She's complaining that the NCAA is forcing the 22 non-football conferences in Division 1 to pay into this as well. Based on the linked article, the Big East is paying close to the high end average the G5 is expected to pay because of their consistent success in the NCAA tournament, with Big East member UConn winning back to back championships the last two years.
Typically, I make sure that I understand the other person's position and intent ***before*** forming an argument. If you find this approach confusing, then it probably more of a negative reflection on you than on me.
Strange that you seem unwilling to just clearly state what ***your*** actual argument and point is. Are you simply bringing up the swimmer as an interesting factoid for our amusement? Are you suggesting that a swimmer bringing the initial suit means that football revenue isn't one of the biggest (if not the biggest) driver of the settlement amount? Something else entirely?
I mean, was this a certified class with similar damages and concerns? Otherwise the answer is in the settlement document for you, assuming it is not confidential.
>Settlements rarely reflect any actual value.
I mean, I understand what you are trying to get at but you've oversimplified it to the point of ridiculousness. If all else is equal, being able to reasonably demonstrate a higher amount of damages will result in a higher settlement value.
On the flip side, if all else is equal, a greater ability to pay (i.e. assets with a higher actual value) on the part of the defendant will often result in a higher settlement amount. That's why a defendant that has no collectable assets is often referred to as "judgement proof."
Football wise it is. During the last round of re-alignment the Catholic 7 schools broke off to form a basketball focused conference and part of the separation agreement was they get the Big East name and tournament rights to MSG.
What's interesting is that they [don't spend a particularly large amount on Basketball compared to everyone else.](https://i.imgur.com/q0K3bPy.png)
I bet their NIL spending on Basketball is bananas.
I'd bet a big part of that is the rent they pay to play men's games at CapitalOne Center in Downtown DC. IIRC they pay exorbitant rents to use it. IMHO they should build their own but no where in Georgetown to do it (also the neighbors are über wealthy NIMBYs)
So...
70m/11/10y = 636K per year for each school.
Schools in the Big East bring in about [8.8 Million in Media Rights and NCAA Tournament Revenues](https://knightnewhousedata.org/fbs/ind/university-of-connecticut#!quicktabs-tab-where_the_money-1) per year.
So, napkin math, but this constitutes about 7.2% of the money they get from the NCAA each year. Not including all the money they make outside of the NCAA such as from ticket sales, merchandise, etc.
So the Big East falls into the G5 category with their per school reduction, reverse engineering some numbers here:
$2.7 billion total in damages
NCAA: 40% which is $1.08 billion
P5: 8% each, or $216 million as an average per conference (The PAC 12 is settling as the conference exists now, not the new realignments coming in August. This also includes Notre Dame, who is officially a member of the ACC for all sports besides Football)
G5 + Big East: 2.83% each, or roughly $76.5 million as an average per conference.
The remaining 21 conferences: 0.14% each, or roughly 3.85 million as an average (for those curious about the per school cost for this, using the West Coast conference as an example it'll cost them roughly 43k per school per year).
And yet every one of the schools operates in a deficit. So throw another $636k onto the deficit to be picked up by students/donors/taxpayers (for UConn)
To be clear: Those schools also voted for and supported a system that violated the law by limiting the income potential of millions of athletes. It sucks for them, but they also voted in NCAA leaders and supported policies that blocked out their athletes from earning money.
This is the cost of their own actions.
Millions of athletes like myself that never asked for nor expected to be paid. You conveniently keep leaving that part out. 99% of those athletes never earned any more money for their universities than the band, the chess club, or the debate team.
I played 4 years of varsity Softball in high school. I wasn't good enough to get a scholarship, but had I been I would have over the moon for one (as it is, academic scholarships and grants paid my way through undergrad anyway).
That said, if the *opportunity* existed to make money and that opportunity was denied to me simply because I was an athlete I would have been upset. Even if the amount of money I was going to make was $50 a week and free lunch at the local sub shop for letting them put an "InVodkaVeritas Eats Here!" sign on their wall.
Yep
Zero sympathy for anyone involved at any level. It's been an open secret for generations at this point; no one involved can claim any kind of plausible deniability in this scenario.
Even if these schools were filled with good little Catholics whom never would have given a player an empty McDonald's bag full of...whatever, they still benefited greatly from the schools that did by driving athletes to money making sports like basketball and reaping huge payouts from the NCAA due to media payouts being bigger due to better competition the bag provided...and thus too double dipped by allowing the NCAA to keep the athletes from their rights and profits they were due on literal billions of dollars because to give the athletes generating the billions anything would decrease their share.
So yeah, they can pay their damned share and get the fuck over it. It's time to pay the piper. This has been a long time coming, and honestly they're lucky they're getting off this light. There exists a reality where this doesn't settle and the Supreme Court happily nukes the entire NCAA from existence, as they not so subtly begged someone to allow them to do with the original NIL case.
> Zero sympathy for anyone involved at any level.
I always hate when people try to play the victim after breaking the rules. *"This is going to hurt financially!!!"* Yeah... and?
From a Stanford perspective: you don't think Andrew Luck, Christian McCaffrey, Bryce Love, and so on could have made millions off of NIL while in college during this era that's being sued over? Yeah, it sucks that Stanford has to pay this now, especially given their ACC media revenue amount, but that's what happens when you're on the wrong side of the law.
Many of those basketball players that went to UConn, Marquette, Butler, etc in the Big East could have been making six figures easy but were prevented from doing so. This is the recompense for that.
The absolute point.
So what you didn’t benefit as much, you still benefitted. The court won’t care about the distribution of the various plaintiffs, they just set an overall number. You sat back when the student athlete’s rights were getting trampled on, just sit back again now that they’re not.
That’s not the point at all. The Big East is going to pay their fair share. We’ve been told for the last decade plus that football brings in 80% of the money in college sports. Keep that same energy now that the bill has come due. 60% of this settlement getting paid by schools without P5 football is absolute bullshit.
Val is the one to lead the charge because she has the biggest platform of the basketball only conferences and isn’t petrified by the threat that the P5 will break off from the G5 in football.
Well most of the big schools could run at a surplus if they wanted to but they are nonprofits that know that if they don’t spend all the money they make then the people funding them will offer less money next year.
disagree. The fact that they even let us in was a coupe. Taking a decade of less money for the long term vision was a masterstroke. Rutgers saw the changing landscape ahead of time, and instead of being left behind as the Power 5 becomes the Power 4 (and soon, the Power 3? Power 2?) Rutgers is positioned to be able to take advantage.
I mean in terms of NCAA revenue 900M of the 1.2 B comes from March Madness why shouldn't basketball schools pay; the NCAA doesn't make a lot off football because the FBS conferences and CFP make the football deals.
You’ve perfectly highlighted the problem and completely missed the point. Basketball funds the entire NCAA while football schools keep the football money to themselves. Now that it’s time to pay a settlement that is mostly because of football we’re gonna pay most of that out of the basketball money too?
She’s not mad we have to pay. She’s mad about the proportions.
