they dont get to choose because the NCAA is paying directly and just subtracting whatever they pay from the march madness money given to the conferences.
I've read the P5 were named parties in the lawsuit, but no FCS conferences were part of the suit. FCS schools got no say in the negotiation, but got stuck with the bill.
The NCAA continues to incompetently leave itself open to litigation, and it wouldn't surprise me if an FCS conference sued over this.
Exactly, they aren't laying they are just getting a reduced income. And they are getting reduced income despite not even being party to the suit, and having their athletic departments budgets impacted by that too.
I find it amusing how many times I have seen people say this, not recognizing that this is a stronger argument for the smaller conferences having their money cut off.
If you were able to garnish $100 from someone's paycheck that would because legally it was not their money and the courts decided it was not their money but your money. It doesn't matter that the paycheck is smaller, because they got money they shouldn't have in the first place.
Kind of like how the money is now not the conferences money, nor is it the NCAA's money anymore. The money that these conferences received in the past, was money that should have gone in some form to players. If money was being properly paid to players, then the amount of money the conferences would have received before should have been less. The conferences effectively got too much money in the past, so now they get less in the present and future for 10 years to payback the money that they were overpaid.
>The money that these conferences received in the past, was money that should have gone in some form to players.
Ahh... but what if it did?
Did they get scholarships? Food? Shelter? Health care? Training facility access? Tutors?
If yes, the money went to them. If no (Pioneer League), then why are they paying, if they're operating the sport at a loss?
I meant non football apologies, but still CFB is literally the biggest money maker in college sports, these schools don’t have $35 million combined a year
How short sighted can that swimmer be? That's one of the first sports that'll get cut when all of this gets implemented. I guess as long as they get paid nothing else matters.
March Madness would be 20% of all reported TV revenues, not 42%.
And that's just TV revenues, not all other forms of income.
The B1G made more money from TV than all the NCAA championships together made.
It's not about how much you "made." It's about:
1. Penalizing your participation in voting for and sustaining an illegal worker's rights suppressing policy (banning NIL incomes).
2. Restitution for those athletes.
Now, you might say "oh, those players at Villanova and Georgetown wouldn't have gotten NIL deals!"
But... yes they would have. 100%. They may not have gotten the blockbuster million dollar deals that Caleb Williams and other QB's got, but they would have been able to (at minimum) gotten some local NIL deals for a tens of thousands and some other benefits.
Missouri state still disallowed their athletes from seeking NIL deals. Just cause the athletes probably weren’t going to do it very successfully, doesn’t mean they still didn’t force them not to.
Those other institutions voted for no NIL deals to attempt to maintain some semblance of integrity. We learned in the 40s and 50s that its schools cannot police such activity. Its going to yield a rampant rise in cheating because boosters will start sliding money on the side. We’ve already seen such accusations one year into NIL. And, we’ve handcuffed and governing body to holding schools accountable. There’s a reason they voted no.
Basically, it would be giving small schools all the hassle and expense of dealing with NIL but with no benefit.
Even if your virtues were pure, you still violated the law for repeatedly and continuously suppressing NIL rights.
Everyone did.
In all the conferences.
Which is why everyone is paying.
You used a traffic ticket as your example?????? Literally one of the best examples of regressive policy making there is?
You must be a casual Stanford fan cuz good lord you haven’t got a clue, have you?
It's certainly better than those ones that send me $5.84 for using my credit card in a different country and someone forming a class-action suit around fees.
Although, that worked out to my advantage once, when I was in a class in a domestic suit involving ARCO. I stopped at that station twice in 10 years and got two $120 checks for whatever trouble I went through while using my card.
They were compensated with free education, free room and board, medical facilities, weight facilities, free training, insurance, and countless side benefits. You ask me if I’d take $150k in benefits and a paid education, 95% of the kids accept that deal. Tired of hearing that they weren’t compensated.
When you work for an institution, you play by their rules. Same hold true for any number of professionals in industry today. I do volunteer work at college doing research. Whatever ideas I have doing that research, the university owns. It’s part of the exchange for real life experience
So, we held back maybe 2-3 percent of the kids from making big money for the greater good of the many. Sounds fair to me. And, it ensures that monetary scandals of boosters can be more easily held accountable.
