NCAA Transfer & NIL Policies

Not really related to this softball player, but the thing that's currently worrying me is this: NIL was created because people said, "the players need to be making money because the schools are making a ton of money off of them" BUT now that it's a reality, the players are making so much that schools are having to scrimp and scrap and cut non-revenue programs in order to pay the football and basketball players. There needs to be a happy medium.
 
SteveMM said:
Not really related to this softball player, but the thing that's currently worrying me is this: NIL was created because people said, "the players need to be making money because the schools are making a ton of money off of them" BUT now that it's a reality, the players are making so much that schools are having to scrimp and scrap and cut non-revenue programs in order to pay the football and basketball players. There needs to be a happy medium.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Yes the MBB program makes alot of money. But it was already currently spending all of that money before paying players. Mush of it was spent in bloated administrative payroll, luxury perks (dining, living, practice...), gear, and gosh knows what else. I remember a video VCU posted showing Ed walk on to a private jet to fly up to RI so they can fly Martelli down for a press conference. I assume he flew back on a private charter. That was an unnecessary waste of money.
An adult needs to enter the room, look at revenue and expenses and figure a way to re-allocate the millions they are currently spending to include the players. If they can talk donors into giving their money to the players in some sort of wealth transfer -that is fine with me. But i do not think long term it will be a viable solution.
 
Last edited:
I know there is focus on the negative of NIL but I was at a scholarship presentation yesterday and two college basketball players that have NIL deals provided over $40k for graduating high school seniors. Because of their NIL deals, there will be several incoming freshman that will have less stress related to financing their college education.
 
Judge Wilkins has approved the House settlement. I anticipate a new antitrust suit, as soon as next week.

Some objectors have expressed concern that Defendants will attempt to use the approval of the SA as a shield in future antitrust litigation brought against them by people or entities who are not bound by the SA. These objectors believe that Defendants will argue that the approval of the SA means that any conduct permitted under the SA is immune from antitrust scrutiny. The Court overrules those objections.

[Q]uestions of whether the conduct challenged in the operative complaint
and the conduct permitted under the terms of the SA violate the Sherman Act will remain unresolved and unadjudicated. See Robertson, 556 F.2d at 686 (holding that “a court in approving a settlement should not in effect try the case by deciding unsettled legal questions”) (citation omitted). The Court’s approval of the SA will not constitute a judgment on the competitive impact of the conduct challenged in the operative complaint or the conduct permitted under the SA, nor will it constitute a determination that the conduct challenged in the operative complaint or the conduct permitted under the SA complies (or does not comply) with the Sherman Act or any other law.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
My knowledge of this settlement thing is vague at best, I admit. Is anyone able to take a few seconds to attempt to summarize some of the immediate and long term probable/potential impacts to our program?
 
MobileMunchies said:
My knowledge of this settlement thing is vague at best, I admit. Is anyone able to take a few seconds to attempt to summarize some of the immediate and long term probable/potential impacts to our program?
Click to expand...
No, my knowledge of this settlement thing is vague at best.

If it is anything like all of the other recent changes to college basketball I suspect we will just have to wait and see how it works out for us.
 
This article in the Post does an admirable job of summarizing the terms of the deal. This is a free link:


From my perspective, the net result of this mess is more, not less, uncertainty. I am 100% certain of only one thing, and that is that there will be more litigation. The deal seems to exchange a prior set of antitrust violations for a new set. Unless Congress acts to allow some sort of anti-trust immunity, no solution seems possible.

The deal was negotiated by a subset of the interested parties. On one side you have the power conf programs (OSU but not Wichita State or New Mexico) and the NCAA; on the other you have the individuals: past, current and future student athletes. The goal of the negotiating parties was to find a compromise that resolved as much of the disputed ground as possible for the largest number of possible disputants. If the P4 could conclusively determine the rights of the other ~1k NCAA institutions without their input they surely would. But litigating the rights of individuals/entities that aren't actually before the court is extremely difficult for constitutional reasons. A judgment or a settlement that interferes with the rights of those absent parties can deny them due process and be void.

The approved deal obviously is designed by and skewed to favor the P4 schools. Most schools don't have the cash necessary to compete at $20MM annually for athletes. The approved, negotiated solution to this problem is for these "poor schools" to take themselves out of the arrangement altogether. JMU and Jacksonville State can decide not to join the solution negotiated by Ohio State and Alabama. However, the NCAA will presumably say (I can't find a relevant provision in the opinion) that the schools that opt out of the deal will continue to be subject to the disciplinary rules on payments to players and eligibility that existed before the deal.

In other words, the deal constitutes an agreement among opt in schools that imposes market restraints on those outside the "conspiracy." "We can spend but you can't." And as Judge Wilken emphasized, that deal, while "judicially approved," remains subject to antitrust scrutiny. No immunity or protection is offered by the settlement. If UNCC sues the conspiracy for antitrust violations based on the new deal, the defendants can't say "but Wilken said we could." (BTW, could the NCAA prohibit institutions from being an NCAA member--or eject a current member--for refusing to join the deal? The deal reads as if the answer is no, but I am not so sure).