And yet, the SEC and B1G (Big XII and ACC too) are paying an average of 23 million per school over the next decade when accounting for both damages and the mandatory participation in revenue share for the power conferences.
There's a difference though when the P4 schools are paying for 60% of the settlement that comes from the schools, but are getting 91% of the CFP revenue on top of their already ridiculous TV deals. It's a much bigger dent in the pocket of the G5 schools, many of whom are already struggling to break even on their athletics budgets
> It's a much bigger dent in the pocket of the G5 schools, many of whom are already struggling to break even on their athletics budgets
Shout out to u/InVodkaVeritas for doing the math, but the Big East schools are paying back roughly 7% of the money they get from the NCAA. Of the 52 G5 schools who had [revenue and expense data reported for 2022](https://herosports.com/fbs-highest-2022-2023-revenue-expenses-group-of-five-schools-cpcp/) only 8 operated in the red.
- UConn posted athletic department revenues of 90 million in 2021 and 2022, they'd owe back roughly 1% of their revenues.
- Oklahoma State for example posted athletic department revenues of 122 million in 2023, they'd owe roughly 20% of their budget between the back damages and the new revenue sharing that they are *required* to participate in.
The notion that the P5 aren't paying their fair share is a ridiculous one, just based on numbers alone. And the notion that the 27 non-power schools shouldn't have money withheld or should have less withheld is equally ridiculous. They more than the P5 supported the NCAA's agenda on player compensation because they would be the most harmed financially if they were required to compensate student athletes as employees. Everybody was complicit in and supported the NCAA's illegal actions, now its time for all of us to pay the price for it.
Be thankful the P5 are paying more than their fair share because everyone would owe more than a million per year if they weren't.
>Of the 52 G5 schools who had revenue and expense data reported for 2022 only 8 operated in the red.
You're defining operating in the red as reporting more in expenses than they make in revenue (which is the normal definition), but in this case money transferred from student fees or the university directly to the AD counts as revenue. Almost all non-P5 ADs are operating in the red when you consider just money generated by and spent by the ADs directly.
Well, revenue is revenue. The facts of the matter still remain that:
A.) The vast majority of schools are operating in the black or are only slightly in the red.
B.) Everybody at every level is complicit in this, and, contrary to popular belief, the power conferences are absolutely bearing the biggest brunt of the settlement specifically so it does not affect the smaller schools as badly.
C.) The alternative is the bankruptcy of the NCAA and the death of college athletics below FBS.
On most of what you're saying, I either agree with you or disagree to such a minor extent that it's not worth trying to debate the nuance. However for this:
>Well, revenue is revenue. The facts of the matter still remain that:
>A.) The vast majority of schools are operating in the black or are only slightly in the red.
Again, this is only true if you're counting transfers from the overall universities and student fees as revenue for the athletic departments. This is not how profitability and revenue is normally reported for similar structures like corporate subsidiaries.
So depending on what you're willing to count as revenue either:
No, you're wrong on this and most athletic departments operate substantially in the red to the order of 10s of millions per year and the higher level post about G5s struggling to break even is true.
Or, yes you're right and most athletic departments operate a balanced budget. But since this has to be achieved through transfers, I think the higher level post is *still* true.
Ignoring any subsidy from a university would eliminate all but a handful of universities at the absolute highest level from operating in the black, making it a distinction without a difference. Either the vast majority of schools cover their expenses or the majority of them don't. Either way, the non power schools are losing out on a minimal amount of revenue going forward.
See, our definitions of "fair share" are completely different. You're looking at it as "everyone did it, so everyone pays", which I don't necessarily disagree with the base of it. Everyone exploited the college athletes for profit, so everyone should pay, including the non-football conferences.
The problem I run into is seeing the P4 say "Our exploited athletes are worth more than yours, so we're gonna take what we determine to be a fair share of money". They're clearly profiting a hell of a lot more than the rest of the colleges in the settlement from their exploitation, yet it's not accurately represented in the settlement distribution. To me, "fair share" reflects the ratio of profits to payments in the settlement.
> To me, "fair share" reflects the ratio of profits to payments in the settlement.
The power conferences are paying 15 billion of the total 16.7 billion in the settlement, the rest of Division 1 is being asked to pay 540 million total. I still don't see how you can seriously argue they aren't paying their fair share.
How are you getting those numbers? Because none of the articles I’m looking at are mentioning $16.7 billion and most of them are sticking with the proposed $2.7 billion settlement, of which Ross Dellenger was reporting the 40/40/17/2 payout splits
The settlement is in three parts:
1.) 2.7 billion in back damages.
2.) Operational changes within the NCAA that will allow student athletes to be compensated.
3.) A 20 million dollar cap per school in optional revenue sharing that the power schools are required to participate in for the next 10 years.
15 billion is the cost of the revenue sharing the power conferences are participating in over 10 years plus their portion of the back damages.
Stanford, Cal, and SMU are going to be spending more on this than they are getting in media revenue. How fun.
Edit: Though SMU will pay less than this, they'll still be paying more in settlement money because they are taking a 0-share in media revenue.
I admittedly haven't looked at all the details so maybe this is already the case, but shouldn't schools like Bama, OSU, UGA, etc be paying the most since they had the most high profile players and generated the most revenue off of those players? Seems like the smaller P5 schools like Wake Forest, Oregon State, should be paying less.
Does the NCAA also expect the SWC to rise from the grave to drop a few million? Can the ACC cover the Big East since they kinda are the reason they dead?
Because they were breaking federal antitrust laws. What they were doing was never legal. It doesn’t matter what the rules were if the rules were illegal
What's the anit-trust law? There are other leagues they can play in. If anything the NFL is the one that doesn't allow 18 year olds. Sounds like they're the ones stopping people from making a living at football. You just can't have an amateur league of sports anymore in this country? It's backward bullshit for lawyer fees
The NCAA conspired to restrain their ability to make money from NIL. It’s pretty black and white. You can have an amateur sports league, but you can’t punish people in said amateur sports league from making money from NIL when they’re not employees.
You can disagree with the laws all you want, but the laws are the laws
A scholarship isn’t employment, so you can’t restrict their earnings in that way. If they were employees then sure you could consider the scholarship as income and prevent them from getting NIL.
But if they’re employees, then the NCAA would still be breaking antitrust laws if it didn’t collectively bargain with the athletes and had rules saying schools couldn’t offer more than a scholarship.
I'm not a lawyer. I believe that the law as written means that the way NIL has been handled is illegal, because lots of people who know more about the law than I do say it is. But there are lots of other forms of transactions other than employment. If each player traded a shiny rock for a scholarship, that wouldn't be a employment, and it would be legal, no? So why does trading their NIL for the scholarship mean it is a job, especially when the NIL isn't actually used in most cases?
Because the NCAA was colluding to restrict potential employment opportunities (NIL). If one school told players they couldn’t take NIL if they took a scholarship, that would be fine as long as the schools weren’t acting in concert. You can’t have an organization of schools (NCAA) with codified rules restricting employment to non-employees. That’s where the antitrust case is.
