|
|
Post by easyheat on Sept 9, 2024 21:07:25 GMT -8
The U.S. District Court Judge has discovered some things she doesn't like and the parties will reconvine in 3 weeks. With more delay and a possible appeal, this could stretch well into next year. In the meantime . . .
Forget the 34 man roster
Forget the new NIL rules
Back to 11 3/4 scholarships
The US District Court Judge is 75 year old Claudia Wilken, who has a long and distinguished career in private practice, teaching and many years on the Federal Bench. A Stanford grad with a JD from Boalt Hall,at UC Berkeley. As one Attorney who has agued before her said, "the sharpest Razor on the shelf, dot your i's and cross your t's "
How can our coaches deal with more uncertainty? How can you plan and make roster decisions after once again being jerked around? Frankly, I can't see how the new rules that were to be in affect for '25 won't have to wait until 2026.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Sept 10, 2024 9:15:12 GMT -8
This is good. The settlement was totally unfair to the G5/FCS/non-football D1 conferences, who were being asked to pay a disproportionate amount of the settlement even though it's the P4 teams that are spending the bulk of the NIL money and raiding their rosters of the top talent.
|
|
|
|
Post by easyheat on Sept 10, 2024 10:35:30 GMT -8
As I understand it, there are two major sticking points in the proposed agreement.
1. Boosters from schools/collectives would be prohibited from compensating athletes through endorsement deals. The settlement would have potentially reduced or eliminated those payments. Instead, schools could only pay players through a salary-cap/revenue-sharing system. It would be naive to think that the NCAA could set limits on what athletes can make from booster clubs and collectives.
2. If the market is willing to pay a Player a certain amount, how can the NCAA or any other entity say that player isn’t worth that amount of money? The NCAA does not set the market value of a player. The schools and/or collectives do. Just like any form of business, what someone should be paid is almost always what the market is willing to pay.
Also the idea that third-party endorsement deals, which would be part of a revenue-sharing model, would need to be submitted to a clearinghouse that would determine their validity. So, who is the person and/or entity judging the "validity" of an endorsement deal?
If this agreement isn't settled out of court, it will go to trial which means it could be two or three years before the NCAA's proposed changes take effect.
Where are we headed? I saw the other day that Alabama and their collective have set aside $20 million this year in NIL money just for their football roster, and they are worried it isn't enough!
|
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Sept 11, 2024 13:51:38 GMT -8
As I understand it, there are two major sticking points in the proposed agreement. 1. Boosters from schools/collectives would be prohibited from compensating athletes through endorsement deals. The settlement would have potentially reduced or eliminated those payments. Instead, schools could only pay players through a salary-cap/revenue-sharing system. It would be naive to think that the NCAA could set limits on what athletes can make from booster clubs and collectives. 2. If the market is willing to pay a Player a certain amount, how can the NCAA or any other entity say that player isn’t worth that amount of money? The NCAA does not set the market value of a player. The schools and/or collectives do. Just like any form of business, what someone should be paid is almost always what the market is willing to pay. Also the idea that third-party endorsement deals, which would be part of a revenue-sharing model, would need to be submitted to a clearinghouse that would determine their validity. So, who is the person and/or entity judging the "validity" of an endorsement deal? If this agreement isn't settled out of court, it will go to trial which means it could be two or three years before the NCAA's proposed changes take effect. Where are we headed? I saw the other day that Alabama and their collective have set aside $20 million this year in NIL money just for their football roster, and they are worried it isn't enough! I would still be surprised if it goes all the way through trial. A trial could easily cost the NCAA much more in damages than a settlement. I find it kind of sad and funny reading your post, though. Because school is an after-thought now. Oh, they go to school? It's more about how much they can make on the open market and they deserve what they get on the open market. Are they students who play a sport, or athletes who are required to attend a school? I do wonder if that argument might change things a little. Personally, I would not be surprised if at some point some state-funded school says no more and jettisons the whole concept - even if football pays the bills - because there's such a murky line right now about what is student and what is athlete and what value are they actually providing to the educational aspects of a school (you know, the primary reason schools exist) |
|
|
|
Post by easyheat on Sept 11, 2024 22:49:25 GMT -8
There have been numerous articles written on the popular idea among big money football schools of divorcing the Athletic Department from the University.
Play around with that idea and where it would lead.
|
|
