[chrisk]

... calls into question if this payment is for Name, Image, or Likeness, which is allowed, or simply pay-to-play, which I think isn't allowed.  

I think we are way, way beyond this crossroads, are we not? Who is enforcing what is "allowed", anyway? Crickets as far as I can tell.

As part of the House settlement (assuming it is approved), a process will be established by Deloitte to vet all third party NIL deals to ensure they are legitimate as well as monitor all revenue sharing payouts by schools.  

In other words, all financial transactions are being reviewed by a non-NCAA entity.  That alone gives me confidence the new arrangements will be above board.

It may be in the fine print. I think the collectives may be regulated if they are affiliated with the schools. But I don’t think you can regulate what an individual NIL payer  , or a private group like the Duke guys, does or spends . I think they can pay whatever they want.  

Let me add that I do not know that, I am just surmising that from conversations with some non Stanford NIL daddies.

under the House settlement, if a third party overpays for an athlete, the schools $20.5 million to distribute to athletes will be reduced by the amount of the overpayment

[chrisk]

... calls into question if this payment is for Name, Image, or Likeness, which is allowed, or simply pay-to-play, which I think isn't allowed.  

I think we are way, way beyond this crossroads, are we not? Who is enforcing what is "allowed", anyway? Crickets as far as I can tell.

As part of the House settlement (assuming it is approved), a process will be established by Deloitte to vet all third party NIL deals to ensure they are legitimate as well as monitor all revenue sharing payouts by schools.  

In other words, all financial transactions are being reviewed by a non-NCAA entity.  That alone gives me confidence the new arrangements will be above board.

It may be in the fine print. I think the collectives may be regulated if they are affiliated with the schools. But I don’t think you can regulate what an individual NIL payer  , or a private group like the Duke guys, does or spends . I think they can pay whatever they want.  

Let me add that I do not know that, I am just surmising that from conversations with some non Stanford NIL daddies.

under the House settlement, if a third party overpays for an athlete, the schools $20.5 million to distribute to athletes will be reduced by the amount of the overpayment

[Goose]

under the House settlement, if a third party overpays for an athlete, the schools $20.5 million to distribute to athletes will be reduced by the amount of the overpayment

How are they going to compel third parties to reveal what they paid to the athlete? The athlete is allowed to market his NIL in any way he sees fit for whatever amount he sees fit, as I understand the Supreme Court decision. Why should the athlete and their contract partners cooperate with any of this? Rules that attempt to compel such cooperation are clearly an unreasonable restraint of trade in the same manner NCAA regulations were. What's different?

[Goose]

under the House settlement, if a third party overpays for an athlete, the schools $20.5 million to distribute to athletes will be reduced by the amount of the overpayment

How are they going to compel third parties to reveal what they paid to the athlete? The athlete is allowed to market his NIL in any way he sees fit for whatever amount he sees fit, as I understand the Supreme Court decision. Why should the athlete and their contract partners cooperate with any of this? Rules that attempt to compel such cooperation are clearly an unreasonable restraint of trade in the same manner NCAA regulations were. What's different?

[chrisk]

... calls into question if this payment is for Name, Image, or Likeness, which is allowed, or simply pay-to-play, which I think isn't allowed.  

I think we are way, way beyond this crossroads, are we not? Who is enforcing what is "allowed", anyway? Crickets as far as I can tell.

As part of the House settlement (assuming it is approved), a process will be established by Deloitte to vet all third party NIL deals to ensure they are legitimate as well as monitor all revenue sharing payouts by schools.  

In other words, all financial transactions are being reviewed by a non-NCAA entity.  That alone gives me confidence the new arrangements will be above board.

It may be above board but it will be so totally hamstrung by litigation it won't matter much. There are so many targets for litigation already apparent it boggles the mind.

Since all Power 5 schools are on board and legitimate third party payments are allowed, who would have a financial interest in appealing this decision? And would an appeals court put a stay on implementation? What would the irreparable harm be that would require a stay?

[chrisk]

... calls into question if this payment is for Name, Image, or Likeness, which is allowed, or simply pay-to-play, which I think isn't allowed.  