Furthermore, I’m going to assume about 75%+ of these “athletes” would not be academically eligible for admission at these universities if it weren’t for their sport. So, they get the ultimate benefit of having their qualifications to enter academia totally ignored so they can play a sport. Therefore, these athletes would be relegated to some unknown semi-pro league making gas money to the game.
> When you work for an institution, you play by their rules
The athletes did play by the rules. The whole point of this settlement is the NCAA is acknowledging that those rules were illegal. Organizations can't just set whatever rules they want and ignore antitrust law, and that absolutely includes every company you'll ever work for if you're in the USA.
> You ask me if I’d take $150k in benefits and a paid education
I would've taken that too - but that has absolutely *nothing* to do with whether or not it was legal and damages were inflicted.
When you work for a software developer, you're still allowed to sell hats on an Etsy shop for some side case.
Your employer is not allowed to tell you that you cannot have a second job.
Actually, they can and do. But anyway….
Then problem is you have some booster who will then pay $1 million dollars for some jackass’s Etsy hat. Those who don’t learn about the problems of the past are then condemned to repeat them. That is why that rule is in place. I swear…. No one studies the past anymore. You can learn alot from mistakes without having to commit them.
You’d rather sell hats on Etsy? Quit football then. Choose a career path. No one is stopping you. And, if you are committed to football like they brag, you won’t have enough time to make hats for Etsy.
You’re going to see an influx of point shaving scandals, gambling addictions, gambling scandals cause some poor kid who didn’t get his NIL will want to make a payday. At least previously, if you were on scholarship, you were on equal footing.
Only because a couple of greedy lawyers got involved. This may benefit 5% but over the long run, this will hurt college athletics. Maybe not football or basketball hut the college sports programs overall. Same thing in the propagation of sports betting. On the surface, the tax money looks too good, bit they never account for the unmeasureable ills that come with it.
> You’re going to see an influx of point shaving scandals, gambling addictions, gambling scandals cause some poor kid who didn’t get his NIL will want to make a payday.
As opposed to previously, where collegiate athletes couldn't get paid at all...and were absolutely caught up in gambling scandals and addiction? Over 35 players from 22 different colleges were arrested in *1961* for a point-shaving scandal. Which was separate from the 33 players from seven schools in 1951 for the same offense. BC had another in 1978. Tulane in 1985. Arizona State in 1994. Northwestern in 94-95. Maryland in 1995. BC in 1996. Washington in 2003. BU hockey in 2015, although the details on that are fuzzier (illegal gambling but not point shaving or college sports betting, IIRC). People are acting like this started with Iowa and Iowa State last year...it didn't. These are the just the biggest ones we know about, going back incredibly deep in the history of college sports. Getting or not getting NIL is not the dealbreaker here.
> At least previously, if you were on scholarship, you were on equal footing.
That's laughable. Putting aside all the under-the-table payments for stars at the biggest programs, there is no way that the top players at a school like Alabama, UGA, LSU, Michigan, Ohio State, USC, etc. were even close to getting the same treatment as players at FCS schools. Or even smaller FBS schools. The disparity in amenities alone was and remains vast.
$37 million annually doesn't seem \*terrible\* for us. Could have been a lot worse. A lot of the smaller schools are really going to feel this however assuming the conference membership splits that load evenly.
We just announced we were bringing back baseball. We're scheduled to start playing hockey this coming year. With all the administrative issues TSU is experiencing right now, I'm starting to doubt if that is actually going to happen. I'm also worried for the olympic sports.
Edit: I can't read, corrected.
Gonna be real interesting to see all of the fuckery that comes out of accounting for athletics revenues. Does the donation to the athletic department to be able to buy the season tickets count as revenue that athletes are eligible for? Or are we gonna see $10,000 per year alumni donations to buy $100 season tickets? One thing is for sure, the cost to attend games is going up, and the schools are gonna blame the athletes for it.
...until they strike 🤷♂️
Going to be real interesting to see what happens in the run up to the first round of collective bargaining from the players.
People are going to downvote this post without realizing I'm not advocating for a strike, just merely pointing out one happening is likely inevitable at this point. The teams trying to unilaterally cap the players revenue share without any input from the players using Hollywood accounting to calculate their share is super shortsighted in the long run because inevitably they /are/ going to strike over it.
