forums

DAILY DEBATE: Is the House Settlement good or bad for Miami?

ssvir said:
There is a BIG difference between the old days of Miami offering walking around money and Bama/LSU dropping $75k plus family jobs vs today's environment when Miami can offer $250k from the athletic department budget + $50k legit NIL vs LSU offering $350k in total (including $50k cash in a bag).

$300k vs $350k is much easier to overcome.

The increased NIL opportunities may even make the SEC teams have to give extra under-the-table cash to just keep pace with Miami opportunities ... remember fair market value NIL will be determined by a Deloitte algorithm and I suspect that being in Miami with the economy and population should factor in favor of Miami when getting NIL deals approved by the clearninghouse.
Click to expand...


All true.

But if the SEC starts to "supplement" the House settlement money and the NIL money with illicit moneybags, we go right back to where we once were.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
All true.

But if the SEC starts to "supplement" the House settlement money and the NIL money with illicit moneybags, we go right back to where we once were.
Click to expand...
It would be a disadvantage but it wouldn't be back to where we once were.

It used to be $50k cash vs $0 and now it could end up at $300k from Miami (with no state income tax) vs $350k (with part being taxed) from Auburn/Tenn/UGA types.
 
Trafficante said:
This is a narrative that needs to die immediately within this fanbase. How did MIA win 5 NCs, if illegal bags/payments to players have always existed in the sport? This fanbase makes it seem like illegal bags only started with the hiring of Saban @ Bama. Lol

What matters more than preventing illegal payments to players, is the implementation of other parity increasing measures within the sport. That is the only reason why this program even became relevant in the first place. An unregulated, wild, wild, west, CFB landscape, is not going to be beneficial to this program in the long run. It only appears like it will because it increases this program's competitiveness in the short term, but in reality, that is only a mirage & fool's gold.
Click to expand...
People are clueless if they think we weren't giving "extra benefits" to guys in the good old days. It wasn't on the scale of the big Texas or SEC teams but it was there. I was there personally to see a certain big RB recruit in the early 90s "change his mind" and decide to stay home thanks to the generosity of a certain car dealership affiliated with UM. Everything changed after the Tony Russell Pell Grant scandal. We were under an incredible microscope and things were pretty clean from 1995 until the NIL era. It's a big reason why we lost out on a lot of recruits. Especially to the $EC. The closest we came to getting into the bag game during that time was Nevin Shapiro's steak dinners and boat rides. And we paid a heavy price for that nonsense.
 
It's more than bad, it's extortion & coercion. The fact that they tell schools that they can't take legal action against it, tells you all you need to know.
 
Here's a different take that surprisingly no one has stated yet:

We won't know until we experience the effects at first glance.
 
Bender said:
Here's a different take that surprisingly no one has stated yet:

We won't know until we experience the effects at first glance.
Click to expand...
will ferrell idk GIF
 
House settlement should not really hinder recruiting for us that much plus florida and texas with no state income tax should benefit from it as well.

What I havent heard people talk about is the transfer portal. Effectively it should slow down players form the p4 from entering the portal right? Other than 5* or 4* on the bench that want playing time and the G5 who want a pay bumb this should slow down the portal a ton right? Evals become way more important if the transfer portal movement stops, it should also raise the value of QB Recruiting to the max again like it was before most likely right?
 
ssvir said:
There is a BIG difference between the old days of Miami offering walking around money and Bama/LSU dropping $75k plus family jobs vs today's environment when Miami can offer $250k from the athletic department budget + $50k legit NIL vs LSU offering $350k in total (including $50k cash in a bag).

$300k vs $350k is much easier to overcome.

The increased NIL opportunities may even make the SEC teams have to give extra under-the-table cash to just keep pace with Miami opportunities ... remember fair market value NIL will be determined by a Deloitte algorithm and I suspect that being in Miami with the economy and population should factor in favor of Miami when getting NIL deals approved by the clearninghouse.
Click to expand...
This should be correct, but if you think the clearinghouse is gonna let geography and population determine how much a player can make at a school you’re very mistaken. That algorithm will have other factors mixed in that will force it to spit out the same NIL value in Tuscaloosa and Miami.
 
Advertisement
Cookie917 said:
My question is I wonder how the bag game will be implicated... I am sure the bag game is still around, but less people are willing to take the risk since there is a legal way to do it now. I think it could be better for Miami being in a big city you can show "legit" business deals easier than other places.

I also think the bag payments were typically less than 100k. Not the easiest to get 6 figures in cash to slip under the table. That is my hope anyways, that the settlement levels out some stuff and the bag stuff is not rampant because the old days where a guy like Patrick Peterson got 65k in a dufflebag are longgggg gone. These dudes getting millions now.
Click to expand...
Bags can come in a lot of ways besides "bags"" Tagovailoa family was moved from Hawaii and somehow had a great job waiting for him when he arrived in Alabama
go figure
 
1. Is the House settlement good or bad for UM?

The House settlement created two pay windows for players to access

One is the $20.5 million revenue share pot of money. This one is straightforward and does create a level playing field among schools. Any and all universities can pay players in the aggregate up to $20.5 million. In that sense all schools are on a level playing field.

