- Joined
- Dec 14, 2013
- Messages
- 2,931
I answered the question of why it has the exemption today a few posts above - Congress enacted the Curt Flood Act of 1998. I also linked the law so everyone can read it.
forums
College Football Business: Is This Where We’re Heading?
- Thread starter RozayCane
- Start date
Advertisement
This is where things are heading after the House settlement is approved. Player representative groups are lining up to litigate on non-collective bargaining/anti-trust grounds. I expect they'll likely prevail unless they pull a rabbit out of a hat with a Congressional anti-trust exemption.
But the NCAA and member schools efforts with Congress might well be moot even if they are successful getting an antitrust exemption.
The NCAA/member schools want payments to (a) run through the schools as "revenue sharing" and (b) require third party NIL payments to players to be vetted by Deloitte as "market" deals.
Problem for the NCAA/member schools is that many states are passing laws (i) denying Deloitte the ability to opine on NIL deals and in fact (ii) affirmatively prohibiting NCAA/Deloitte from even seeing or receiving notice of any third party NIL deals.
Even if the NCAA wins in Congress, the states will shut them down. Third party/booster NIL deals will likely be protected by the states and fall outside the jurisdiction of the NCAA/member schools.
Only path available to the NCAA/member schools is collective bargaining. Ultimately they'll come to this realization...
The NCAA/member schools want payments to (a) run through the schools as "revenue sharing" and (b) require third party NIL payments to players to be vetted by Deloitte as "market" deals.
Problem for the NCAA/member schools is that many states are passing laws (i) denying Deloitte the ability to opine on NIL deals and in fact (ii) affirmatively prohibiting NCAA/Deloitte from even seeing or receiving notice of any third party NIL deals.
Even if the NCAA wins in Congress, the states will shut them down. Third party/booster NIL deals will likely be protected by the states and fall outside the jurisdiction of the NCAA/member schools.
Only path available to the NCAA/member schools is collective bargaining. Ultimately they'll come to this realization...
The House settlement hearings begin on Monday.
If approved, the NCAA and member schools would (a) pay athletes up to an aggregate max of $20.5 million per school, and (b) put 3rd party/collectives NIL deals through a review process run by the Deloitte accounting firm to ensure "market legitimacy" and not pay-for-play arrangement (which in reality it is).
As noted in the posts above, this arrangement put forth by the NCAA/conferences/member schools is likely in violation of anti-trust and labor laws, and will assuredly be challenged in court.
In fact, the first of the law suits has now been filed seeking to void the $20.5 million cap and the Deloitte review of 3rd party NIL deals.
I expect the House settlement to be approved in part, certainly as to monetary settlement with past athletes. But new/current athletes likely won't be bound by the House settlement upon legal challenge because of law suits such as the one just filed.
The Wild West in recruiting and portal will continue until such time as the NCAA and member schools accept the fact that they need to collectively bargain with the athletes going forward. Whether one likes it or not, this is the reality.
If approved, the NCAA and member schools would (a) pay athletes up to an aggregate max of $20.5 million per school, and (b) put 3rd party/collectives NIL deals through a review process run by the Deloitte accounting firm to ensure "market legitimacy" and not pay-for-play arrangement (which in reality it is).
As noted in the posts above, this arrangement put forth by the NCAA/conferences/member schools is likely in violation of anti-trust and labor laws, and will assuredly be challenged in court.
In fact, the first of the law suits has now been filed seeking to void the $20.5 million cap and the Deloitte review of 3rd party NIL deals.
I expect the House settlement to be approved in part, certainly as to monetary settlement with past athletes. But new/current athletes likely won't be bound by the House settlement upon legal challenge because of law suits such as the one just filed.
The Wild West in recruiting and portal will continue until such time as the NCAA and member schools accept the fact that they need to collectively bargain with the athletes going forward. Whether one likes it or not, this is the reality.