I think we are way, way beyond this crossroads, are we not? Who is enforcing what is "allowed", anyway? Crickets as far as I can tell.

As part of the House settlement (assuming it is approved), a process will be established by Deloitte to vet all third party NIL deals to ensure they are legitimate as well as monitor all revenue sharing payouts by schools.  

In other words, all financial transactions are being reviewed by a non-NCAA entity.  That alone gives me confidence the new arrangements will be above board.

It may be above board but it will be so totally hamstrung by litigation it won't matter much. There are so many targets for litigation already apparent it boggles the mind.

Since all Power 5 schools are on board and legitimate third party payments are allowed, who would have a financial interest in appealing this decision? And would an appeals court put a stay on implementation? What would the irreparable harm be that would require a stay?

[M T]

For state schools , will the payments to the players be public just as payments to coaches?

For private schools, will some players now show up as among the top paid employees?

Even if they aren’t (yet) considered employees, would they be classed like consultants?

Ans, of course, the iRS will get to see it all

[M T]

For state schools , will the payments to the players be public just as payments to coaches?

For private schools, will some players now show up as among the top paid employees?

Even if they aren’t (yet) considered employees, would they be classed like consultants?

Ans, of course, the iRS will get to see it all

[Goose]

Since all Power 5 schools are on board and legitimate third party payments are allowed, who would have a financial interest in appealing this decision?

Any athlete that wants to make a private NIL agreement that would therefore not be reviewable by the "vetting" agency, for one. On what grounds would such an agency have a "right" to compel the parties to submit the contract for review? As I understand it the Supreme Court has forbidden such restraints of trade, period. So would athletes that do not accept the right of a body not empowered by legislation to restrain their ability to make any kind of a NIL contract they want. The NCAA used to decide what was "legitimate" and what was not. Why does another "association" have the power, absent legislation, to restrain trade that the NCAA did not? Clearly obstructing an athlete from signing a contract that is in all other respects "legal" by sanctioning his school is an attempt to restrain trade and damages the athlete immediately. I see no way that can stand up to a challenge.

[Goose]

Since all Power 5 schools are on board and legitimate third party payments are allowed, who would have a financial interest in appealing this decision?

Any athlete that wants to make a private NIL agreement that would therefore not be reviewable by the "vetting" agency, for one. On what grounds would such an agency have a "right" to compel the parties to submit the contract for review? As I understand it the Supreme Court has forbidden such restraints of trade, period. So would athletes that do not accept the right of a body not empowered by legislation to restrain their ability to make any kind of a NIL contract they want. The NCAA used to decide what was "legitimate" and what was not. Why does another "association" have the power, absent legislation, to restrain trade that the NCAA did not? Clearly obstructing an athlete from signing a contract that is in all other respects "legal" by sanctioning his school is an attempt to restrain trade and damages the athlete immediately. I see no way that can stand up to a challenge.

[CompSci87]

Yes, for comparison take the major US pro leagues. They all have salary caps as part of a collective bargaining agreement, but athletes can earn any amount in endorsement deals with third parties, and that doesn't count against their team's cap. 

With the pros it's perhaps not a big problem. Maybe it would be rare for company X to offer athlete Y a deal that's contingent (perhaps not openly) on the athlete playing for team Z. At least rare to do it so blatantly that other teams would contest it as effectively a salary cap violation or CBA violation. But with college athletics it seems likely to be a problem.

[CompSci87]

Yes, for comparison take the major US pro leagues. They all have salary caps as part of a collective bargaining agreement, but athletes can earn any amount in endorsement deals with third parties, and that doesn't count against their team's cap. 

With the pros it's perhaps not a big problem. Maybe it would be rare for company X to offer athlete Y a deal that's contingent (perhaps not openly) on the athlete playing for team Z. At least rare to do it so blatantly that other teams would contest it as effectively a salary cap violation or CBA violation. But with college athletics it seems likely to be a problem.

[BostonCard]

Since all Power 5 schools are on board and legitimate third party payments are allowed, who would have a financial interest in appealing this decision?  And would an appeals court put a stay on implementation?  What would the irreparable harm be that would require a stay?

non-revenue athletes and coaches, for one.  They might reasonably deduce that if money is diverted to support paying high profile athletes that many athletic departments will have to cut non-revenue sports to maintain their budget.