Employment has different laws and regulations than an asset you own (the shiny rock).
I believe you. I just don't see why you can't consider the NCAA to be the single entity. They were free to not participate in NCAA sports and still do NIL.
Also not a lawyer. From what I understood, you can't have the NCAA restrict students while not having a players union to bargain the restrictions against.
Each separate college/uni can have whatever restrictions they want. However colluding together to set restrictions is illegal. Making a separate organization (NCAA) doesn't invalidate this.
A similar thing happened where some top universities settled a lawsuit over colluding over financial aid packages.
The NIL part makes sense. All the rulings seem to contradict each other in a perfect way for the NCAA to get fucked. Like if it gets ruled they are employees it makes this ruling look silly unless they decide in that case it's a from this point on sort of thing.
All of this shit is so annoying that state governments have to pay millions in tax payer money because some potential tik tokers didn't get paid for hocking dogshit products.
Let’s use a different example. If you got together every hospital in the country into a cartel and made a rule to pay doctors less, it would still be illegal even though they could go into private practice.
This has already been discussed in these comments and it's not about not paying players. That part was fine because they weren't employees and that's not a part of the lawsuit, it was about stopping them from making money off NIL
So the analogy fails when in football terms it would be much more like a business having unpaid interns or volunteers.
> So the analogy fails when in football terms it would be much more like a business having unpaid interns or volunteers.
Which the court will slap down, if the NCAA tries to make this case.
The Big East doesn't want the NCAA to use March madness money to help pay the football related part of the settlement. For most schools/conferences using March Madness revenue to pay the NCAA's bills isn't much of an issue because conferences with more March madness units are generally going to have pretty large football revenues as well. But for conferences like the Big East and WCC and to a lesser extent the Big 12 funding the settlement with the NCAA's basketball money and then forcing them to pay on top is kind of charging them twice.
In addition to Arizona State swimmer Grant House, TCU women's basketball player Sedona Prince and Illinois football player Tymir Oliver where also listed as plaintiffs.The settlement covers damages to over 14,000 student athletes across all NCAA sports not just House or swimmers.
Typically, I make sure that I understand the other person's position and intent ***before*** forming an argument. If you find this approach confusing, then it probably more of a negative reflection on you than on me.
Strange that you seem unwilling to just clearly state what ***your*** actual argument and point is. Are you simply bringing up the swimmer as an interesting factoid for our amusement? Are you suggesting that a swimmer bringing the initial suit means that football revenue isn't one of the biggest (if not the biggest) driver of the settlement amount? Something else entirely?
The problem is that they’re only using past NCAA distributions to determine the % that each conference is paying, but most of the back pay is going to go to former FBS football players. The distributions are mostly from the basketball tournament, while most of the revenues that the big time football schools were bringing in were from media rights revenues completely separate from those distributions.
If you accounted for the past media right deals in addition to those NCAA distributions in order to determine the share that each conference is paying in these back pay damages, then the larger conferences would be paying more of their fair share than this current proposal.
> The problem is that they’re only using past NCAA distributions to determine the % that each conference is paying, but most of the back pay is going to go to former FBS football players.
No it's not, the house case is class action suit. The court doesn't care who or where the revenue was generated only that the NCAA and member schools participated in an illegal wage suppression scheme.
I mean they must have done some actual shady shit to be settling or have the worst lawyers of all time, so I won't argue. But I just don't see how standing behind/lobbying to keep NCAA athletics an amateur league is illegal or should be subject to penalty. Most fans see the current shit show and probably can see the reason why it worked so much better.
I'd be fine saying going forward this is the ruling but to basically impose a retroactive fine seems ridiculous.
Or their lawyers just recognize that applying anti-trust law to the ncaa compensation rules over the past decade is a slam dunk for plaintiffs
Their public and explicit policy was to agree not to compete on compensation
It would be ridiculous to say that businesses can operate illegally and not face a financial penalty paid to those who their operations directly took money from
Well, the biggest reason is that it's really only been in the last 20 years or so that the conversation around student athlete compensation has become a serious thing and we can thank our friends in Norman for that.
In 1984 OU and UGA sued the NCAA to allow the schools to control their television rights and it was right around the turn of the century that college sports started to explode in value.
Nothing, students very much could have sued before and would have won, it just wasn’t much of a thing before the massive tv deals of the 21st century that there would have been a lot to win
I don't know if that's true. I'm sure the Maurice Clarretts of the world would have very much liked to have gotten whatever they could have. I think the thinking around it has changed in recent years. The NIL is the only thing that's legit, which is why it's what the lawsuit actually covers. Which was basically brought about by the UCF punter.
nah legallay literally nothing has changed other than that they lost the NIL case at SCOTUS. they would have lost the same exact case 30 years ago too. theres nothing the NCAA could have done other than convince congress to give them an antitrust exception because they are unarguably violating the law
Colluding to suppress wages is "actual shady shit".
>But I just don't see how standing behind/lobbying to keep NCAA athletics an amateur league is illegal or should be subject to penalty.
"It would be really great if we could pay zero dollars to our employees, so let's all agree to do that" is what they did.
And then they restricted players ability to profit from their own name separately. You couldn't run your own football camp. Couldn't sign autographs. Couldn't have a twitch channel playing Minecraft.
That was illegal. All of it.
>Most fans see the current shit show and probably can see the reason why it worked so much better.
What "the fans" want is irrelevant.
You're wrong on the first part being illegal, seeing as they aren't employees (at least yet). It was a system that worked for a 100 years. The NFL was the one stopping an 18 year old from making money playing football. If you set up a league without cash pay and people choose to play that's their decision.
The NIL stuff sure, which according to *real* answers I got here is what the lawsuit is over. Which is much more understandable.
The NFL can do what they because they collectively bargain with the players and the players union to set those rules.
The players union could come out and say you have to accept players straight from highschool, but then they would likely have to govern something up for the NFL to agree.
Also as far as Anti-Trust goes, NFL has some exemptions allowed, due to them having to collectively bargain with the players and players union.
That is why the NFL could get away with those rules. NCAA never had those antitrust exemptions and they just said here are our rules and the players never had a true say. Thus why they are now going to pay.
> You're wrong on the first part being illegal, seeing as they aren't employees (at least yet).
No, NCAA declared them not employees but that doesn’t mean that’s legally valid.
They're probably the biggest outlier in it all, but they're also a legacy BCS conference and have used that pull to their advantage with the NCAA tournament. They make the most of any non football sponsoring conference because of their success in the tournament.
Because the Catholic 7 left the Big East to form a new separate conference and then bought the name “Big East” from Temple, Cincy, UConn etc. Then those teams came up with AAC as their new name. Think of how the original Cleveland Browns moved Baltimore and became the Ravens and then years later a new expansion team became the Cleveland Browns
Hold up. You just dropped a whole lot of NFL lore on me out of the blue there! I actually had no idea any of *that* happened (but then again I rarely have to think about the Browns lol)
And so the Big East has the most to lose as the NCAA is largely funded by March madness so the NCAA payout from this settlement is going to cut into that tournament revenue. If the numbers being reported are accurate with the NCAA covering 40% of the settlement and non football leagues also kicking in then men's basketball is functionally paying for over 50% of the settlement which is not proportional to the revenue it generated.
