[82lsju]

the times they are a changing...

"“The House settlement marks yet another shift in college athletics, creating a model in which athletes share the media revenue created by certain sports,” Stanford President Jonathan Levin said. “We have a unique tradition of student-athletes who excel in the classroom and on the field and we plan to continue Stanford’s distinctive approach in this new era.”

“The amount we make available for revenue-sharing with student-athletes will depend on the amount of incremental athletics revenue and philanthropic support we receive,” Levin added. “We have alumni and friends of Stanford who are deeply connected to our athletics programs and are excited to support the excellence of our teams, and enable us to recruit and retain top scholar-athletes.”"

https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2025/0...TuNV3vT9hU

[82lsju]

the times they are a changing...

"“The House settlement marks yet another shift in college athletics, creating a model in which athletes share the media revenue created by certain sports,” Stanford President Jonathan Levin said. “We have a unique tradition of student-athletes who excel in the classroom and on the field and we plan to continue Stanford’s distinctive approach in this new era.”

“The amount we make available for revenue-sharing with student-athletes will depend on the amount of incremental athletics revenue and philanthropic support we receive,” Levin added. “We have alumni and friends of Stanford who are deeply connected to our athletics programs and are excited to support the excellence of our teams, and enable us to recruit and retain top scholar-athletes.”"

https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2025/0...TuNV3vT9hU

[needle]

Pretty inscrutable, as I squint to discern any hint as to how the university would* decide who gets what amount of this revenue sharing...

Best guess, the revenue (by squad/sport) would be divided up roughly according to (historical?) philanthropic donations.

*conditional tense, as I still think the whole settlement could get tossed

[needle]

Pretty inscrutable, as I squint to discern any hint as to how the university would* decide who gets what amount of this revenue sharing...

Best guess, the revenue (by squad/sport) would be divided up roughly according to (historical?) philanthropic donations.

*conditional tense, as I still think the whole settlement could get tossed

[chrisk]

Pretty inscrutable, as I squint to discern any hint as to how the university would* decide who gets what amount of this revenue sharing...

Best guess, the revenue (by squad/sport) would be divided up roughly according to (historical?) philanthropic donations.

*conditional tense, as I still think the whole settlement could get tossed

Many universities are expecting 75% football, 10% MBB, 5% WBB, 10% all other sports. If that is the marketplace, Stanford may have to be in relatively close alighment.

Going forward, all scholarships in all sports will be 100%.

[chrisk]

Pretty inscrutable, as I squint to discern any hint as to how the university would* decide who gets what amount of this revenue sharing...

Best guess, the revenue (by squad/sport) would be divided up roughly according to (historical?) philanthropic donations.

*conditional tense, as I still think the whole settlement could get tossed

Many universities are expecting 75% football, 10% MBB, 5% WBB, 10% all other sports. If that is the marketplace, Stanford may have to be in relatively close alighment.

Going forward, all scholarships in all sports will be 100%.

[needle]

Pretty inscrutable, as I squint to discern any hint as to how the university would* decide who gets what amount of this revenue sharing...

Best guess, the revenue (by squad/sport) would be divided up roughly according to (historical?) philanthropic donations.

*conditional tense, as I still think the whole settlement could get tossed

Many universities are expecting 75% football, 10% MBB, 5% WBB, 10% all other sports.  If that is the marketplace, Stanford may have to be in relatively close alighment.

Going forward, all scholarships in all sports will be 100%.

If so, what's to prevent the next softball phenom from going to court to try to block the settement on the grounds that she and others like her are (very likely) losing out on the type of NIL dollars made available to NiJaree Canady?

[needle]

Pretty inscrutable, as I squint to discern any hint as to how the university would* decide who gets what amount of this revenue sharing...

Best guess, the revenue (by squad/sport) would be divided up roughly according to (historical?) philanthropic donations.

*conditional tense, as I still think the whole settlement could get tossed

Many universities are expecting 75% football, 10% MBB, 5% WBB, 10% all other sports.  If that is the marketplace, Stanford may have to be in relatively close alighment.

Going forward, all scholarships in all sports will be 100%.

If so, what's to prevent the next softball phenom from going to court to try to block the settement on the grounds that she and others like her are (very likely) losing out on the type of NIL dollars made available to NiJaree Canady?

[chrisk]

Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) held its annual Economic Summit. One of the sessions was an interview with Levin and another session was a sports panel including Luck and Tara, among others.