GojiraCane
All American
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2018
- Messages
- 10,500
The end result in the future is private ownership of “college” teams. And with that, the same pressures that private ownership exerts. “We need a new stadium”. “We need more luxury suites”. With the threat of moving the team if the private institution, city, or state does not come through. So in the future, we could get a Florida Atlantic Red Raiders. Or a Harvard Fighting Irish.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2015
- Messages
- 19,478
College football has always been a semipro league run by amateurs. Revenues have exponentially exploded over the many, many decades but the grift and cheating has existed since the beginning. At least now everything‘s in front of us rather than under the table.
Last edited:
Mia305cubancane
Freshman
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
- Messages
- 464
To me college is the same as before,the only difference is the almost every kid is getting a piece of the pie.and they don’t have to be scared to flaunt there new cars or whatever and worried about being suspended
Trafficante
ATLien
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2017
- Messages
- 1,951
Pate is speaking str8 facts in this video about the current landscape of CFB, & I concur wholeheartedly. Pate, like myself is a CFB purist, & only wants to see what is in the best interest of the sport long term. This inevitably means having a system with clearly defined rules, that are enforced uniformly; without structure the sport is undeniably headed towards implosion. It's also possible to create a system that is beneficial to the players, coaches, institutions, & governing body equally.
1.) Right now CFB players have too much power, as it pertains to player movement. In fact, they're more empowered than even NFL players; thats a big problem on multiple fronts. Historically, CFB has always been about player evaluations, development, & team culture. This is not possible if a player is moving multiple times during his career, & sometimes even in the same calendar yr.
2.) Without limits on player compensation, it creates a situation where the highest revenue generating teams can buy a NC outright with unregulated P2P, i.e. OSU last yr. In this model, instead of spending most of their time developing their players, coaches are in a never-ending cycle of fundraising trying to secure the funds to sign recruits. This is then followed by never-ending re-recruiting of the players on your own team so that they don't enter the portal for more money. This is a system that devalues actual coaching ability & overemphasizes billionaire boosters with the deepest pockets.
3.) More blame needs to be placed on bytch *** ESPN & university presidents for conference realignment because they selfishly chose to prioritize short term profits over the long term future of the collective.
www.cbssports.com
1.) Right now CFB players have too much power, as it pertains to player movement. In fact, they're more empowered than even NFL players; thats a big problem on multiple fronts. Historically, CFB has always been about player evaluations, development, & team culture. This is not possible if a player is moving multiple times during his career, & sometimes even in the same calendar yr.
2.) Without limits on player compensation, it creates a situation where the highest revenue generating teams can buy a NC outright with unregulated P2P, i.e. OSU last yr. In this model, instead of spending most of their time developing their players, coaches are in a never-ending cycle of fundraising trying to secure the funds to sign recruits. This is then followed by never-ending re-recruiting of the players on your own team so that they don't enter the portal for more money. This is a system that devalues actual coaching ability & overemphasizes billionaire boosters with the deepest pockets.
3.) More blame needs to be placed on bytch *** ESPN & university presidents for conference realignment because they selfishly chose to prioritize short term profits over the long term future of the collective.
Revenue sharing, Livvy Dunne and more: What to know ahead of House v. NCAA settlement approval hearing
The era of compensating college athletes draws closer as the historic case takes one of its final steps on Monday
www.cbssports.com
Last edited:
Advertisement
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2013
- Messages
- 2,931
Pate is speaking str8 facts in this video about the current landscape of CFB, & I concur wholeheartedly. Pate, like myself is a CFB purist, & only wants to see what is in the best interest of the sport long term. This inevitably means having a system with clearly defined rules, that are enforced uniformly; without structure the sport is undeniably headed towards implosion. It's also possible to create a system that is beneficial to the players, coaches, institutions, & governing body equally.
1.) Right now CFB players have too much power, as it pertains to player movement. In fact, they're more empowered than even NFL players; thats a big problem on multiple fronts. Historically, CFB has always been about player evaluations, development, & team culture. This is not possible if a player is moving multiple times during his career, & sometimes even in the same calendar yr.
