Judge Wilken grants final approval to the House settlement.
- Thread starter hbkmyr
- Start date
Too late for this year’s roster construction, except now they should have money for a starting 4.
College b- ball now officially professional. Next move: Power 4 bolting from the NCAA. Bet on it.
Here is the most comprehensive article I’ve seen so far on the settlement.
What does the NCAA settlement mean for college sports? We answer the burning questions
A settlement allowing revenue sharing with athletes will transform college sports. How will this new system work? We answer all the major questions.
www.usatoday.com
Well, at least there's clarity. And $2.8B over 10 years to former players. 30 days to now appeal this. 🙄
The sport as we knew has been gone for a couple of years now anyway. This at least provides some framework since the NCAA was too inept and corrupt to handle it ahead of time. Not sure if "NIL Go" will sustain a suit. Although the logic of it sounds good and a way to tie it back to what the original intention, it seems contrary to what's been blown open now as a truly P4P open market by precedent.
Sha, spend the cash!! Find us a big time PF somewhere. We desperately need an impact player, not sure there are any left.
The sport as we knew has been gone for a couple of years now anyway. This at least provides some framework since the NCAA was too inept and corrupt to handle it ahead of time. Not sure if "NIL Go" will sustain a suit. Although the logic of it sounds good and a way to tie it back to what the original intention, it seems contrary to what's been blown open now as a truly P4P open market by precedent.
Sha, spend the cash!! Find us a big time PF somewhere. We desperately need an impact player, not sure there are any left.
in other words, it is a self=fulfilling prophecy of "pay them whatever you want..."
I've heard commentary that the House settlement will help to curb "the current pay for play schemes". While I haven't read the agreement yet, and probably won't because it is too depressing, it seems to me that it's doing just the opposite. It's codifying a pay for play scheme.
I also don't see how the judgment impacts NIL at all. We now have a system that universities can pay their athletes, but third-party NIL deals are still available. Yes they have to be reported, but Deloitte has said they don't determine fair market value.
What's the definition of "fair market value"? "What an informed buyer would pay to an informed seller, both being reasonably aware of all the facts involved in the transaction." So fair market value is basically whatever the market will bear.
I feel like this is just another step in the end of college athletics as we understand it and the beginning of a new semipro arrangement that won't be anywhere near as engaging.
I also don't see how the judgment impacts NIL at all. We now have a system that universities can pay their athletes, but third-party NIL deals are still available. Yes they have to be reported, but Deloitte has said they don't determine fair market value.
What's the definition of "fair market value"? "What an informed buyer would pay to an informed seller, both being reasonably aware of all the facts involved in the transaction." So fair market value is basically whatever the market will bear.
I feel like this is just another step in the end of college athletics as we understand it and the beginning of a new semipro arrangement that won't be anywhere near as engaging.
Last edited:
5 House settlement changes college fans will notice immediately
A rundown on the College Sports Commission, NIL Go, roster limits and more
ftw.usatoday.com
Undoubtedly, but if it's reasonably well written, it should avoid the bulk of the major land mines. The real question is whose interest will it serve? College athletes, college athletics in general, or just the P4, who likely spoonfed the legislation the Congress?
Terrific article in The Athletic today discussing the Clearing House and return of the bagman. Deloitte has said that after they reviewed NIL deals only about 30% of those deals would be granted under the new rules. The article says the bagman will return and boosters will find ways to funnel money to recruits to avoid the new guard rails and enforcement compared to the past will most likely be less effective. It makes sense which means we may be right back where this all started. What a mess.
So, after all this dramatic reformation of the sport, we all love, often presented as a way to "clean up the sport" by making payments more visible and transparent, rather than under the table, we now have a system where the wealthy schools can directly pay athletes up to $20 million, supplemented by third parties directly paying athletes, a virtually unlimited amount so long as it is "fair market value", and we still will have under the table payments.
Perfect. They gutted college athletics for absolutely no reason.
The goal was accomplished.
Make it impossible for so many schools to compete at the highest level.
Make it impossible for so many schools to compete at the highest level.
Lol, someone had that all written up and ready to go.
So, if you have to pay women athletes, the same money as male athletes, then all of a sudden you've made every woman's sport as expensive as football.
Is it me, or is the most cost-effective answer simply to opt not to revenue share at all and go back entirely to an NIL based system?
It is amazing to me what a shit show this has been from start to finish with shortsighted "solutions" to every problem, giving rise to more problems, which intern give rise to more shortsighted solutions.
If this comes to pass many schools, like Seton Hall, may not be able to afford to compete in Division 1 sports. I believe the cost will be too exorbitant to pay women what the men are getting and maintain the minimum number of men's and women's sports to remain in D1.
Similar threads
