bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,306 
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 23, 2024 16:09:41 GMT -5
I think these are being voted on with current 2023/24 conference memberships. Oklahoma and Texas chose to abstain with the B12 vote - which I don't think included AZ/ASU/COL/UTA. So - I am thinking this is for the current 12 PAC schools? I thought it was established in court that only WSU and OSU get to decide things for the PAC-12 now. But I'm not sure. Not sure where I read this today, but I know I read it somewhere - all 12 will be voting on this because they were part of the PAC when either the lawsuit was filed or settled (probably settled). This may have a different legal requirement than a general one established that those departing PAC schools were no longer able to decide stuff relating to the PAC? |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 23, 2024 17:13:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 23, 2024 17:30:15 GMT -5
OK, thanks. That's a clear statement that all 12 get to vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 23, 2024 20:35:16 GMT -5
The thing to keep in mind is that this settlement covers damages incurred in *the past*. So the payments should be based on the previous configurations, and then travel with the schools to their new homes. As for the NCAA’s bill, maybe the fairest way to pay for it is to just decrease the monetary value of each unit? So WSU and OSU still will be earning units from 12 schools for a few years, but at some percentage less value? But the NCAA doesn't seem to be trying to determine which schools had athletes impacted the most. That's the non-football schools are very unhappy with this settlement deal. The Autonomy Conferences had the athletes that lost out on the vast majority of possible NIL dollars. But 60% of the funding from this settlement will come from outside of the autonomy conferences.Bolded: 60% ... of 60%, so 36% overall. NCAA is 40% overall. A5 is 40% of 60%, or 24% overall.
What I don't get is this: it's not like the NCAA is a for-profit business. It has some expenses sure, but its revenue streams (largely from the March Madness TV contract) would normally be distributed to the member schools. Is how I thought it worked.
So if that's correct, then it doesn't make sense to me that this 40% can just come from NCAA coffers and yet not in of itself result in that amount of money not being distributed to schools like it would have?
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 23, 2024 20:49:33 GMT -5
Basketball tournament money is allocated in a very specific way, depending on whether the schools got into the tournament and how deeply they advanced. It also is spread out over some number of years, so right now schools know how much they are scheduled to get in the future for their performance in the past. If (when) the NCAA cuts those future distributions that are already defined and scheduled now, that is is effectively the schools giving up that money.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 23, 2024 21:06:56 GMT -5
What I don't get is this: it's not like the NCAA is a for-profit business. It has some expenses sure, but its revenue streams (largely from the March Madness TV contract) would normally be distributed to the member schools. Is how I thought it worked.
So if that's correct, then it doesn't make sense to me that this 40% can just come from NCAA coffers and yet not in of itself result in that amount of money not being distributed to schools like it would have?
The money will come from the NCAA's reserves, insurance, and reduced budgets. I anticipate them running championships as cheaply as possible for the next decade. I also see them immediately agreeing to expand the basketball tournament if it means CBS will pay more. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 23, 2024 21:07:07 GMT -5
Basketball tournament money is allocated in a very specific way, depending on whether the schools got into the tournament and how deeply they advanced. It also is spread out over some number of years, so right now schools know how much they are scheduled to get in the future for their performance in the past. If (when) the NCAA cuts those future distributions that are already defined and scheduled now, that is is effectively the schools giving up that money. Agree.
And my understanding is that that is how the conferences (schools) will "pay" for 60% of the settlement. The NCAA will reduce their payments by that much money.
And then, the NCAA itself is responsible for the remaining 40%. My point is: wouldn't that have been money -- like all NCAA money (minus small amount for expenses) -- that would have been distributed to the schools in the first place, as well? EDIT: see noob's explanation above
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 23, 2024 21:08:33 GMT -5
What I don't get is this: it's not like the NCAA is a for-profit business. It has some expenses sure, but its revenue streams (largely from the March Madness TV contract) would normally be distributed to the member schools. Is how I thought it worked.