But even if the schools outside the circle don't sue, recruits/players at the non-joining schools who want to be paid like their conspiracy-joining friends can sue, arguing that the approved agreement amounts to a cartel that dramatically reduces price competition in the market for their services. If the schools opt out, it means no direct payments from the schools. And the agreement makes damages available only to kids who played at schools that joined in the conspiracy. Again, Wilken all but invited litigation over these issues.

Finally (maybe not! Still mulling this over), the agreement purports (for some purposes but not all) to bind "all student-athletes who compete on, competed on, or will compete on a Division I athletic team at any time between 6/15.20 and the end of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Term." That's 10 years. So, current elementary/middle schoolers. With respect to opt-in schools (but not opt-out schools), it purports to allow the NCAA to make new deal-related roster and compensation rules. This again means that those in the cartel get favorable compensation and job-availability rules in comparison to their poor relations. The settled rule in class actions is that if a class action judgment or settlement threatens someone's money, (s)he has to receive advanced notice and an opportunity to be heard, as well as an opportunity to opt out and go it alone. This provision purports to allow the NCAA to expand or shrink NIL payments and restrict the sources from whom such payments can be made as to people who were minors when the deal was struck. I am not at all certain that this is properly categorized as pure injunctive relief and not the sort of monetary provision that would require a chance to opt out. Of course, the kid who is now 10 years old never got such a chance.

As Betty Davis once said

giphy.gif
 
N Mollen said:
This article in the Post does an admirable job of summarizing the terms of the deal. This is a free link:


From my perspective, the net result of this mess is more, not less, uncertainty. I am 100% certain of only one thing, and that is that there will be more litigation. The deal seems to exchange a prior set of antitrust violations for a new set. Unless Congress acts to allow some sort of anti-trust immunity, no solution seems possible.

The deal was negotiated by a subset of the interested parties. On one side you have the power conf programs (OSU but not Wichita State or New Mexico) and the NCAA; on the other you have the individuals: past, current and future student athletes. The goal of the negotiating parties was to find a compromise that resolved as much of the disputed ground as possible for the largest number of possible disputants. If the P4 could conclusively determine the rights of the other ~1k NCAA institutions without their input they surely would. But litigating the rights of individuals/entities that aren't actually before the court is extremely difficult for constitutional reasons. A judgment or a settlement that interferes with the rights of those absent parties can deny them due process and be void.

The approved deal obviously is designed by and skewed to favor the P4 schools. Most schools don't have the cash necessary to compete at $20MM annually for athletes. The approved, negotiated solution to this problem is for these "poor schools" to take themselves out of the arrangement altogether. JMU and Jacksonville State can decide not to join the solution negotiated by Ohio State and Alabama. However, the NCAA will presumably say (I can't find a relevant provision in the opinion) that the schools that opt out of the deal will continue to be subject to the disciplinary rules on payments to players and eligibility that existed before the deal.

In other words, the deal constitutes an agreement among opt in schools that imposes market restraints on those outside the "conspiracy." "We can spend but you can't." And as Judge Wilken emphasized, that deal, while "judicially approved," remains subject to antitrust scrutiny. No immunity or protection is offered by the settlement. If UNCC sues the conspiracy for antitrust violations based on the new deal, the defendants can't say "but Wilken said we could." (BTW, could the NCAA prohibit institutions from being an NCAA member--or eject a current member--for refusing to join the deal? The deal reads as if the answer is no, but I am not so sure).

But even if the schools outside the circle don't sue, recruits/players at the non-joining schools who want to be paid like their conspiracy-joining friends can sue, arguing that the approved agreement amounts to a cartel that dramatically reduces price competition in the market for their services. If the schools opt out, it means no direct payments from the schools. And the agreement makes damages available only to kids who played at schools that joined in the conspiracy. Again, Wilken all but invited litigation over these issues.

Finally (maybe not! Still mulling this over), the agreement purports (for some purposes but not all) to bind "all student-athletes who compete on, competed on, or will compete on a Division I athletic team at any time between 6/15.20 and the end of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Term." That's 10 years. So, current elementary/middle schoolers. With respect to opt-in schools (but not opt-out schools), it purports to allow the NCAA to make new deal-related roster and compensation rules. This again means that those in the cartel get favorable compensation and job-availability rules in comparison to their poor relations. The settled rule in class actions is that if a class action judgment or settlement threatens someone's money, (s)he has to receive advanced notice and an opportunity to be heard, as well as an opportunity to opt out and go it alone. This provision purports to allow the NCAA to expand or shrink NIL payments and restrict the sources from whom such payments can be made as to people who were minors when the deal was struck. I am not at all certain that this is properly categorized as pure injunctive relief and not the sort of monetary provision that would require a chance to opt out. Of course, the kid who is now 10 years old never got such a chance.

As Betty Davis once said

giphy.gif
Click to expand...
Appreciate the free link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top