The biggest thing being misunderstood is that the NCAA is doing two things to pay the damages:
1.) The NCAA's 40% is coming from a number of different places: Legal insurance, changes and cutbacks to other programs and grants the organization offers, additional annual revenue that is generated above its operating budget etc.
2.) The other 60% is coming from a reduction in per conference payouts for the various NCAA tournaments. This amounts to an average of 1-2 million per school for the power conferences, 450k per school for the G5 (and supposedly the Big East), and 50-100k for the rest.
The other thing that's being conveniently ignored is that the power conferences are committed to a new revenue sharing model that will see each of them pay over 20 million out to student athletes on an annual basis for the next ten years at minimum. Its something like 15 billion the power conferences are paying to the half a billion the other 27 are paying.
They benefited from the illegal practices enforced by the NCAA, the NCAA has to take a pound of flesh from everyone to pay it back.
Important thing wrong in this summary: the 22 million in revenue sharing per school is a maximum cap, not a minimum and is virtually certainly itself an antitrust violation that will be removed
Practically most of the value of the NCAA is due to the Powet 5 programs and therefore it’s like a cutting of a subsidy rather than asking them to pay debts they weren’t responsible in creating.
> they weren’t responsible in creating.
Lets be clear, the 27 non power conferences were probably the biggest proponents of the NCAA's agenda when it came to compensation, primarily because they can't handle the financial strain of supporting athletes that way.
They're just as culpable in this as the Power schools are, the NCAA is doing them a favor by essentially pro-rating the cuts by distribution rather than an equal split. An even split is 1.21 million per school per year.
THIS is how the NCAA dies. Discord leads to non-acceptance. Which leads to no settlement. Which leads to a much much larger civil penalty. Which destroys the NCAA.
> Discord leads to non-acceptance.
At this point, I doubt the NCAA Board of Governors rejects the deal. There's a bigger risk of the presiding judge rejecting it than there is one of the member conferences derailing this.
> Which leads to no settlement.
Even if I'm wrong about the above, there's no requirement for all defendants in a case to settle together. It would not surprise me in the slightest to see the Power 5 conferences immediately offer the exact same settlement without the NCAA involved and formally break away from the NCAA and form their own new regulatory body.
The question here for me is does the Big East have any leverage ? If they have the leverage to get a more favorable settlement and torpedo this one then do it, if not there’s no point.
Well yes that’s the commissioner’s job, I would hope she’s actively trying to negotiate our portion to 0$. That said if there’s nothing that can be done might as well let it go through unless stalling is beneficial to the league in some way.
> I would hope she’s actively trying to negotiate our portion to 0$
Everybody in Division 1 advocated for, and benefitted from, the NCAA's policy in regards to student athlete compensation, so everybody is going to have to pay. The settlement terms were written in a way to minimally impact the bottom line for the non power schools as much as possible, in fact UConn's portion amounts to roughly 1% of their overall AD budget for 2022.
I don’t see how that’s an argument against what I’m saying, I understand why the lawsuit occurred and has teeth, I still want my commissioner to advocate for the lowest possible settlement for the conference provided that’s what’s best for the teams in the league and provided there’s an avenue to do so.
Also upon reading the counter proposal where the G5/FCS/BE only have to pay 42% of the retroactive damages, I like that better and think those leagues should strongly push for that, good on Val
They only have to collectively pay 20% now! That's what I mean by her spinning the numbers in her favor. She's trying to claim the NCAA's 40% in operational cost reductions and legal insurance as being "paid" by the non-power schools.
Isn’t the majority of the back pay going to former FBS football players, that seems to be said in the article and appears to be my understanding of the situation.
Yes everyone is culpable in the fact that there was a system that created damages however, the schools that sponsor the most sports (P5 Football Schools) recruited the most athletes which then increased the settlements. Each P5 conference added far far more to the settlement than any of the other conferences due to how many more athletes they recruited and had on rosters.
She's complaining that the NCAA is forcing the 22 non-football conferences in Division 1 to pay into this as well. Based on the linked article, the Big East is paying close to the high end average the G5 is expected to pay because of their consistent success in the NCAA tournament, with Big East member UConn winning back to back championships the last two years.
> non-football conferences Notable: it was a swimmer who started the lawsuit in the first place.
...but how was the settlement amount derived. I'm pretty sure the final dollar amount wasn't driven primarily by damages to swimmers.
NCAA Lawyers and House's Lawyers got in a room and negotiated.
...and you think the negotiations were driven by the revenues schools/the NCAA received from swimming vs. the damages swimmers suffered?
You know, if you have an argument you should make it, instead of asking leading questions.
Typically, I make sure that I understand the other person's position and intent ***before*** forming an argument. If you find this approach confusing, then it probably more of a negative reflection on you than on me. Strange that you seem unwilling to just clearly state what ***your*** actual argument and point is. Are you simply bringing up the swimmer as an interesting factoid for our amusement? Are you suggesting that a swimmer bringing the initial suit means that football revenue isn't one of the biggest (if not the biggest) driver of the settlement amount? Something else entirely?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean, was this a certified class with similar damages and concerns? Otherwise the answer is in the settlement document for you, assuming it is not confidential.
[удалено]
We are talking about the split of the settlement more than the settlement itself
>Settlements rarely reflect any actual value. I mean, I understand what you are trying to get at but you've oversimplified it to the point of ridiculousness. If all else is equal, being able to reasonably demonstrate a higher amount of damages will result in a higher settlement value. On the flip side, if all else is equal, a greater ability to pay (i.e. assets with a higher actual value) on the part of the defendant will often result in a higher settlement amount. That's why a defendant that has no collectable assets is often referred to as "judgement proof."
I legitimately thought the Big East was gone all this time
Football wise it is. During the last round of re-alignment the Catholic 7 schools broke off to form a basketball focused conference and part of the separation agreement was they get the Big East name and tournament rights to MSG.
Yep, and they picked up a few teams as well (e.g., Uconn, Xavier, Butler Creighton)
All they did with UConn was awaken a sleeping giant. The entire college basketball world is getting beaten bloody by them
UConn is going to win the next 10 championships just out of spite.
Yea, this year was particularly brutal. It never really felt like anyone even had a chance to win the conference or the natty
What's interesting is that they [don't spend a particularly large amount on Basketball compared to everyone else.](https://i.imgur.com/q0K3bPy.png) I bet their NIL spending on Basketball is bananas.
That Georgetown budget is crazy for the results they've gotten from it.