If you haven't seen these sessions, they are worth watching for getting clues as to how Levin and Luck will approach their challenges.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se6PbWVA...3Q&index=4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uvCjpE4...3Q&index=6

[chrisk]

Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) held its annual Economic Summit. One of the sessions was an interview with Levin and another session was a sports panel including Luck and Tara, among others.

If you haven't seen these sessions, they are worth watching for getting clues as to how Levin and Luck will approach their challenges.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se6PbWVA...3Q&index=4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uvCjpE4...3Q&index=6

[Jamesy]

Pretty inscrutable, as I squint to discern any hint as to how the university would* decide who gets what amount of this revenue sharing...

Best guess, the revenue (by squad/sport) would be divided up roughly according to (historical?) philanthropic donations.

*conditional tense, as I still think the whole settlement could get tossed

Many universities are expecting 75% football, 10% MBB, 5% WBB, 10% all other sports.  If that is the marketplace, Stanford may have to be in relatively close alighment.

Going forward, all scholarships in all sports will be 100%.

If so, what's to prevent the next softball phenom from going to court to try to block the settement on the grounds that she and others like her are (very likely) losing out on the type of NIL dollars made available to NiJaree Canady?

Wouldn't athletes still be able to get NIL deals? The settlement only covers money the university can pay directly to the athletes. NIL collectives can still pay individuals more via NIL deals AFAIK.

[Jamesy]

Pretty inscrutable, as I squint to discern any hint as to how the university would* decide who gets what amount of this revenue sharing...

Best guess, the revenue (by squad/sport) would be divided up roughly according to (historical?) philanthropic donations.

*conditional tense, as I still think the whole settlement could get tossed

Many universities are expecting 75% football, 10% MBB, 5% WBB, 10% all other sports.  If that is the marketplace, Stanford may have to be in relatively close alighment.

Going forward, all scholarships in all sports will be 100%.

If so, what's to prevent the next softball phenom from going to court to try to block the settement on the grounds that she and others like her are (very likely) losing out on the type of NIL dollars made available to NiJaree Canady?

Wouldn't athletes still be able to get NIL deals? The settlement only covers money the university can pay directly to the athletes. NIL collectives can still pay individuals more via NIL deals AFAIK.

[needle]

Yes and no.

From Clemson's FAQ:

 The settlement also allows for third-party NIL payments to student-athletes. Those third-party payments must be fair market value payments for a legitimate business purpose and not used for pay-for-play (e.g., merely an inducement to enroll or remain at a particular institution.) Legitimate third-party NIL payments will not count towards the revenue share cap and will be reviewed by an independent clearing house to determine compliance with the fair market value rules. This will be a fundamental shift in the current NIL landscape where there is currently no legitimate purpose / fair market value requirement. These rules are in the process of being written.  

https://clemsontigers.com/faq-nil-house-revenue/

So...it's all being made up as we go along. But I don't think Canady's deal would meet "fair market value" scrutiny, if that ends up being a standard that's actually enforced/enforceable.

[needle]

Yes and no.

From Clemson's FAQ:

 The settlement also allows for third-party NIL payments to student-athletes. Those third-party payments must be fair market value payments for a legitimate business purpose and not used for pay-for-play (e.g., merely an inducement to enroll or remain at a particular institution.) Legitimate third-party NIL payments will not count towards the revenue share cap and will be reviewed by an independent clearing house to determine compliance with the fair market value rules. This will be a fundamental shift in the current NIL landscape where there is currently no legitimate purpose / fair market value requirement. These rules are in the process of being written.  

https://clemsontigers.com/faq-nil-house-revenue/

So...it's all being made up as we go along. But I don't think Canady's deal would meet "fair market value" scrutiny, if that ends up being a standard that's actually enforced/enforceable.

[BillBradley]

Yes and no.

From Clemson's FAQ:

 The settlement also allows for third-party NIL payments to student-athletes. Those third-party payments must be fair market value payments for a legitimate business purpose and not used for pay-for-play (e.g., merely an inducement to enroll or remain at a particular institution.) Legitimate third-party NIL payments will not count towards the revenue share cap and will be reviewed by an independent clearing house to determine compliance with the fair market value rules. This will be a fundamental shift in the current NIL landscape where there is currently no legitimate purpose / fair market value requirement. These rules are in the process of being written.  

https://clemsontigers.com/faq-nil-house-revenue/

So...it's all being made up as we go along. But I don't think Canady's deal would meet "fair market value" scrutiny, if that ends up being a standard that's actually enforced/enforceable.