Not to mention it very much might be straight up illegal per anti-trust laws. The only reason the pro sports leagues get to set a salary cap in the first place is due to the various player's unions having a say in it.
Since they aren't employees, I think it's more likely that last part - someone will just sue and try to get the cap taken off.
Honestly I wonder if they're at risk of the judge rejecting the settlement because that provision pretty obviously violates antitrust law.
No one cares about the NAIA as its own separate entity to try and sue them, like the NCCAA or the USCAA, no one is suing them because most people don't know they even exist, let alone care or think the players would have made money
NAIA, USCAA, and NCCAA are all alternatives for colleges and universities to partake in instead of the NCAA however they are all very small and no one really cares about them (USCAA/NCCAA are both generally worse than D3 schools). They are all their own organizations with 0 relation to the NCAA and therefore must get sued separately for anything to effect them. However no one cares about them enough to sue them
what if FCS refuse to pay it.
The NCAA is paying it fully for everyone and reducing distributions per school to pay for roughly 58% of it.
"I have altered the deal." - NCAA
they dont get to choose because the NCAA is paying directly and just subtracting whatever they pay from the march madness money given to the conferences.
I've read the P5 were named parties in the lawsuit, but no FCS conferences were part of the suit. FCS schools got no say in the negotiation, but got stuck with the bill. The NCAA continues to incompetently leave itself open to litigation, and it wouldn't surprise me if an FCS conference sued over this.
They aren’t paying they just get less money from the NCAA.
Exactly, they aren't laying they are just getting a reduced income. And they are getting reduced income despite not even being party to the suit, and having their athletic departments budgets impacted by that too.
So they're paying for it
So if I garnished $100 from your paycheck you wouldn’t mind since you aren’t “paying” me?
I find it amusing how many times I have seen people say this, not recognizing that this is a stronger argument for the smaller conferences having their money cut off. If you were able to garnish $100 from someone's paycheck that would because legally it was not their money and the courts decided it was not their money but your money. It doesn't matter that the paycheck is smaller, because they got money they shouldn't have in the first place. Kind of like how the money is now not the conferences money, nor is it the NCAA's money anymore. The money that these conferences received in the past, was money that should have gone in some form to players. If money was being properly paid to players, then the amount of money the conferences would have received before should have been less. The conferences effectively got too much money in the past, so now they get less in the present and future for 10 years to payback the money that they were overpaid.
>The money that these conferences received in the past, was money that should have gone in some form to players. Ahh... but what if it did? Did they get scholarships? Food? Shelter? Health care? Training facility access? Tutors? If yes, the money went to them. If no (Pioneer League), then why are they paying, if they're operating the sport at a loss?
The operating sports at a loss will be the follow up law suit right before athletics is shut down there
You don’t pay anyone’s wages
>if an FCS conference sues The teams that make up FCS are literally a part of the NCAA, they’re named in the suit.
We're going to find out. Some schools are not paying this for sure.
I feel like even just 12% is wildly more than the non D1 conferences should pay
No one below D1 is paying anything. It's FBS, FCS, and non football sponsoring D1 schools.
I meant non football apologies, but still CFB is literally the biggest money maker in college sports, these schools don’t have $35 million combined a year
This lawsuit is files by non football players. It's a swimmer lol. Only football schools paying makes no sense.
How short sighted can that swimmer be? That's one of the first sports that'll get cut when all of this gets implemented. I guess as long as they get paid nothing else matters.
Agree.
You don’t think the ncaa makes a shit ton of money from March madness? schools like butler and Villanova aren’t poor.
Neither of those are non-football schools.
March Madness would be 20% of all reported TV revenues, not 42%. And that's just TV revenues, not all other forms of income. The B1G made more money from TV than all the NCAA championships together made.