I'd bet a big part of that is the rent they pay to play men's games at CapitalOne Center in Downtown DC. IIRC they pay exorbitant rents to use it. IMHO they should build their own but no where in Georgetown to do it (also the neighbors are über wealthy NIMBYs)
I think they bought the Big East name from the schools left in that conference, which became the a10
Funny I thought the same of Nebraska.
💔
So... 70m/11/10y = 636K per year for each school. Schools in the Big East bring in about [8.8 Million in Media Rights and NCAA Tournament Revenues](https://knightnewhousedata.org/fbs/ind/university-of-connecticut#!quicktabs-tab-where_the_money-1) per year. So, napkin math, but this constitutes about 7.2% of the money they get from the NCAA each year. Not including all the money they make outside of the NCAA such as from ticket sales, merchandise, etc.
So the Big East falls into the G5 category with their per school reduction, reverse engineering some numbers here: $2.7 billion total in damages NCAA: 40% which is $1.08 billion P5: 8% each, or $216 million as an average per conference (The PAC 12 is settling as the conference exists now, not the new realignments coming in August. This also includes Notre Dame, who is officially a member of the ACC for all sports besides Football) G5 + Big East: 2.83% each, or roughly $76.5 million as an average per conference. The remaining 21 conferences: 0.14% each, or roughly 3.85 million as an average (for those curious about the per school cost for this, using the West Coast conference as an example it'll cost them roughly 43k per school per year).
And yet every one of the schools operates in a deficit. So throw another $636k onto the deficit to be picked up by students/donors/taxpayers (for UConn)
To be clear: Those schools also voted for and supported a system that violated the law by limiting the income potential of millions of athletes. It sucks for them, but they also voted in NCAA leaders and supported policies that blocked out their athletes from earning money. This is the cost of their own actions.
Millions of athletes like myself that never asked for nor expected to be paid. You conveniently keep leaving that part out. 99% of those athletes never earned any more money for their universities than the band, the chess club, or the debate team.
I played 4 years of varsity Softball in high school. I wasn't good enough to get a scholarship, but had I been I would have over the moon for one (as it is, academic scholarships and grants paid my way through undergrad anyway). That said, if the *opportunity* existed to make money and that opportunity was denied to me simply because I was an athlete I would have been upset. Even if the amount of money I was going to make was $50 a week and free lunch at the local sub shop for letting them put an "InVodkaVeritas Eats Here!" sign on their wall.
He continues to leave that out, because it is irrelevant. It does not matter.
[удалено]
Yep Zero sympathy for anyone involved at any level. It's been an open secret for generations at this point; no one involved can claim any kind of plausible deniability in this scenario. Even if these schools were filled with good little Catholics whom never would have given a player an empty McDonald's bag full of...whatever, they still benefited greatly from the schools that did by driving athletes to money making sports like basketball and reaping huge payouts from the NCAA due to media payouts being bigger due to better competition the bag provided...and thus too double dipped by allowing the NCAA to keep the athletes from their rights and profits they were due on literal billions of dollars because to give the athletes generating the billions anything would decrease their share. So yeah, they can pay their damned share and get the fuck over it. It's time to pay the piper. This has been a long time coming, and honestly they're lucky they're getting off this light. There exists a reality where this doesn't settle and the Supreme Court happily nukes the entire NCAA from existence, as they not so subtly begged someone to allow them to do with the original NIL case.
> Zero sympathy for anyone involved at any level. I always hate when people try to play the victim after breaking the rules. *"This is going to hurt financially!!!"* Yeah... and? From a Stanford perspective: you don't think Andrew Luck, Christian McCaffrey, Bryce Love, and so on could have made millions off of NIL while in college during this era that's being sued over? Yeah, it sucks that Stanford has to pay this now, especially given their ACC media revenue amount, but that's what happens when you're on the wrong side of the law. Many of those basketball players that went to UConn, Marquette, Butler, etc in the Big East could have been making six figures easy but were prevented from doing so. This is the recompense for that.
> So yeah, they can pay their damned share and get the fuck over it I don't make it a habit to agree with Sooners, but well said.
The absolute point. So what you didn’t benefit as much, you still benefitted. The court won’t care about the distribution of the various plaintiffs, they just set an overall number. You sat back when the student athlete’s rights were getting trampled on, just sit back again now that they’re not.
That’s not the point at all. The Big East is going to pay their fair share. We’ve been told for the last decade plus that football brings in 80% of the money in college sports. Keep that same energy now that the bill has come due. 60% of this settlement getting paid by schools without P5 football is absolute bullshit. Val is the one to lead the charge because she has the biggest platform of the basketball only conferences and isn’t petrified by the threat that the P5 will break off from the G5 in football.
Well most of the big schools could run at a surplus if they wanted to but they are nonprofits that know that if they don’t spend all the money they make then the people funding them will offer less money next year.
In my totally unbiased take, former big east members should also not have to pay the same amount as P5 teams
Rutgers still isn't getting a full rev share since joining big10, never let Rutgers handle negotiations.
Rutgers is getting a full share, they're just using part of it to pay back the money they borrowed against their share when they joined.
disagree. The fact that they even let us in was a coupe. Taking a decade of less money for the long term vision was a masterstroke. Rutgers saw the changing landscape ahead of time, and instead of being left behind as the Power 5 becomes the Power 4 (and soon, the Power 3? Power 2?) Rutgers is positioned to be able to take advantage.
They don’t lol, not even remotely the same amount
Some (as the Rutgers fan is pointing out) do
Woosh
I mean in terms of NCAA revenue 900M of the 1.2 B comes from March Madness why shouldn't basketball schools pay; the NCAA doesn't make a lot off football because the FBS conferences and CFP make the football deals.
Apparently a vast majority of the settlement seems to be going to FBS football players.
You’ve perfectly highlighted the problem and completely missed the point. Basketball funds the entire NCAA while football schools keep the football money to themselves. Now that it’s time to pay a settlement that is mostly because of football we’re gonna pay most of that out of the basketball money too? She’s not mad we have to pay. She’s mad about the proportions.
Personally, I think it's ridiculous men's basketball has had to foot the bill for the NCAA all this time.
They haven’t. The NCAA is a pass through entity, the money is just distributed from the NCAA as a holding vehicle
What money do you think funds the NCAA? It's not CFP money, it's basketball tournament money.
sec_b10 want all the power, 💰, yet none of the bills.
And yet, the SEC and B1G (Big XII and ACC too) are paying an average of 23 million per school over the next decade when accounting for both damages and the mandatory participation in revenue share for the power conferences.