The fair market value test is easy to administer and enforce on the outliers. Sure, they will be able to sniff out the $2M booster owned car dealership marketing deal with the mens basketball player. But there can be lots of smaller deals (say $100K-$200K or more, and it will grow) that can add up to a lot, and who's to say that isn't "fair market value" when social media deals like that are happening all over the place. I wouldn't cling to the House settlement as the answer to the madness. A market has been made and there's lots at stake. History tells us that this water is going to find its own level...

[BillBradley]

Yes and no.

From Clemson's FAQ:

 The settlement also allows for third-party NIL payments to student-athletes. Those third-party payments must be fair market value payments for a legitimate business purpose and not used for pay-for-play (e.g., merely an inducement to enroll or remain at a particular institution.) Legitimate third-party NIL payments will not count towards the revenue share cap and will be reviewed by an independent clearing house to determine compliance with the fair market value rules. This will be a fundamental shift in the current NIL landscape where there is currently no legitimate purpose / fair market value requirement. These rules are in the process of being written.  

https://clemsontigers.com/faq-nil-house-revenue/

So...it's all being made up as we go along. But I don't think Canady's deal would meet "fair market value" scrutiny, if that ends up being a standard that's actually enforced/enforceable.

The fair market value test is easy to administer and enforce on the outliers. Sure, they will be able to sniff out the $2M booster owned car dealership marketing deal with the mens basketball player. But there can be lots of smaller deals (say $100K-$200K or more, and it will grow) that can add up to a lot, and who's to say that isn't "fair market value" when social media deals like that are happening all over the place. I wouldn't cling to the House settlement as the answer to the madness. A market has been made and there's lots at stake. History tells us that this water is going to find its own level...

[chrisk]

Yes and no.

From Clemson's FAQ:

 The settlement also allows for third-party NIL payments to student-athletes. Those third-party payments must be fair market value payments for a legitimate business purpose and not used for pay-for-play (e.g., merely an inducement to enroll or remain at a particular institution.) Legitimate third-party NIL payments will not count towards the revenue share cap and will be reviewed by an independent clearing house to determine compliance with the fair market value rules. This will be a fundamental shift in the current NIL landscape where there is currently no legitimate purpose / fair market value requirement. These rules are in the process of being written.  

https://clemsontigers.com/faq-nil-house-revenue/

So...it's all being made up as we go along. But I don't think Canady's deal would meet "fair market value" scrutiny, if that ends up being a standard that's actually enforced/enforceable.

I would think most big-time schools will initially be cautious of breaching the fair-value rule since it will reduce the money available for the other athletes. If Deloitte establishes a transparent and credible process for running the NIL platform and arbitrating disuputes, they could keep the process under control for a few years. Ultimately, they are going to need Congressional action. In this new anti-regulation era, does that mean the NCAA will be given more or less latitude of action?

[chrisk]

Yes and no.

From Clemson's FAQ:

 The settlement also allows for third-party NIL payments to student-athletes. Those third-party payments must be fair market value payments for a legitimate business purpose and not used for pay-for-play (e.g., merely an inducement to enroll or remain at a particular institution.) Legitimate third-party NIL payments will not count towards the revenue share cap and will be reviewed by an independent clearing house to determine compliance with the fair market value rules. This will be a fundamental shift in the current NIL landscape where there is currently no legitimate purpose / fair market value requirement. These rules are in the process of being written.  

https://clemsontigers.com/faq-nil-house-revenue/

So...it's all being made up as we go along. But I don't think Canady's deal would meet "fair market value" scrutiny, if that ends up being a standard that's actually enforced/enforceable.

I would think most big-time schools will initially be cautious of breaching the fair-value rule since it will reduce the money available for the other athletes. If Deloitte establishes a transparent and credible process for running the NIL platform and arbitrating disuputes, they could keep the process under control for a few years. Ultimately, they are going to need Congressional action. In this new anti-regulation era, does that mean the NCAA will be given more or less latitude of action?

[Jamesy]

Yes and no.