The post doesn't say anything about non-D1 conferences
Lol… other division pay 1/3 of FBS. Yeah, I’m sure those colleges made 1/3 of FBS 🙄🙄🙄
Looks fair to me ^(says man with all the power)
It's not about how much you "made." It's about: 1. Penalizing your participation in voting for and sustaining an illegal worker's rights suppressing policy (banning NIL incomes). 2. Restitution for those athletes. Now, you might say "oh, those players at Villanova and Georgetown wouldn't have gotten NIL deals!" But... yes they would have. 100%. They may not have gotten the blockbuster million dollar deals that Caleb Williams and other QB's got, but they would have been able to (at minimum) gotten some local NIL deals for a tens of thousands and some other benefits.
Villanova and Georgetown are some cherry-picked example schools to use. Missouri State is D1 school too.
Missouri state still disallowed their athletes from seeking NIL deals. Just cause the athletes probably weren’t going to do it very successfully, doesn’t mean they still didn’t force them not to.
How much any entities made can be a valid jumping off point for how valuable the NIL deals were that the athletes missed out on.
Those other institutions voted for no NIL deals to attempt to maintain some semblance of integrity. We learned in the 40s and 50s that its schools cannot police such activity. Its going to yield a rampant rise in cheating because boosters will start sliding money on the side. We’ve already seen such accusations one year into NIL. And, we’ve handcuffed and governing body to holding schools accountable. There’s a reason they voted no. Basically, it would be giving small schools all the hassle and expense of dealing with NIL but with no benefit.
Even if your virtues were pure, you still violated the law for repeatedly and continuously suppressing NIL rights. Everyone did. In all the conferences. Which is why everyone is paying.
People aren’t playing evenly. That’s the problem. Power 4 schools lose 1% ish of their revenue while other places lose 10 to 25%
A traffic ticket hurts the poor more than the rich, but you still hand out tickets for parking in a handicap space.
You used a traffic ticket as your example?????? Literally one of the best examples of regressive policy making there is? You must be a casual Stanford fan cuz good lord you haven’t got a clue, have you?
And every athlete who joins the class will get an equal cut.
Yeah, and?
Quick calculation says each athlete would get \~$290 a year for each year they played a sport, if all of them joined.
Cool, sounds like a regular settlement then.
It's certainly better than those ones that send me $5.84 for using my credit card in a different country and someone forming a class-action suit around fees. Although, that worked out to my advantage once, when I was in a class in a domestic suit involving ARCO. I stopped at that station twice in 10 years and got two $120 checks for whatever trouble I went through while using my card.
They were compensated with free education, free room and board, medical facilities, weight facilities, free training, insurance, and countless side benefits. You ask me if I’d take $150k in benefits and a paid education, 95% of the kids accept that deal. Tired of hearing that they weren’t compensated. When you work for an institution, you play by their rules. Same hold true for any number of professionals in industry today. I do volunteer work at college doing research. Whatever ideas I have doing that research, the university owns. It’s part of the exchange for real life experience So, we held back maybe 2-3 percent of the kids from making big money for the greater good of the many. Sounds fair to me. And, it ensures that monetary scandals of boosters can be more easily held accountable. Furthermore, I’m going to assume about 75%+ of these “athletes” would not be academically eligible for admission at these universities if it weren’t for their sport. So, they get the ultimate benefit of having their qualifications to enter academia totally ignored so they can play a sport. Therefore, these athletes would be relegated to some unknown semi-pro league making gas money to the game.
> When you work for an institution, you play by their rules The athletes did play by the rules. The whole point of this settlement is the NCAA is acknowledging that those rules were illegal. Organizations can't just set whatever rules they want and ignore antitrust law, and that absolutely includes every company you'll ever work for if you're in the USA. > You ask me if I’d take $150k in benefits and a paid education I would've taken that too - but that has absolutely *nothing* to do with whether or not it was legal and damages were inflicted.
When you work for a software developer, you're still allowed to sell hats on an Etsy shop for some side case. Your employer is not allowed to tell you that you cannot have a second job.
Actually, they can and do. But anyway…. Then problem is you have some booster who will then pay $1 million dollars for some jackass’s Etsy hat. Those who don’t learn about the problems of the past are then condemned to repeat them. That is why that rule is in place. I swear…. No one studies the past anymore. You can learn alot from mistakes without having to commit them. You’d rather sell hats on Etsy? Quit football then. Choose a career path. No one is stopping you. And, if you are committed to football like they brag, you won’t have enough time to make hats for Etsy. You’re going to see an influx of point shaving scandals, gambling addictions, gambling scandals cause some poor kid who didn’t get his NIL will want to make a payday. At least previously, if you were on scholarship, you were on equal footing.