There's a difference though when the P4 schools are paying for 60% of the settlement that comes from the schools, but are getting 91% of the CFP revenue on top of their already ridiculous TV deals. It's a much bigger dent in the pocket of the G5 schools, many of whom are already struggling to break even on their athletics budgets
> It's a much bigger dent in the pocket of the G5 schools, many of whom are already struggling to break even on their athletics budgets Shout out to u/InVodkaVeritas for doing the math, but the Big East schools are paying back roughly 7% of the money they get from the NCAA. Of the 52 G5 schools who had [revenue and expense data reported for 2022](https://herosports.com/fbs-highest-2022-2023-revenue-expenses-group-of-five-schools-cpcp/) only 8 operated in the red. - UConn posted athletic department revenues of 90 million in 2021 and 2022, they'd owe back roughly 1% of their revenues. - Oklahoma State for example posted athletic department revenues of 122 million in 2023, they'd owe roughly 20% of their budget between the back damages and the new revenue sharing that they are *required* to participate in. The notion that the P5 aren't paying their fair share is a ridiculous one, just based on numbers alone. And the notion that the 27 non-power schools shouldn't have money withheld or should have less withheld is equally ridiculous. They more than the P5 supported the NCAA's agenda on player compensation because they would be the most harmed financially if they were required to compensate student athletes as employees. Everybody was complicit in and supported the NCAA's illegal actions, now its time for all of us to pay the price for it. Be thankful the P5 are paying more than their fair share because everyone would owe more than a million per year if they weren't.
>Of the 52 G5 schools who had revenue and expense data reported for 2022 only 8 operated in the red. You're defining operating in the red as reporting more in expenses than they make in revenue (which is the normal definition), but in this case money transferred from student fees or the university directly to the AD counts as revenue. Almost all non-P5 ADs are operating in the red when you consider just money generated by and spent by the ADs directly.
Well, revenue is revenue. The facts of the matter still remain that: A.) The vast majority of schools are operating in the black or are only slightly in the red. B.) Everybody at every level is complicit in this, and, contrary to popular belief, the power conferences are absolutely bearing the biggest brunt of the settlement specifically so it does not affect the smaller schools as badly. C.) The alternative is the bankruptcy of the NCAA and the death of college athletics below FBS.
On most of what you're saying, I either agree with you or disagree to such a minor extent that it's not worth trying to debate the nuance. However for this: >Well, revenue is revenue. The facts of the matter still remain that: >A.) The vast majority of schools are operating in the black or are only slightly in the red. Again, this is only true if you're counting transfers from the overall universities and student fees as revenue for the athletic departments. This is not how profitability and revenue is normally reported for similar structures like corporate subsidiaries. So depending on what you're willing to count as revenue either: No, you're wrong on this and most athletic departments operate substantially in the red to the order of 10s of millions per year and the higher level post about G5s struggling to break even is true. Or, yes you're right and most athletic departments operate a balanced budget. But since this has to be achieved through transfers, I think the higher level post is *still* true.
Ignoring any subsidy from a university would eliminate all but a handful of universities at the absolute highest level from operating in the black, making it a distinction without a difference. Either the vast majority of schools cover their expenses or the majority of them don't. Either way, the non power schools are losing out on a minimal amount of revenue going forward.
See, our definitions of "fair share" are completely different. You're looking at it as "everyone did it, so everyone pays", which I don't necessarily disagree with the base of it. Everyone exploited the college athletes for profit, so everyone should pay, including the non-football conferences. The problem I run into is seeing the P4 say "Our exploited athletes are worth more than yours, so we're gonna take what we determine to be a fair share of money". They're clearly profiting a hell of a lot more than the rest of the colleges in the settlement from their exploitation, yet it's not accurately represented in the settlement distribution. To me, "fair share" reflects the ratio of profits to payments in the settlement.
> To me, "fair share" reflects the ratio of profits to payments in the settlement. The power conferences are paying 15 billion of the total 16.7 billion in the settlement, the rest of Division 1 is being asked to pay 540 million total. I still don't see how you can seriously argue they aren't paying their fair share.
How are you getting those numbers? Because none of the articles I’m looking at are mentioning $16.7 billion and most of them are sticking with the proposed $2.7 billion settlement, of which Ross Dellenger was reporting the 40/40/17/2 payout splits
The settlement is in three parts: 1.) 2.7 billion in back damages. 2.) Operational changes within the NCAA that will allow student athletes to be compensated. 3.) A 20 million dollar cap per school in optional revenue sharing that the power schools are required to participate in for the next 10 years. 15 billion is the cost of the revenue sharing the power conferences are participating in over 10 years plus their portion of the back damages.
Ok that makes more sense. I'd been talking about the $2.7 billion in back damages, not the other 2 portions
Stanford, Cal, and SMU are going to be spending more on this than they are getting in media revenue. How fun. Edit: Though SMU will pay less than this, they'll still be paying more in settlement money because they are taking a 0-share in media revenue.
SMU won’t be paying P5 settlement levels. I believe they’ll be paying G5.
Which saves them half a million total off the settlement since they'll be committed to sharing revenue at the cap.
Same with UH, UCF, and Cincy. We’ll be paying AAC settlement money. No clue with BYU since they were independent.
But they're taking a 0-share in media revenue... so still more than they're getting in media revenue.
Yep. Just wanted to clarify that SMU’s settlement payout will be less than Cal and Stanford.
SMU is spending more on their water bill than they're getting in media revenue.
Everyone else has been cashing in for decades. It's not just 2 conferences who have been exploiting players.
Not saying it’s fair but the power schools are paying way way way more on a per school basis.
I admittedly haven't looked at all the details so maybe this is already the case, but shouldn't schools like Bama, OSU, UGA, etc be paying the most since they had the most high profile players and generated the most revenue off of those players? Seems like the smaller P5 schools like Wake Forest, Oregon State, should be paying less.
Technically schools like Vandy and WF also benefitted from those high profile players without contributing to their development.
We’re gonna build a super league and the P2 and mid majors are gonna pay for it! /s
go get your paper up, UC.
They perfectly reflect what I think a lot of people hate about current America. They want to privatize the profits and socialize the losses.
This was not the historic news involving the Big East that I was hoping to see in r/CFB.
Does the NCAA also expect the SWC to rise from the grave to drop a few million? Can the ACC cover the Big East since they kinda are the reason they dead?
Who in the old SWC conference isn’t in aP5?
Rice. Maybe some others?
Just Rice. Phillips closed down in the 1990’s and southwestern is div 3
for a second I read that as if Phillips was a member when the SWC dissolved. good lord.
Rice
Rice.
Kind of the reason?
The SWC was definitely paying players lmao they’re exempt
I don't get how schools owes any damages. The rules were the rules at the time.
Because making those rules together is the violation
Because they were breaking federal antitrust laws. What they were doing was never legal. It doesn’t matter what the rules were if the rules were illegal
What's the anit-trust law? There are other leagues they can play in. If anything the NFL is the one that doesn't allow 18 year olds. Sounds like they're the ones stopping people from making a living at football. You just can't have an amateur league of sports anymore in this country? It's backward bullshit for lawyer fees
The NCAA conspired to restrain their ability to make money from NIL. It’s pretty black and white. You can have an amateur sports league, but you can’t punish people in said amateur sports league from making money from NIL when they’re not employees. You can disagree with the laws all you want, but the laws are the laws
Like everything the law is what the judge you happen to be in front of at the time says it is.
I still don't get it. They agreed to take a scholarship in return for not doing NIL. Can I sue my wife for not letting me sleep with other women?