From Clemson's FAQ:

 The settlement also allows for third-party NIL payments to student-athletes. Those third-party payments must be fair market value payments for a legitimate business purpose and not used for pay-for-play (e.g., merely an inducement to enroll or remain at a particular institution.) Legitimate third-party NIL payments will not count towards the revenue share cap and will be reviewed by an independent clearing house to determine compliance with the fair market value rules. This will be a fundamental shift in the current NIL landscape where there is currently no legitimate purpose / fair market value requirement. These rules are in the process of being written.  

https://clemsontigers.com/faq-nil-house-revenue/

So...it's all being made up as we go along. But I don't think Canady's deal would meet "fair market value" scrutiny, if that ends up being a standard that's actually enforced/enforceable.

The fair market value test is easy to administer and enforce on the outliers. Sure, they will be able to sniff out the $2M booster owned car dealership marketing deal with the mens basketball player. But there can be lots of smaller deals (say $100K-$200K or more, and it will grow) that can add up to a lot, and who's to say that isn't "fair market value" when social media deals like that are happening all over the place. I wouldn't cling to the House settlement as the answer to the madness. A market has been made and there's lots at stake. History tells us that this water is going to find its own level...

What is the fair market value test (I honestly don't know what it is)? If Canady had multiple collectives bidding for her services, is that not considered fair market value?

[Jamesy]

Yes and no.

From Clemson's FAQ:

 The settlement also allows for third-party NIL payments to student-athletes. Those third-party payments must be fair market value payments for a legitimate business purpose and not used for pay-for-play (e.g., merely an inducement to enroll or remain at a particular institution.) Legitimate third-party NIL payments will not count towards the revenue share cap and will be reviewed by an independent clearing house to determine compliance with the fair market value rules. This will be a fundamental shift in the current NIL landscape where there is currently no legitimate purpose / fair market value requirement. These rules are in the process of being written.  

https://clemsontigers.com/faq-nil-house-revenue/

So...it's all being made up as we go along. But I don't think Canady's deal would meet "fair market value" scrutiny, if that ends up being a standard that's actually enforced/enforceable.

The fair market value test is easy to administer and enforce on the outliers. Sure, they will be able to sniff out the $2M booster owned car dealership marketing deal with the mens basketball player. But there can be lots of smaller deals (say $100K-$200K or more, and it will grow) that can add up to a lot, and who's to say that isn't "fair market value" when social media deals like that are happening all over the place. I wouldn't cling to the House settlement as the answer to the madness. A market has been made and there's lots at stake. History tells us that this water is going to find its own level...

What is the fair market value test (I honestly don't know what it is)? If Canady had multiple collectives bidding for her services, is that not considered fair market value?

[paloalto]

Not so fast on those roster limits.  Person presiding over settlement is pretty much dead set against implementing proposed limits immediately. Below article released yesterday:

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footbal...46683.html

Wilken, with the power to strike down the settlement, made clear Monday that she believes the roster limit concept should be changed. “My idea is to grandfather in” those currently on rosters, she told lawyers. “It would save a lot of angst.”


Will she hang tough on this issue before signing off on deal?

[paloalto]

Not so fast on those roster limits.  Person presiding over settlement is pretty much dead set against implementing proposed limits immediately. Below article released yesterday:

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footbal...46683.html

Wilken, with the power to strike down the settlement, made clear Monday that she believes the roster limit concept should be changed. “My idea is to grandfather in” those currently on rosters, she told lawyers. “It would save a lot of angst.”


Will she hang tough on this issue before signing off on deal?

[BostonCard]

Not so fast on those roster limits.  Person presiding over settlement is pretty much dead set against implementing proposed limits immediately.  Below article released yesterday:

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footbal...46683.html

Wilken, with the power to strike down the settlement, made clear Monday that she believes the roster limit concept should be changed. “My idea is to grandfather in” those currently on rosters, she told lawyers. “It would save a lot of angst.”


Will she hang tough on this issue before signing off on deal?

I saw that a few days ago, and I don't view that as being dead set against roster limits and more as encouraging the parties to allow for a transition period (presumably lasting three or four years) that allows non-scholarship players who may exceed the roster limit to remain on the team somehow.

BC

[BostonCard]

Not so fast on those roster limits.  Person presiding over settlement is pretty much dead set against implementing proposed limits immediately.  Below article released yesterday:

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footbal...46683.html

Wilken, with the power to strike down the settlement, made clear Monday that she believes the roster limit concept should be changed. “My idea is to grandfather in” those currently on rosters, she told lawyers. “It would save a lot of angst.”