BC

[BostonCard]

Since all Power 5 schools are on board and legitimate third party payments are allowed, who would have a financial interest in appealing this decision?  And would an appeals court put a stay on implementation?  What would the irreparable harm be that would require a stay?

non-revenue athletes and coaches, for one.  They might reasonably deduce that if money is diverted to support paying high profile athletes that many athletic departments will have to cut non-revenue sports to maintain their budget.

BC

[BostonCard]

FWIW, Duke Basketball is worth $370 million (second only to UNC)
OTOH Stanford basketball is worth $85 million (good for 56th) and better than Berkeley ($68 mm) or SMU ($57 mm) but not as much as Georgia Tech ($88 mm)

Source is this WSJ analysis: https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/nc..._permalink

BTW, vis a vis the House settlement discussion, it sounds like it is headed towards approval: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...t-concerns

However, the judge did ask for a number of things to be addressed, including what to do about roster spots.  Wilken (the judge) seemed to suggest that it might be a good idea if the settlement were amended to grandfather in existing players so that no one loses their place on the team if the settlement is approved and some players would put a team above the roster limit.

BC

[BostonCard]

FWIW, Duke Basketball is worth $370 million (second only to UNC)
OTOH Stanford basketball is worth $85 million (good for 56th) and better than Berkeley ($68 mm) or SMU ($57 mm) but not as much as Georgia Tech ($88 mm)

Source is this WSJ analysis: https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/nc..._permalink

BTW, vis a vis the House settlement discussion, it sounds like it is headed towards approval: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...t-concerns

However, the judge did ask for a number of things to be addressed, including what to do about roster spots.  Wilken (the judge) seemed to suggest that it might be a good idea if the settlement were amended to grandfather in existing players so that no one loses their place on the team if the settlement is approved and some players would put a team above the roster limit.

BC

[2006alum]

FWIW, Duke Basketball is worth $370 million (second only to UNC)
OTOH Stanford basketball is worth $85 million (good for 56th) and better than Berkeley ($68 mm) or SMU ($57 mm) but not as much as Georgia Tech ($88 mm)

Source is this WSJ analysis: https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/nc..._permalink

BTW, vis a vis the House settlement discussion, it sounds like it is headed towards approval: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...t-concerns

However, the judge did ask for a number of things to be addressed, including what to do about roster spots.  Wilken (the judge) seemed to suggest that it might be a good idea if the settlement were amended to grandfather in existing players so that no one loses their place on the team if the settlement is approved and some players would put a team above the roster limit.

BC

Terrifying that one octogenarian who knows next to nothing about college sports is singlehandedly in charge of (re)designing our entire college sports landscape. For all that there have been efforts to wrest control of decisions away from judges, it has boggled my mind how she's kept complete control over this issue for going on 15 years now.

[2006alum]

FWIW, Duke Basketball is worth $370 million (second only to UNC)
OTOH Stanford basketball is worth $85 million (good for 56th) and better than Berkeley ($68 mm) or SMU ($57 mm) but not as much as Georgia Tech ($88 mm)

Source is this WSJ analysis: https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/nc..._permalink

BTW, vis a vis the House settlement discussion, it sounds like it is headed towards approval: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...t-concerns

However, the judge did ask for a number of things to be addressed, including what to do about roster spots.  Wilken (the judge) seemed to suggest that it might be a good idea if the settlement were amended to grandfather in existing players so that no one loses their place on the team if the settlement is approved and some players would put a team above the roster limit.

BC

Terrifying that one octogenarian who knows next to nothing about college sports is singlehandedly in charge of (re)designing our entire college sports landscape. For all that there have been efforts to wrest control of decisions away from judges, it has boggled my mind how she's kept complete control over this issue for going on 15 years now.