So if that's correct, then it doesn't make sense to me that this 40% can just come from NCAA coffers and yet not in of itself result in that amount of money not being distributed to schools like it would have?
The money will come from the NCAA's reserves, insurance, and reduced budgets. I anticipate them running championships as cheaply as possible for the next decade. I also see them immediately agreeing to expand the basketball tournament if it means CBS will pay more. OK. That I can buy. I just didn't think the NCAA had much money lying around that they didn't give back.
Expanding March Madness should mean the additional values goes right to the schools. The schools (more specifically, their basketball teams) are the ones providing the value. No one tunes in to watch because the court says "NCAA" on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by notvballdad on May 24, 2024 7:57:08 GMT -5
Sorry for being ignorant on this...Of course revenue and payouts is the key item in this settlement, but secondary items that I thought I understood existed such as scholarship limits...is that all part of this deal as well and was that portion of this settlement also approved? That seems to me to be a seismic item as well but not sure i'm understanding correctly...And does this go into effect immediately or what is the timeframe on implementation?
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 24, 2024 8:17:41 GMT -5
Sorry for being ignorant on this...Of course revenue and payouts is the key item in this settlement, but secondary items that I thought I understood existed such as scholarship limits...is that all part of this deal as well and was that portion of this settlement also approved? That seems to me to be a seismic item as well but not sure i'm understanding correctly...And does this go into effect immediately or what is the timeframe on implementation? Yes. Part of the agreement is to have roster limitations instead of scholarship limitations. But the details haven’t been worked out. Football roster sizes will shrink significantly. But what those exact limitations will be hasn’t been worked out yet. |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,306
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 24, 2024 8:25:18 GMT -5
And I don't think any of this will happen for the 2024-25 season. These changes are going to happen starting in 2025 - including revenue sharing with current athletes.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 24, 2024 9:16:34 GMT -5
And I don't think any of this will happen for the 2024-25 season. These changes are going to happen starting in 2025 - including revenue sharing with current athletes. At the earliest. To me, it would make sense for the roster size limitation to be like 4 or 5 years out so schools can get to the new standards through attrition and not by kicking players off the team. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 24, 2024 9:42:12 GMT -5
Well, the thing is done. Many tweets, take your pick.
Legal team for plaintiffs trying to get way out in front of everything: other lawsuit that opted out will be dismissed, this settlement covers all athlete interests — no need for collective bargaining! —, this settlement preempts all future cases so schools, confs, and NCAA are protected going forward.
I have no idea if these are legit claims, just hubris, or where on that spectrum.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,306
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 24, 2024 10:02:55 GMT -5
Well, the thing is done. Many tweets, take your pick. Legal team for plaintiffs trying to get way out in front of everything: other lawsuit that opted out will be dismissed, this settlement covers all athlete interests — no need for collective bargaining! —, this settlement preempts all future cases so schools, confs, and NCAA is protected going forward. I have no idea if these are legit claims, just , or where on that spectrum. Not necessarily. Some athletes could opt out of this settlement and potentially sue the NCAA. The judge could not accept this settlement. And this doesn't prevent future anti-trust litigation unless Congress steps in. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on May 24, 2024 10:05:29 GMT -5
Well, the thing is done. Many tweets, take your pick. Legal team for plaintiffs trying to get way out in front of everything: other lawsuit that opted out will be dismissed, this settlement covers all athlete interests — no need for collective bargaining! —, this settlement preempts all future cases so schools, confs, and NCAA are protected going forward. I have no idea if these are legit claims, just hubris, or where on that spectrum. Not necessarily. Some athletes could opt out of this settlement and potentially sue the NCAA. The judge could not accept this settlement. And this doesn't prevent future anti-trust litigation unless Congress steps in. I'm leaning towards that I agree with you. Notre Dame president (father) already has a public statement saying new legislation is needed to protect from future lawsuits. |
|