2.) Without limits on player compensation, it creates a situation where the highest revenue generating teams can buy a NC outright with unregulated P2P, i.e. OSU last yr. In this model, instead of spending most of their time developing their players, coaches are in a never-ending cycle of fundraising trying to secure money to sign recruits. This is then followed by never-ending re-recruiting of the players on your own team so that they don't enter the portal for more money. This is a system that devalues actual coaching ability & overemphasizes billionaire boosters with the deepest pockets.
3.) More blame needs to be placed on bytch *** ESPN & university presidents for conference realignment because they selfishly chose to prioritize short term profits over the long term future of the collective.
Revenue sharing, Livvy Dunne and more: What to know ahead of House v. NCAA settlement approval hearing
The era of compensating college athletes draws closer as the historic case takes one of its final steps on Monday
I agree for the most part, and what has concerned me about this is that CFB has been trending even more and more towards enabling success for the large public schools. It started with ESPN valuing their relationship with the SEC over the ACC back in the late 2000s.
Thanks for the posting the cbs article (I’m not a fan of Dennis Dodd, but he put together a good summary there). One interesting part of the hearing yesterday was the women that testified about why they objected to the settlement. A high school track athlete testified about how she had scholarship offer later rescinded because of the proposed new roster limits. Livvy Dunne and a swimmer from Utah testified about this issue too. The media seemed to make a big deal of that, but I think that’s something that would get resolved once some standards are in place, shouldn’t hinder the settlement, and goes to your point above about why there needs to be some uniform standards in college athletics.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2013
- Messages
- 2,931
Apologies for the double post, but Slate has an interesting article this morning on how the transfer portal and NIL may have killed March Madness, and with a slight anti-Gator slant.
slate.com
Florida Fans, Cover Your Ears. I Need to Tell the Truth About This NCAA Win.
Florida fans, cover your ears.
Fightinibis
Junior
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2012
- Messages
- 5,477
Yep…on life support for sure
House settlement hearing was held yesterday.
Judge Wilkin is generally inclined to approve it, no surprise since she approved the terms of the initial settlement last fall. And this settlement includes $2.3 billion for past athletes, which I believe she wants to resolve for the benefit of the past athletes.
Judge Wilkin did put a couple of issues on the table that she is encouraging the NCAA to address next week before she rules.
One issue concerns roster limits and how they affect walk-ons, which isn't of primary concern to readers of this thread.
The other issue is a major one, and has to do with whether this settlement should be binding future athletes (current 3rd and 4th graders) to its terms for the next 10 years. This is the part of the settlement that the NCAA and member schools most want, but it is the part that is most legally tenuous.
Kilaru is the NCAA atty addressing Judge Wilken below. He is acknowledging that future athletes can challenge the settle terms once they are "affected by the settlement" i.e. once they are being recruited and/or enroll.
The NCAA has signaled that they will not make any changes so as to not bind future athletes to the settlement terms (again this is the part of the settlement the NCAA most covets). Judge Wilkin therefore will need to decide whether to deny the settlement in total over this issue, or approve the settlement leaving it up to future athletes to challenge the terms of the settlement at such time they are recruited/enrolled ($20.5 million revenue share and all 3rd party NIL deals vetted by Deloitte).
It was acknowledged by the Judge and attys yesterday that the settlement would be subject to legal challenge every year by a new class of recruits. So even if the NCAA gets their way and the settlement as approved purports to bind future athletes for 10 years, it will by no means end the legal fights between athletes and the NCAA/conferences. (Jeff Kessler noted below is atty for the Plaintiffs/athletes who are part of the lawsuit against the NCAA.)
My guess is that: (i) the NCAA refuses to sever future athletes from the settlement terms, (b) Judge Wilkin, having put the NCAA on notice that the NCAA's refusal is legally dubious, goes ahead and approves the settlement, and (iii) new anti-trust litigation is filed by current and future players which throws everything back into turmoil.