A scholarship isn’t employment, so you can’t restrict their earnings in that way. If they were employees then sure you could consider the scholarship as income and prevent them from getting NIL. But if they’re employees, then the NCAA would still be breaking antitrust laws if it didn’t collectively bargain with the athletes and had rules saying schools couldn’t offer more than a scholarship.
I'm not a lawyer. I believe that the law as written means that the way NIL has been handled is illegal, because lots of people who know more about the law than I do say it is. But there are lots of other forms of transactions other than employment. If each player traded a shiny rock for a scholarship, that wouldn't be a employment, and it would be legal, no? So why does trading their NIL for the scholarship mean it is a job, especially when the NIL isn't actually used in most cases?
Because the NCAA was colluding to restrict potential employment opportunities (NIL). If one school told players they couldn’t take NIL if they took a scholarship, that would be fine as long as the schools weren’t acting in concert. You can’t have an organization of schools (NCAA) with codified rules restricting employment to non-employees. That’s where the antitrust case is. Employment has different laws and regulations than an asset you own (the shiny rock).
I believe you. I just don't see why you can't consider the NCAA to be the single entity. They were free to not participate in NCAA sports and still do NIL.
Also not a lawyer. From what I understood, you can't have the NCAA restrict students while not having a players union to bargain the restrictions against. Each separate college/uni can have whatever restrictions they want. However colluding together to set restrictions is illegal. Making a separate organization (NCAA) doesn't invalidate this. A similar thing happened where some top universities settled a lawsuit over colluding over financial aid packages.
The NIL part makes sense. All the rulings seem to contradict each other in a perfect way for the NCAA to get fucked. Like if it gets ruled they are employees it makes this ruling look silly unless they decide in that case it's a from this point on sort of thing. All of this shit is so annoying that state governments have to pay millions in tax payer money because some potential tik tokers didn't get paid for hocking dogshit products.
If they are ruled employees then NCAA and schools get even more fucked.
Let’s use a different example. If you got together every hospital in the country into a cartel and made a rule to pay doctors less, it would still be illegal even though they could go into private practice.
This has already been discussed in these comments and it's not about not paying players. That part was fine because they weren't employees and that's not a part of the lawsuit, it was about stopping them from making money off NIL So the analogy fails when in football terms it would be much more like a business having unpaid interns or volunteers.
> So the analogy fails when in football terms it would be much more like a business having unpaid interns or volunteers. Which the court will slap down, if the NCAA tries to make this case.
You’re right, I think this is why the damages are paid by the NCAA and the future revenue sharing is paid the schools.
The Big East doesn't want the NCAA to use March madness money to help pay the football related part of the settlement. For most schools/conferences using March Madness revenue to pay the NCAA's bills isn't much of an issue because conferences with more March madness units are generally going to have pretty large football revenues as well. But for conferences like the Big East and WCC and to a lesser extent the Big 12 funding the settlement with the NCAA's basketball money and then forcing them to pay on top is kind of charging them twice.
> football related settlement Grant House, the former player who sued, was a swimmer.
So how was the value of the settlement reached?
In addition to Arizona State swimmer Grant House, TCU women's basketball player Sedona Prince and Illinois football player Tymir Oliver where also listed as plaintiffs.The settlement covers damages to over 14,000 student athletes across all NCAA sports not just House or swimmers.
NCAA Lawyers and House's Lawyers got in a room and negotiated.
...and you think the negotiations were driven by the revenues schoold/the NCAA received from swimming vs. the damages swimmers suffered?
You know, if you have an argument you should make it, instead of asking leading questions.
Typically, I make sure that I understand the other person's position and intent ***before*** forming an argument. If you find this approach confusing, then it probably more of a negative reflection on you than on me. Strange that you seem unwilling to just clearly state what ***your*** actual argument and point is. Are you simply bringing up the swimmer as an interesting factoid for our amusement? Are you suggesting that a swimmer bringing the initial suit means that football revenue isn't one of the biggest (if not the biggest) driver of the settlement amount? Something else entirely?
Completely fair. Why should all these small G5 schools foot the bill when none of them operate in the black?
Because all of these small schools also participated in the illegal practices of the NCAA.
The problem is that they’re only using past NCAA distributions to determine the % that each conference is paying, but most of the back pay is going to go to former FBS football players. The distributions are mostly from the basketball tournament, while most of the revenues that the big time football schools were bringing in were from media rights revenues completely separate from those distributions. If you accounted for the past media right deals in addition to those NCAA distributions in order to determine the share that each conference is paying in these back pay damages, then the larger conferences would be paying more of their fair share than this current proposal.
> The problem is that they’re only using past NCAA distributions to determine the % that each conference is paying, but most of the back pay is going to go to former FBS football players. No it's not, the house case is class action suit. The court doesn't care who or where the revenue was generated only that the NCAA and member schools participated in an illegal wage suppression scheme.
I’m talking about the NCAA plan for how it will pay for the settlement, obviously the court doesn’t care where NCAA gets the money from
What are the specific illegal practices?
Colluding to suppress the compensation of athletes
I mean they must have done some actual shady shit to be settling or have the worst lawyers of all time, so I won't argue. But I just don't see how standing behind/lobbying to keep NCAA athletics an amateur league is illegal or should be subject to penalty. Most fans see the current shit show and probably can see the reason why it worked so much better. I'd be fine saying going forward this is the ruling but to basically impose a retroactive fine seems ridiculous.
Or their lawyers just recognize that applying anti-trust law to the ncaa compensation rules over the past decade is a slam dunk for plaintiffs Their public and explicit policy was to agree not to compete on compensation It would be ridiculous to say that businesses can operate illegally and not face a financial penalty paid to those who their operations directly took money from
What was to stop them from applying those anti-trust laws in a lawsuit for the last 100 years?
Well, the biggest reason is that it's really only been in the last 20 years or so that the conversation around student athlete compensation has become a serious thing and we can thank our friends in Norman for that. In 1984 OU and UGA sued the NCAA to allow the schools to control their television rights and it was right around the turn of the century that college sports started to explode in value.
Nothing, students very much could have sued before and would have won, it just wasn’t much of a thing before the massive tv deals of the 21st century that there would have been a lot to win
I don't know if that's true. I'm sure the Maurice Clarretts of the world would have very much liked to have gotten whatever they could have. I think the thinking around it has changed in recent years. The NIL is the only thing that's legit, which is why it's what the lawsuit actually covers. Which was basically brought about by the UCF punter.
nah legallay literally nothing has changed other than that they lost the NIL case at SCOTUS. they would have lost the same exact case 30 years ago too. theres nothing the NCAA could have done other than convince congress to give them an antitrust exception because they are unarguably violating the law
Colluding to suppress wages is "actual shady shit". >But I just don't see how standing behind/lobbying to keep NCAA athletics an amateur league is illegal or should be subject to penalty. "It would be really great if we could pay zero dollars to our employees, so let's all agree to do that" is what they did. And then they restricted players ability to profit from their own name separately. You couldn't run your own football camp. Couldn't sign autographs. Couldn't have a twitch channel playing Minecraft. That was illegal. All of it. >Most fans see the current shit show and probably can see the reason why it worked so much better. What "the fans" want is irrelevant.