[76lsjumb]

FWIW, Duke Basketball is worth $370 million (second only to UNC)
OTOH Stanford basketball is worth $85 million (good for 56th) and better than Berkeley ($68 mm) or SMU ($57 mm) but not as much as Georgia Tech ($88 mm)

Source is this WSJ analysis: https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/nc..._permalink

BTW, vis a vis the House settlement discussion, it sounds like it is headed towards approval: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...t-concerns

However, the judge did ask for a number of things to be addressed, including what to do about roster spots.  Wilken (the judge) seemed to suggest that it might be a good idea if the settlement were amended to grandfather in existing players so that no one loses their place on the team if the settlement is approved and some players would put a team above the roster limit.

BC

Terrifying that one octogenarian who knows next to nothing about college sports is singlehandedly in charge of (re)designing our entire college sports landscape. For all that there have been efforts to wrest control of decisions away from judges, it has boggled my mind how she's kept complete control over this issue for going on 15 years now.

Well, she's only a septuagenarian, but who's counting...

[76lsjumb]

FWIW, Duke Basketball is worth $370 million (second only to UNC)
OTOH Stanford basketball is worth $85 million (good for 56th) and better than Berkeley ($68 mm) or SMU ($57 mm) but not as much as Georgia Tech ($88 mm)

Source is this WSJ analysis: https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/nc..._permalink

BTW, vis a vis the House settlement discussion, it sounds like it is headed towards approval: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...t-concerns

However, the judge did ask for a number of things to be addressed, including what to do about roster spots.  Wilken (the judge) seemed to suggest that it might be a good idea if the settlement were amended to grandfather in existing players so that no one loses their place on the team if the settlement is approved and some players would put a team above the roster limit.

BC

Terrifying that one octogenarian who knows next to nothing about college sports is singlehandedly in charge of (re)designing our entire college sports landscape. For all that there have been efforts to wrest control of decisions away from judges, it has boggled my mind how she's kept complete control over this issue for going on 15 years now.

Well, she's only a septuagenarian, but who's counting...

[82lsju]

FWIW, Duke Basketball is worth $370 million (second only to UNC)
OTOH Stanford basketball is worth $85 million (good for 56th) and better than Berkeley ($68 mm) or SMU ($57 mm) but not as much as Georgia Tech ($88 mm)

Source is this WSJ analysis: https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/nc..._permalink

BTW, vis a vis the House settlement discussion, it sounds like it is headed towards approval: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...t-concerns

However, the judge did ask for a number of things to be addressed, including what to do about roster spots.  Wilken (the judge) seemed to suggest that it might be a good idea if the settlement were amended to grandfather in existing players so that no one loses their place on the team if the settlement is approved and some players would put a team above the roster limit.

BC

Terrifying that one octogenarian who knows next to nothing about college sports is singlehandedly in charge of (re)designing our entire college sports landscape. For all that there have been efforts to wrest control of decisions away from judges, it has boggled my mind how she's kept complete control over this issue for going on 15 years now.

Well, she's only a septuagenarian, but who's counting...

she's class of '71, so someone here may know (or know of) her....

[82lsju]

FWIW, Duke Basketball is worth $370 million (second only to UNC)
OTOH Stanford basketball is worth $85 million (good for 56th) and better than Berkeley ($68 mm) or SMU ($57 mm) but not as much as Georgia Tech ($88 mm)

Source is this WSJ analysis: https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/nc..._permalink

BTW, vis a vis the House settlement discussion, it sounds like it is headed towards approval: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...t-concerns

However, the judge did ask for a number of things to be addressed, including what to do about roster spots.  Wilken (the judge) seemed to suggest that it might be a good idea if the settlement were amended to grandfather in existing players so that no one loses their place on the team if the settlement is approved and some players would put a team above the roster limit.

BC

Terrifying that one octogenarian who knows next to nothing about college sports is singlehandedly in charge of (re)designing our entire college sports landscape. For all that there have been efforts to wrest control of decisions away from judges, it has boggled my mind how she's kept complete control over this issue for going on 15 years now.

Well, she's only a septuagenarian, but who's counting...

she's class of '71, so someone here may know (or know of) her....

[BostonCard]

Also, at the end of the day, she can only approve or deny the settlement; she can’t write it or dictate terms, but she can consider how the settlement can affect third parties, and based on briefs filed some people have alleged potential harm.