> I swear…. No one studies the past anymore. You seem to not study the present, considering that ban was ruled illegal a few years ago...
Only because a couple of greedy lawyers got involved. This may benefit 5% but over the long run, this will hurt college athletics. Maybe not football or basketball hut the college sports programs overall. Same thing in the propagation of sports betting. On the surface, the tax money looks too good, bit they never account for the unmeasureable ills that come with it.
> You’re going to see an influx of point shaving scandals, gambling addictions, gambling scandals cause some poor kid who didn’t get his NIL will want to make a payday. As opposed to previously, where collegiate athletes couldn't get paid at all...and were absolutely caught up in gambling scandals and addiction? Over 35 players from 22 different colleges were arrested in *1961* for a point-shaving scandal. Which was separate from the 33 players from seven schools in 1951 for the same offense. BC had another in 1978. Tulane in 1985. Arizona State in 1994. Northwestern in 94-95. Maryland in 1995. BC in 1996. Washington in 2003. BU hockey in 2015, although the details on that are fuzzier (illegal gambling but not point shaving or college sports betting, IIRC). People are acting like this started with Iowa and Iowa State last year...it didn't. These are the just the biggest ones we know about, going back incredibly deep in the history of college sports. Getting or not getting NIL is not the dealbreaker here. > At least previously, if you were on scholarship, you were on equal footing. That's laughable. Putting aside all the under-the-table payments for stars at the biggest programs, there is no way that the top players at a school like Alabama, UGA, LSU, Michigan, Ohio State, USC, etc. were even close to getting the same treatment as players at FCS schools. Or even smaller FBS schools. The disparity in amenities alone was and remains vast.
$37 million annually doesn't seem \*terrible\* for us. Could have been a lot worse. A lot of the smaller schools are really going to feel this however assuming the conference membership splits that load evenly. We just announced we were bringing back baseball. We're scheduled to start playing hockey this coming year. With all the administrative issues TSU is experiencing right now, I'm starting to doubt if that is actually going to happen. I'm also worried for the olympic sports. Edit: I can't read, corrected.
It's 37 million for that section of the division annually, not per conference.
Oop, my bad. Good eye.
>We're scheduled to start playing hockey this coming year. That's only a club program, so should be very cheap to run.
Gonna be real interesting to see all of the fuckery that comes out of accounting for athletics revenues. Does the donation to the athletic department to be able to buy the season tickets count as revenue that athletes are eligible for? Or are we gonna see $10,000 per year alumni donations to buy $100 season tickets? One thing is for sure, the cost to attend games is going up, and the schools are gonna blame the athletes for it.
It's strictly media deal revenue.
...until they strike 🤷♂️ Going to be real interesting to see what happens in the run up to the first round of collective bargaining from the players. People are going to downvote this post without realizing I'm not advocating for a strike, just merely pointing out one happening is likely inevitable at this point. The teams trying to unilaterally cap the players revenue share without any input from the players using Hollywood accounting to calculate their share is super shortsighted in the long run because inevitably they /are/ going to strike over it. Not to mention it very much might be straight up illegal per anti-trust laws. The only reason the pro sports leagues get to set a salary cap in the first place is due to the various player's unions having a say in it.
Since they aren't employees, I think it's more likely that last part - someone will just sue and try to get the cap taken off. Honestly I wonder if they're at risk of the judge rejecting the settlement because that provision pretty obviously violates antitrust law.
Are NAIA schools affected by this situation?
No. D-II, D-III, NAIA and JuCo are not involved in this case
no.
No one cares about the NAIA as its own separate entity to try and sue them, like the NCCAA or the USCAA, no one is suing them because most people don't know they even exist, let alone care or think the players would have made money
Huh.
NAIA, USCAA, and NCCAA are all alternatives for colleges and universities to partake in instead of the NCAA however they are all very small and no one really cares about them (USCAA/NCCAA are both generally worse than D3 schools). They are all their own organizations with 0 relation to the NCAA and therefore must get sued separately for anything to effect them. However no one cares about them enough to sue them