Will she hang tough on this issue before signing off on deal?

I saw that a few days ago, and I don't view that as being dead set against roster limits and more as encouraging the parties to allow for a transition period (presumably lasting three or four years) that allows non-scholarship players who may exceed the roster limit to remain on the team somehow.

BC

[paloalto]

Not so fast on those roster limits.  Person presiding over settlement is pretty much dead set against implementing proposed limits immediately.  Below article released yesterday:

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footbal...46683.html

Wilken, with the power to strike down the settlement, made clear Monday that she believes the roster limit concept should be changed. “My idea is to grandfather in” those currently on rosters, she told lawyers. “It would save a lot of angst.”


Will she hang tough on this issue before signing off on deal?

I saw that a few days ago, and I don't view that as being dead set against roster limits and more as encouraging the parties to allow for a transition period (presumably lasting three or four years) that allows non-scholarship players who may exceed the roster limit to remain on the team somehow.

BC

Yes, a transition period.   That's why I posted "pretty much dead set against implementing proposed limits immediately" which might not have been clear.

[paloalto]

Not so fast on those roster limits.  Person presiding over settlement is pretty much dead set against implementing proposed limits immediately.  Below article released yesterday:

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footbal...46683.html

Wilken, with the power to strike down the settlement, made clear Monday that she believes the roster limit concept should be changed. “My idea is to grandfather in” those currently on rosters, she told lawyers. “It would save a lot of angst.”


Will she hang tough on this issue before signing off on deal?

I saw that a few days ago, and I don't view that as being dead set against roster limits and more as encouraging the parties to allow for a transition period (presumably lasting three or four years) that allows non-scholarship players who may exceed the roster limit to remain on the team somehow.

BC

Yes, a transition period.   That's why I posted "pretty much dead set against implementing proposed limits immediately" which might not have been clear.

[StanfordMatt]

Parties to the settlement rejected Judge Wilken's recommendation of phasing in roster limits over time. If Judge Wilken nevertheless moves forward with approving the settlement, the roster limits would go into effect for the 2025-26 academic year.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...093440007/

[StanfordMatt]

Parties to the settlement rejected Judge Wilken's recommendation of phasing in roster limits over time. If Judge Wilken nevertheless moves forward with approving the settlement, the roster limits would go into effect for the 2025-26 academic year.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...093440007/

[BostonCard]

Parties to the settlement rejected Judge Wilken's recommendation of phasing in roster limits over time. If Judge Wilken nevertheless moves forward with approving the settlement, the roster limits would go into effect for the 2025-26 academic year.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...093440007/

I guess we will see what happens.  Non-recruited athletes are not a party to the settlement, so it is perhaps not a surprise that even though it is a relatively small thing for the parties to agree to, it is nonetheless a case where their interests are aligned and in any negotiation there are plenty of things for the two sides to disagree on and thus have to compromise that you do your best to pocket any points of agreement, however small.  It is the judges responsibility to ensure that no third party gets screwed by any settlement, so I can see why the judge made her comments.  Ultimately, though, although walk-ons are potentially hurt by the roster limits, it’s hard to make the case that they have a right to be on a team, or that they were promised or owed anything beyond the current season.  So although we will see how strongly she feels about the point, if it were me, I would probably approve the settlement despite appropriate misgivings.

BC

[BostonCard]

Parties to the settlement rejected Judge Wilken's recommendation of phasing in roster limits over time. If Judge Wilken nevertheless moves forward with approving the settlement, the roster limits would go into effect for the 2025-26 academic year.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...093440007/

I guess we will see what happens.  Non-recruited athletes are not a party to the settlement, so it is perhaps not a surprise that even though it is a relatively small thing for the parties to agree to, it is nonetheless a case where their interests are aligned and in any negotiation there are plenty of things for the two sides to disagree on and thus have to compromise that you do your best to pocket any points of agreement, however small.  It is the judges responsibility to ensure that no third party gets screwed by any settlement, so I can see why the judge made her comments.  Ultimately, though, although walk-ons are potentially hurt by the roster limits, it’s hard to make the case that they have a right to be on a team, or that they were promised or owed anything beyond the current season.  So although we will see how strongly she feels about the point, if it were me, I would probably approve the settlement despite appropriate misgivings.

BC