NCAA is close to settlement, possible new model

[mplsgopher]

He also re-Tweeted this about how Judge Wilken denied HCU today:

[mplsgopher]

This one worth posting:

So if a school opts-out of revenue sharing, it can have an unlimited roster size (ie. unlimited walk-ons), as it was before. I assume scholarship limits defacto are now at the new limit.

[hopefuldawg]

Jul 26, 2024 16:45:49 GMT -5 katn said:

http://instagram.com/p/C95oy1-yRRS

This gives a much clearer picture of what the NCAA and conferences are hoping for (are willing to accept), but there are some interesting things.

• We can pay them, but they're not employees?
• NIL can't be pay-for-play, but the colleges themselves can do pay-for-play?
• This language is all "schools can," but isn't the point of the lawsuits to force them to share revenue?
• Schools would be limited relative to the average P5 athletic revenue, so I guess that would level the playing field a little bit
• I'm surprised WSU and Oregon St get included in this

 

[n00b]

Things I found significant:

- Funds funneled through a collective to distribute to athletes will count against the revenue sharing cap, but schools CAN assist in helping athletes find organic NIL deals outside of the university.
- They will create an enforcement mechanism with a "special master" to make sure NIL deals are authentic and the rates align with "similarly situated individuals with comparable NIL value."
- Roster limits of 18 for both womens and mens volleyball. 19 for beach.
- Schools and conferences are only bound by the roster limits IF they opt in to sharing revenue with athletes.

[n00b]

The full 333-page document is embedded in this article:

www.on3.com/os/news/long-form-house-v-ncaa-settlement-document-filed-in-court/

[bborr]

Random roster limits/ authorized scholarships:
Women’s rowing goes from 20 to 68, beach volleyball from 6 to 19, and women’s fencing from 5 to 24. What??

[stevehorn]

Jul 26, 2024 17:45:43 GMT -5 n00b said:

Things I found significant:

- Funds funneled through a collective to distribute to athletes will count against the revenue sharing cap, but schools CAN assist in helping athletes find organic NIL deals outside of the university.
- They will create an enforcement mechanism with a "special master" to make sure NIL deals are authentic and the rates align with "similarly situated individuals with comparable NIL value."
- Roster limits of 18 for both womens and mens volleyball. 19 for beach.
- Schools and conferences are only bound by the roster limits IF they opt in to sharing revenue with athletes.

Found what appears to be a decent summary of the proposal.   These are notes to add to further clarify your statements.
1.   My understanding is that this refers to school (athletic department) funds funneled through the collective.   Not clear, but I'm thinking it says that 3rd party funds funneled through the collective will be invalidated (or whatever is the correct term).
2.  To add, schools can arrange legit NIL deals for athletes and they will not count against the salary cap.   
4.   Since the defendants appear to be the NCAA and Power 5 conferences (I see the Pac 12 logo still included), I'm assuming those schools and conferences will be required to share revenue.   I thought I read that it is any non-P5 school that has the ability to opt-in to revenue sharing and as such, the roster limits.

[n00b]

Jul 26, 2024 17:22:17 GMT -5 mplsgopher said:

This one worth posting:

So if a school opts-out of revenue sharing, it can have an unlimited roster size (ie. unlimited walk-ons), as it was before. I assume scholarship limits defacto are now at the new limit.

Section 6. Non-Defendant Conference Member Institutions. All Non-Defendant
Conference Member Institutions that choose to provide or facilitate payments or benefits to
student-athletes as permitted by this Injunctive Relief Settlement including but not limited to
incremental scholarships permitted by Article 3, Section 3(b), shall be bound to the same extent as
Conference Defendant Member Institutions by all obligations, benefit limitations, and roster limits
set forth in this Injunctive Relief Settlement and as set by the NCAA in Appendix B to the SSA.

^pg 121 of that pdf

So that's some legalese that I'm trying to parse as a non-lawyer. But how I read that is if a school/conference chooses to facilitate any of the new allowed benefits including incremental scholarships, then they are bound to the same roster limits.

So the options seem to be:

(a) 12 scholarship limit, no roster max (and no revenue sharing)
(b) 18 athlete roster max, no scholarship limit (revenue sharing ok)

And this from page 132:

Appendix B to the SSA sets forth the roster limits which the NCAA has currently chosen to adopt
that apply to Member Institutions that choose to provide or facilitate payments or benefits to
student-athletes as permitted by this Injunctive Relief Settlement, including but not limited to
incremental scholarships permitted by Article 3, Section 3(b).