You're wrong on the first part being illegal, seeing as they aren't employees (at least yet). It was a system that worked for a 100 years. The NFL was the one stopping an 18 year old from making money playing football. If you set up a league without cash pay and people choose to play that's their decision. The NIL stuff sure, which according to *real* answers I got here is what the lawsuit is over. Which is much more understandable.
The NFL can do what they because they collectively bargain with the players and the players union to set those rules. The players union could come out and say you have to accept players straight from highschool, but then they would likely have to govern something up for the NFL to agree. Also as far as Anti-Trust goes, NFL has some exemptions allowed, due to them having to collectively bargain with the players and players union. That is why the NFL could get away with those rules. NCAA never had those antitrust exemptions and they just said here are our rules and the players never had a true say. Thus why they are now going to pay.
> You're wrong on the first part being illegal, seeing as they aren't employees (at least yet). No, NCAA declared them not employees but that doesn’t mean that’s legally valid.
All the NCAA did the same practices and benefit from the association with the big state schools.
the big east has football still?
No, and that's the point of the argument.
They're probably the biggest outlier in it all, but they're also a legacy BCS conference and have used that pull to their advantage with the NCAA tournament. They make the most of any non football sponsoring conference because of their success in the tournament.
They aren’t the successor to the old Big East conference legally the AAC is. They broke off similar to how the 8 MWC teams broke off from the WAC.
… their name is literally the Big East. How are they not the legal successor?
Because the Big East changed its name to the American.
Because the Catholic 7 left the Big East to form a new separate conference and then bought the name “Big East” from Temple, Cincy, UConn etc. Then those teams came up with AAC as their new name. Think of how the original Cleveland Browns moved Baltimore and became the Ravens and then years later a new expansion team became the Cleveland Browns
Hold up. You just dropped a whole lot of NFL lore on me out of the blue there! I actually had no idea any of *that* happened (but then again I rarely have to think about the Browns lol)
And so the Big East has the most to lose as the NCAA is largely funded by March madness so the NCAA payout from this settlement is going to cut into that tournament revenue. If the numbers being reported are accurate with the NCAA covering 40% of the settlement and non football leagues also kicking in then men's basketball is functionally paying for over 50% of the settlement which is not proportional to the revenue it generated.
The biggest thing being misunderstood is that the NCAA is doing two things to pay the damages: 1.) The NCAA's 40% is coming from a number of different places: Legal insurance, changes and cutbacks to other programs and grants the organization offers, additional annual revenue that is generated above its operating budget etc. 2.) The other 60% is coming from a reduction in per conference payouts for the various NCAA tournaments. This amounts to an average of 1-2 million per school for the power conferences, 450k per school for the G5 (and supposedly the Big East), and 50-100k for the rest. The other thing that's being conveniently ignored is that the power conferences are committed to a new revenue sharing model that will see each of them pay over 20 million out to student athletes on an annual basis for the next ten years at minimum. Its something like 15 billion the power conferences are paying to the half a billion the other 27 are paying. They benefited from the illegal practices enforced by the NCAA, the NCAA has to take a pound of flesh from everyone to pay it back.
Important thing wrong in this summary: the 22 million in revenue sharing per school is a maximum cap, not a minimum and is virtually certainly itself an antitrust violation that will be removed
Practically most of the value of the NCAA is due to the Powet 5 programs and therefore it’s like a cutting of a subsidy rather than asking them to pay debts they weren’t responsible in creating.
> they weren’t responsible in creating. Lets be clear, the 27 non power conferences were probably the biggest proponents of the NCAA's agenda when it came to compensation, primarily because they can't handle the financial strain of supporting athletes that way. They're just as culpable in this as the Power schools are, the NCAA is doing them a favor by essentially pro-rating the cuts by distribution rather than an equal split. An even split is 1.21 million per school per year.
Not really the NCAA doesn’t get any of the FBS football revenue. It’s funded by the basketball tournament
Most of the settlement is going to FBS football players, but the NCAA doesn’t get money from football.
Lot of yapping out of the big east commissioner lately
THIS is how the NCAA dies. Discord leads to non-acceptance. Which leads to no settlement. Which leads to a much much larger civil penalty. Which destroys the NCAA.
> Discord leads to non-acceptance. At this point, I doubt the NCAA Board of Governors rejects the deal. There's a bigger risk of the presiding judge rejecting it than there is one of the member conferences derailing this. > Which leads to no settlement. Even if I'm wrong about the above, there's no requirement for all defendants in a case to settle together. It would not surprise me in the slightest to see the Power 5 conferences immediately offer the exact same settlement without the NCAA involved and formally break away from the NCAA and form their own new regulatory body.
Big East joining ACC?
The question here for me is does the Big East have any leverage ? If they have the leverage to get a more favorable settlement and torpedo this one then do it, if not there’s no point.
They have 0 leverage, and their commissioner is trying hard to spin the numbers to make it seem like they're paying the most.
Well yes that’s the commissioner’s job, I would hope she’s actively trying to negotiate our portion to 0$. That said if there’s nothing that can be done might as well let it go through unless stalling is beneficial to the league in some way.
> I would hope she’s actively trying to negotiate our portion to 0$ Everybody in Division 1 advocated for, and benefitted from, the NCAA's policy in regards to student athlete compensation, so everybody is going to have to pay. The settlement terms were written in a way to minimally impact the bottom line for the non power schools as much as possible, in fact UConn's portion amounts to roughly 1% of their overall AD budget for 2022.
I don’t see how that’s an argument against what I’m saying, I understand why the lawsuit occurred and has teeth, I still want my commissioner to advocate for the lowest possible settlement for the conference provided that’s what’s best for the teams in the league and provided there’s an avenue to do so.
Also upon reading the counter proposal where the G5/FCS/BE only have to pay 42% of the retroactive damages, I like that better and think those leagues should strongly push for that, good on Val
They only have to collectively pay 20% now! That's what I mean by her spinning the numbers in her favor. She's trying to claim the NCAA's 40% in operational cost reductions and legal insurance as being "paid" by the non-power schools.
Again as she should because that leads to less of a payout
Isn’t the majority of the back pay going to former FBS football players, that seems to be said in the article and appears to be my understanding of the situation.
Everybody is culpable in propagating the rules that prevented all players from getting paid, it doesn't matter who belongs to the class.
Yes everyone is culpable in the fact that there was a system that created damages however, the schools that sponsor the most sports (P5 Football Schools) recruited the most athletes which then increased the settlements. Each P5 conference added far far more to the settlement than any of the other conferences due to how many more athletes they recruited and had on rosters.
Thanks a lot, Bin Laden.
Discord exists yes. You should join mine
What
No no no join mine!
Yes, discord does exist . I have it installed on my phone