But largely this was a settlement negotiated between the plaintiffs and the defendants.

BC

[BostonCard]

Also, at the end of the day, she can only approve or deny the settlement; she can’t write it or dictate terms, but she can consider how the settlement can affect third parties, and based on briefs filed some people have alleged potential harm.

But largely this was a settlement negotiated between the plaintiffs and the defendants.

BC

[Mick]

FWIW, Duke Basketball is worth $370 million (second only to UNC)
OTOH Stanford basketball is worth $85 million (good for 56th) and better than Berkeley ($68 mm) or SMU ($57 mm) but not as much as Georgia Tech ($88 mm)

Source is this WSJ analysis: https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/nc..._permalink

BTW, vis a vis the House settlement discussion, it sounds like it is headed towards approval: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...t-concerns

However, the judge did ask for a number of things to be addressed, including what to do about roster spots.  Wilken (the judge) seemed to suggest that it might be a good idea if the settlement were amended to grandfather in existing players so that no one loses their place on the team if the settlement is approved and some players would put a team above the roster limit.

BC

Terrifying that one octogenarian who knows next to nothing about college sports is singlehandedly in charge of (re)designing our entire college sports landscape. For all that there have been efforts to wrest control of decisions away from judges, it has boggled my mind how she's kept complete control over this issue for going on 15 years now.

Kinda describes our entire jury/trial system, doesn't it, depending as it does on 12 commonfolk who can't get out of jury duty...

[Mick]

FWIW, Duke Basketball is worth $370 million (second only to UNC)
OTOH Stanford basketball is worth $85 million (good for 56th) and better than Berkeley ($68 mm) or SMU ($57 mm) but not as much as Georgia Tech ($88 mm)

Source is this WSJ analysis: https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/nc..._permalink

BTW, vis a vis the House settlement discussion, it sounds like it is headed towards approval: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...t-concerns

However, the judge did ask for a number of things to be addressed, including what to do about roster spots.  Wilken (the judge) seemed to suggest that it might be a good idea if the settlement were amended to grandfather in existing players so that no one loses their place on the team if the settlement is approved and some players would put a team above the roster limit.

BC

Terrifying that one octogenarian who knows next to nothing about college sports is singlehandedly in charge of (re)designing our entire college sports landscape. For all that there have been efforts to wrest control of decisions away from judges, it has boggled my mind how she's kept complete control over this issue for going on 15 years now.

Kinda describes our entire jury/trial system, doesn't it, depending as it does on 12 commonfolk who can't get out of jury duty...

[2006alum]

FWIW, Duke Basketball is worth $370 million (second only to UNC)
OTOH Stanford basketball is worth $85 million (good for 56th) and better than Berkeley ($68 mm) or SMU ($57 mm) but not as much as Georgia Tech ($88 mm)

Source is this WSJ analysis: https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/nc..._permalink

BTW, vis a vis the House settlement discussion, it sounds like it is headed towards approval: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...t-concerns

However, the judge did ask for a number of things to be addressed, including what to do about roster spots.  Wilken (the judge) seemed to suggest that it might be a good idea if the settlement were amended to grandfather in existing players so that no one loses their place on the team if the settlement is approved and some players would put a team above the roster limit.

BC

Terrifying that one octogenarian who knows next to nothing about college sports is singlehandedly in charge of (re)designing our entire college sports landscape. For all that there have been efforts to wrest control of decisions away from judges, it has boggled my mind how she's kept complete control over this issue for going on 15 years now.

Kinda describes our entire jury/trial system, doesn't it, depending as it does on 12 commonfolk who can't get out of jury duty...

Yes, except opportunistic plaintiffs counsel can't keep strategically filing new cases in the same district and then relating them to their prior cases to ensure the same 12 jurors hear every single lawsuit. Moreover, at least with jurors the defense gets strikes, including for cause. There's something deeply troubling about all of this sitting with a single judge over and over and over.