[mervinswerved]

The idea that anybody is going to successfully regulate NIL collectives is pretty funny.

[n00b]

Section 3. New NCAA and Conference Rules. The NCAA and the Conference
Defendants may adopt the following additional rules before or in conjunction with Final Approval
of this Injunctive Relief Settlement:

...

(b) NCAA and conference rules governing the number of seasons/length of time
student-athletes are eligible to receive benefits, including scholarships and payments, pursuant to
this Injunctive Relief Settlement, including any rule capping the number of years a student-athlete
may receive payments at four years, and providing that all four of those years must be played
within a consecutive five-year period (with the exception that in the event of a national force
majeure event that leads to the cancellation of games, or the absence of fans, the rules may provide
for an additional year to be added onto the five-year period);
(c) NCAA and conference rules requiring that student-athletes continue to make
progress toward a degree while enrolled in any Member Institution in order to receive benefits
pursuant to this Injunctive Relief Settlement;

Interesting. The settlement takes time to write out the the NCAA is allowed to make changes to the 4-season cap, the 5-year clock, and progress towards degree requirements.

[n00b]

Jul 26, 2024 18:20:55 GMT -5 mervinswerved said:

The idea that anybody is going to successfully regulate NIL collectives is pretty funny.

It's the only way that a revenue sharing cap matters. You don't think it's possible to have an independent body that rules on if NIL deals are "for a valid business purpose related to the promotion or endorsement of goods or services provided to the general public for profit, with compensation at rates and terms commensurate with compensation paid to similarly situated individuals with comparable NIL value who are not current or prospective student-athletes at the Member Institution".

[mervinswerved]

Jul 26, 2024 18:34:56 GMT -5 n00b said:

Jul 26, 2024 18:20:55 GMT -5 mervinswerved said:

The idea that anybody is going to successfully regulate NIL collectives is pretty funny.

It's the only way that a revenue sharing cap matters. You don't think it's possible to have an independent body that rules on if NIL deals are "for a valid business purpose related to the promotion or endorsement of goods or services provided to the general public for profit, with compensation at rates and terms commensurate with compensation paid to similarly situated individuals with comparable NIL value who are not current or prospective student-athletes at the Member Institution".

I don't. And any kind of rev share cap exists to benefit schools, not the athletes. Booster money is going to keep flowing to athletes, whether it's through a collective or not, anyway.

[mplsgopher]

Jul 26, 2024 18:14:07 GMT -5 n00b said:

So the options seem to be:

(a) 12 scholarship limit, no roster max (and no revenue sharing)
(b) 18 athlete roster max, no scholarship limit (revenue sharing ok)

Where are you getting 12 scholarship limit in option a?

I think it should be 18. After all, scholarships are of far less importance in the context of this settlement.

[mplsgopher]

Jul 26, 2024 18:45:24 GMT -5 mervinswerved said:

I don't.

You are wrong.

And very likely just trying to project ideology or other things that have nothing to do with the settlement at hand.

And any kind of rev share cap exists to benefit schools, not the athletes. Booster money is going to keep flowing to athletes, whether it's through a collective or not, anyway.

Yep and yep, on the projections

[n00b]

Jul 26, 2024 19:50:29 GMT -5 mplsgopher said:

Jul 26, 2024 18:14:07 GMT -5 n00b said:

So the options seem to be:

(a) 12 scholarship limit, no roster max (and no revenue sharing)
(b) 18 athlete roster max, no scholarship limit (revenue sharing ok)

Where are you getting 12 scholarship limit in option a?

I think it should be 18. After all, scholarships are of far less importance in the context of this settlement.

Appendix B to the SSA sets forth the roster limits which the NCAA has currently chosen to adopt that apply to Member Institutions that choose to provide or facilitate payments or benefits to student-athletes as permitted by this Injunctive Relief Settlement, including but not limited to incremental scholarships permitted by Article 3, Section 3(b).

By exceeding 12 scholarships (or the previous cap in any sport), a school would be choosing to provide benefits as permitted by the settlement. So they'd be restricted by the roster cap in the settlement.

If the school doesn't opt into revenue sharing, they don't have to abide by roster limits. But they WOULD have to follow all existing NCAA legislation.

At least that's my read of it...