Judge Wilkin is generally inclined to approve it, no surprise since she approved the terms of the initial settlement last fall. And this settlement includes $2.3 billion for past athletes, which I believe she wants to resolve for the benefit of the past athletes.
Judge Wilkin did put a couple of issues on the table that she is encouraging the NCAA to address next week before she rules.
One issue concerns roster limits and how they affect walk-ons, which isn't of primary concern to readers of this thread.
The other issue is a major one, and has to do with whether this settlement should be binding future athletes (current 3rd and 4th graders) to its terms for the next 10 years. This is the part of the settlement that the NCAA and member schools most want, but it is the part that is most legally tenuous.
Kilaru is the NCAA atty addressing Judge Wilken below. He is acknowledging that future athletes can challenge the settle terms once they are "affected by the settlement" i.e. once they are being recruited and/or enroll.
The NCAA has signaled that they will not make any changes so as to not bind future athletes to the settlement terms (again this is the part of the settlement the NCAA most covets). Judge Wilkin therefore will need to decide whether to deny the settlement in total over this issue, or approve the settlement leaving it up to future athletes to challenge the terms of the settlement at such time they are recruited/enrolled ($20.5 million revenue share and all 3rd party NIL deals vetted by Deloitte).
It was acknowledged by the Judge and attys yesterday that the settlement would be subject to legal challenge every year by a new class of recruits. So even if the NCAA gets their way and the settlement as approved purports to bind future athletes for 10 years, it will by no means end the legal fights between athletes and the NCAA/conferences. (Jeff Kessler noted below is atty for the Plaintiffs/athletes who are part of the lawsuit against the NCAA.)
My guess is that: (i) the NCAA refuses to sever future athletes from the settlement terms, (b) Judge Wilkin, having put the NCAA on notice that the NCAA's refusal is legally dubious, goes ahead and approves the settlement, and (iii) new anti-trust litigation is filed by current and future players which throws everything back into turmoil.
Trafficante
ATLien
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2017
- Messages
- 1,951
Ultimately, it comes down to creating more compelling matchups, because they tend to draw higher viewership numbers & ratings, which attracts more lucrative advertising & sponsorship deals for the tv networks, that is then paid to the schools. So, I understand what the impetus was for conference realignment, but the reason why I say it was myopic & will eventually prove to be a bad business decision is that the majority of CFB fans are for teams that exist outside of the top 25. These are fans of programs that have absolutely no chance of winning the NC, but yet they still watch & attend the games because of the regional rivalries, traditions, & pageantry. By moving to a super league, professional sports model, u end up alienating the fans that are in many ways the lifeblood of the entire sport. This will create a situation where there's an uptick in short term profits, but a downtick long term. National ratings for prime-time games will increase, but the overall viewership of the entire CFB season in the aggregate will decrease.
Yeah, he's not my favorite either; I only posted the article because it was referenced by Pate in the video.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2013
- Messages
- 2,931
Well, ESPN controls the narrative on which matchups are compelling - they are the media. It’s not difficult for them to create an storyline (they do it now), and once the superleague is formed, they can also manage the schedule as well. It’s just going to keep getting worse. But I don’t disagree at all, and this has been why I think the G5 schools should have been split off a long time ago.
Additionally, with the previous and future expansion, rivalries and traditions are evolving very quickly. Today’s young players and fans don’t even know of all the same rivalries that existed when we were kids - but the rivalries and traditions don’t even matter anymore. The system is so rigged. ESPN made the decision to play with the SEC because it is where the large public schools are, and thus where the numbers are. Fox went in on the Big 10 for the same reason. I don’t blame them; it makes perfect sense from a business perspective and obviously it’s a numbers game. It just sucks that everyone else will have to hope that ESPN+ lives on, or else we’ll be stuck watching Miami on Gamechanger like Grandma & Grandpa watch their grandkids every Saturday morning.