements new roster limits (not finalized)
- Ability to provide scholarships to entire roster
- Potential football roster reduction to as few as 85 roster spots (on-going discussions)
- Title IX applies
Ross Dellenger
@RossDellenger

Governance/other
- Potential new DI subdivision for increased power conference rule-making
- Flexibility for leagues to set some own rules
- Rev-share model could be extended beyond 10 yrs
- Plaintiffs agreed to lobby on behalf of NCAA’s effort seeking Congressional protections

Rev Share
- How much: ~$20-22M annually (fluid; will escalate based on school rev figures)
- From: Schools
- To: Athletes
- Distribution: School discretion (Title IX applies)
- Implementation: Summer/Fall 2025
- Exceptions: $5M of Alston/new scholarships can count toward cap

Cap Enforcement
- Court oversight/audits
- Athlete reporting mechanism of 3rd party NIL
- Must be “true NIL” based on developed “fair market value” data
- Enforced thru NCAA/outside entity w/Court backing
- Burden on school/athlete to prove “true NIL"
- No pay-4-play/booster pay

Replying to
@RossDellenger
Back Damages
- How much: $2.776 billion over 10 years
- From: NCAA national office (40%) & schools (60%)
- To: 15-25,000 DI athletes who played from 2016-2020ish
- Distribution: “Allocation formula” used, with estimated 90% to P5 FB/MBB players (~6K athletes)

A thread on the NCAA’s historic 10-year settlement agreement that will pay back-damages of $2.8 billion, at least $15 billion in rev-share & reshape the governance, enforcement & scholarship structure of major college athletics.
🧵
 
So I'm only just now paying any attention at all to this..

Are the impacts and ramifications of this better or worse for independents?
Or in other words - is this the leverage we finally needed to make ND join as a Football member?
 
pokeresq said:
The long thread below from Ross Delenger gives an excellent breakdown of the details and unresolved issues. One of the biggest items unless Congress gives exemption is the "true NIL" limit for actual endorsement value instead of inducement given that such a limit clearly restricts earnings and has been enjoined by Tenn Fed Court. Doing math, back pay in ballpark of $415K per D1 CFB and MBB player (2.77B x .90 /6000 players).

Roster Change
- Eliminates scholarship caps
- Implements new roster limits (not finalized)
- Ability to provide scholarships to entire roster
- Potential football roster reduction to as few as 85 roster spots (on-going discussions)
- Title IX applies
Ross Dellenger
@RossDellenger

Governance/other
- Potential new DI subdivision for increased power conference rule-making
- Flexibility for leagues to set some own rules
- Rev-share model could be extended beyond 10 yrs
- Plaintiffs agreed to lobby on behalf of NCAA’s effort seeking Congressional protections

Rev Share
- How much: ~$20-22M annually (fluid; will escalate based on school rev figures)
- From: Schools
- To: Athletes
- Distribution: School discretion (Title IX applies)
- Implementation: Summer/Fall 2025
- Exceptions: $5M of Alston/new scholarships can count toward cap

Cap Enforcement
- Court oversight/audits
- Athlete reporting mechanism of 3rd party NIL
- Must be “true NIL” based on developed “fair market value” data
- Enforced thru NCAA/outside entity w/Court backing
- Burden on school/athlete to prove “true NIL"
- No pay-4-play/booster pay

Replying to
@RossDellenger
Back Damages
- How much: $2.776 billion over 10 years
- From: NCAA national office (40%) & schools (60%)
- To: 15-25,000 DI athletes who played from 2016-2020ish
- Distribution: “Allocation formula” used, with estimated 90% to P5 FB/MBB players (~6K athletes)

A thread on the NCAA’s historic 10-year settlement agreement that will pay back-damages of $2.8 billion, at least $15 billion in rev-share & reshape the governance, enforcement & scholarship structure of major college athletics.
🧵
Click to expand...

No bullet points on academic requirements?? That ship has sailed or sunk I guess😢.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top