[2006alum]

FWIW, Duke Basketball is worth $370 million (second only to UNC)
OTOH Stanford basketball is worth $85 million (good for 56th) and better than Berkeley ($68 mm) or SMU ($57 mm) but not as much as Georgia Tech ($88 mm)

Source is this WSJ analysis: https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/nc..._permalink

BTW, vis a vis the House settlement discussion, it sounds like it is headed towards approval: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...t-concerns

However, the judge did ask for a number of things to be addressed, including what to do about roster spots.  Wilken (the judge) seemed to suggest that it might be a good idea if the settlement were amended to grandfather in existing players so that no one loses their place on the team if the settlement is approved and some players would put a team above the roster limit.

BC

Terrifying that one octogenarian who knows next to nothing about college sports is singlehandedly in charge of (re)designing our entire college sports landscape. For all that there have been efforts to wrest control of decisions away from judges, it has boggled my mind how she's kept complete control over this issue for going on 15 years now.

Kinda describes our entire jury/trial system, doesn't it, depending as it does on 12 commonfolk who can't get out of jury duty...

Yes, except opportunistic plaintiffs counsel can't keep strategically filing new cases in the same district and then relating them to their prior cases to ensure the same 12 jurors hear every single lawsuit. Moreover, at least with jurors the defense gets strikes, including for cause. There's something deeply troubling about all of this sitting with a single judge over and over and over.

[Mick]

FWIW, Duke Basketball is worth $370 million (second only to UNC)
OTOH Stanford basketball is worth $85 million (good for 56th) and better than Berkeley ($68 mm) or SMU ($57 mm) but not as much as Georgia Tech ($88 mm)

Source is this WSJ analysis: https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/nc..._permalink

BTW, vis a vis the House settlement discussion, it sounds like it is headed towards approval: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...t-concerns

However, the judge did ask for a number of things to be addressed, including what to do about roster spots.  Wilken (the judge) seemed to suggest that it might be a good idea if the settlement were amended to grandfather in existing players so that no one loses their place on the team if the settlement is approved and some players would put a team above the roster limit.

BC

Terrifying that one octogenarian who knows next to nothing about college sports is singlehandedly in charge of (re)designing our entire college sports landscape. For all that there have been efforts to wrest control of decisions away from judges, it has boggled my mind how she's kept complete control over this issue for going on 15 years now.

Kinda describes our entire jury/trial system, doesn't it, depending as it does on 12 commonfolk who can't get out of jury duty...

Yes, except opportunistic plaintiffs counsel can't keep strategically filing new cases in the same district and then relating them to their prior cases to ensure the same 12 jurors hear every single lawsuit. Moreover, at least with jurors the defense gets strikes, including for cause. There's something deeply troubling about all of this sitting with a single judge over and over and over.

Agreed. I think the USSC is getting tired of it, I read about it from both sides...

[Mick]

FWIW, Duke Basketball is worth $370 million (second only to UNC)
OTOH Stanford basketball is worth $85 million (good for 56th) and better than Berkeley ($68 mm) or SMU ($57 mm) but not as much as Georgia Tech ($88 mm)

Source is this WSJ analysis: https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/nc..._permalink

BTW, vis a vis the House settlement discussion, it sounds like it is headed towards approval: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...t-concerns

However, the judge did ask for a number of things to be addressed, including what to do about roster spots.  Wilken (the judge) seemed to suggest that it might be a good idea if the settlement were amended to grandfather in existing players so that no one loses their place on the team if the settlement is approved and some players would put a team above the roster limit.

BC

Terrifying that one octogenarian who knows next to nothing about college sports is singlehandedly in charge of (re)designing our entire college sports landscape. For all that there have been efforts to wrest control of decisions away from judges, it has boggled my mind how she's kept complete control over this issue for going on 15 years now.

Kinda describes our entire jury/trial system, doesn't it, depending as it does on 12 commonfolk who can't get out of jury duty...

Yes, except opportunistic plaintiffs counsel can't keep strategically filing new cases in the same district and then relating them to their prior cases to ensure the same 12 jurors hear every single lawsuit. Moreover, at least with jurors the defense gets strikes, including for cause. There's something deeply troubling about all of this sitting with a single judge over and over and over.

Agreed. I think the USSC is getting tired of it, I read about it from both sides...