Second are the 3rd party NIL deals. These are more nuanced and is also where the action and shenanigans will be.

Companies can now pay athletes 3rd party NIL money with the caveat that it must represent "fair market value" in order to be allowable. The Deloitte firm will do the review to assess whether 3rd party NIL deals are allowable fair market deals or disallowed pay for play deals.

If Adidas pays a player "fair market value" for representing Adidas in a national media campaign the deal would likely be allowed by Deloitte and result in payment to the player over and above what the player might receive out of the $20.5 million revenue share pot mentioned above. But if Joe Bob Automotive in College Station offers a Texas A&M player, say $1 million as a 3rd party NIL deal to make a couple of appearances a year at the dealership the deal would probably be disallowed by Deloitte as a "pay for play" arrangement.

It's been reported that schools like OSU and Texas Tech have put together total annual buckets of $50-$55 million to pay athletes. How does this breakdown? OSU/Tech will use the $20.5 million revenue share PLUS another $30-$35 million in presumably legit, pre-arranged NIL deals for their players that will stand up to review by Deloitte.

So UM will need to compete with the $30-$35 million in pre-arranged NIL deals that schools like Texas Tech, OSU, etc are putting together that are all in addition to the $20.5 million revenue share. And again, these NIL deals are supposed to be legit "fair market" arrangements.

If Marcus Leonis decides to use UM players for a national marketing campaign for Camping World, or if Adidas uses UM players for a marketing campaign, those arrangements would likely pass muster (so long as the dollar amounts aren't absurd). But if someone in Miami wants to pay Carson Beck $500k to attend their kid's b-day party that's less legit as 3rd party NIL deal in Deloitte's eyes and will likely be disallowed.

Bottom line for me: The House settlement will benefit UM if we can be a player to the tune of $20-$30 million per year in the legit, fair market value NIL world that will be on top of UM's $20.5 million in revenue share that can distributed to players. If we cannot play at this level then the House settlement will likely not benefit UM.

Unless we also develop a strong under the table game that ignores the Deloitte clearinghouse review of "fair market value" for 3rd party NIL deals entirely. Bringing us to...

2. Why are so many people expecting 3rd party NIL deals to go under the table following the House settlement and how might this affect UM?

The multi-million dollar question is whether all 3rd party NIL deals actually get reported to Deloitte as required. There's no legal requirement to do so. It's simply a rule made by the NCAA and conferences. And rules are made to be broken. So if Carson Beck wants to pocket $500k for showing up to a b-day party he can simply choose to do so and not report it. Most people expect this type of arrangement to occur, which is why most people (including me) regard the House settlement as one that will simply send monetary payments in the form of non-fair market value pay for play NIL deals to players back under the table.

3. Lastly, there is expected to be substantial legal challenge (barring legislation from congress) over the entire question of whether Deloitte can validly deny any NIL deal that a player stands to make substantial money from. The entire NCAA/Conferences/Deloitte fair market value review arguably violates anti-trust and employment law owing to the lack of collective bargaining with players.

And in any event how will fair market value evaluated? The parent of the b-day kid might say, yes $500k is a lot of money but it represents fair market value to me in order to have UM's QB attend my son's grand day. Can Deloitte really deny that deal? They'll certainly try. But will it really stand up once the deal gets past the arbitration requirements and ends up in civil court? NCAA and conferences claim Deloitte's conclusions and the decision by an arbitrator are final and cannot be submitted to a court of law, but I think the entire House settlement has got a whole bunch of legal flaws so it will eventually get into the courts. Let's remember that this arrangement of fair market value requirement by the NCAA/Conferences is being imposed on players who have had zero opportunity to participate in crafting the arrangement.

Deloitte recently concluded a review of past NIL deals and concluded that 90% of 3rd party deals with publicly traded companies would be allowed and 70% of 3rd party NIL deals with private entities would disallowed. I find this pretty astonishing. Deloitte is actually saying that 70% of 3rd party NIL deals arranged with private entities would be disallowed as non-fair market deals even though transactions reflecting 70% of deals negotiated in the market actually constitutes the market. lol

If I had to bet I'd say it all gets into the courts eventually notwithstanding the arbitration-only dispute resolution mechanism and that courts will ultimately find that restraining the amount of payment players can receive from 3rd party NIL deals by subjecting them to the "fair market value" test conducted by Deloitte will eventually be found illegal (unless Congress intervenes with legislation).

Edit: holy sh*t that was long
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Back
Top