JDP
Masters Student
Posts: 636
Reg: 11-23-04
|
05-05-24 03:36 PM - Post#368152
https://sports.yahoo.com/what-would-house-v-nc aa-s...
Perhaps I missed this in another thread - but just coming up to speed on the case, and the potential settlement, and interested on hearing other’s thought on the implications. At a minimum, it feels like the Ivy sports philosophy and any settlement (which the Ivies are a defendant) would necessitate a change in the Ivy model - going to D3 is not a successful fallback.
|
JDP
Masters Student
Posts: 636
Reg: 11-23-04
|
05-23-24 08:33 PM - Post#368674
In response to JDP
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/ _/id/402...
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news /ho...
The Power 5 seeming have come to a settlement ... very little has been written about the exact impact to the other 27 conference, other than they will also shoulder the burden - each ivy school & non peer 6 could lose close to $300k - $400k ... does not seem like much, but as most school sports programs run at a deficit, another hit
The NCAA's settlement is projected at nearly $2.8 billion over the next 10 years. The NCAA will take on 40% of the total cost, with 60% coming from withholding distributions to Division I institutions. Out of that latter number, 40% will be paid by the legacy Power Five, 17% from the Group of Five and 22% from the Football Championship Subdivision, with other compensation coming from non-football conferences. The cost to legacy Power Five schools will be between $1 to $2 million over the next 10 years, based on a memo obtained by Yahoo Sports. Group of Five schools will lose approximately $400,000 annually, with FCS programs losing closer to $280,000. However, the settlement price is only one small piece of the much larger cost.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 22858
Reg: 12-02-04
|
05-23-24 08:58 PM - Post#368676
In response to JDP
You beat me to it.
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 547
Reg: 10-11-18
|
05-24-24 06:06 AM - Post#368681
In response to JDP
We will find out (as if we don't have enough evidence already) that Ivy leadership is simply a distillation of the NCAA's head-in-the-sand approach to problems when it comes to the modern college sports challenges. That is, sticking 'boldly' to outdated concepts and realities and then having a 'holy sh*t' moment when then power to control their circumstances has effectively been stripped.
The current Ivy model looks less tenable by the week, literally. And I have no confidence that the people in charge have any capacity to respond in a coherent manner. They seem completely unprepared for both the scale and the speed with which the ground underneath them is shifting. Going D3 may not be a successful fallback but what other options have these people left themselves with?
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1369
Reg: 12-08-04
|
05-24-24 09:18 AM - Post#368690
In response to CM
Are you advocating that ivies start paying players to keep pace with the football factories?
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 34575
Reg: 11-21-04
|
05-24-24 09:22 AM - Post#368692
In response to sparman
I think each Ivy schools should pay the players 1/12 of the profit they make from basketball and 1/60 the profit they make from football.
There, problem solved.
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 547
Reg: 10-11-18
|
05-24-24 09:32 AM - Post#368694
In response to sparman
No, of course not.
But thinking that what worked last year is going to work in five years is crazy, and that's basically what the Ivys have reiterated in the last 18 months. There's just too much evidence that's not the case, the landscape of college sport is changing so fast, whether we like it or not.
In five years if the Ivys remain a no-scholarship, no-NIL, no-pay structured league does it seem likely they will still be D1 (whatever that looks like)?
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 34575
Reg: 11-21-04
|
05-24-24 09:44 AM - Post#368697
In response to CM
There is no money threshold for Div 1 membership as far as I am aware. The Ivies will be in Division 1 as long as they choose to be, but it certainly is possible that they will be much less competitive. I still see Division 1 basketball breaking into 2 subgroups as did football.
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 547
Reg: 10-11-18
|
05-24-24 09:54 AM - Post#368700
In response to palestra38
I understand.
I'm saying they will effectively be D3 (whether they're actually in D3 or not).
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1369
Reg: 12-08-04
|
05-24-24 11:57 AM - Post#368703
In response to CM
But you seem to be criticizing such an approach. What do you want them to do?
To be clear, I do not believe this pay for play approach will become less onerous in future years.
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 547
Reg: 10-11-18
|
05-24-24 12:24 PM - Post#368704
In response to sparman
I am criticizing the mindset that doing nothing will result in no negative effects, that what has worked until now will continue to work despite the seismic landscape changes. So either knock down the scholarship barrier or start working with alumni groups to create some NIL opportunities.
Now, if D1 splits into different levels then I think perhaps this philosophy of intransigence may have fewer ill effects.
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1369
Reg: 12-08-04
|
05-24-24 03:13 PM - Post#368718
In response to CM
I think you and the presidents disagree on what constitutes a "negative" effect.
|
CM
Masters Student
Posts: 547
Reg: 10-11-18
|
05-24-24 03:23 PM - Post#368719
In response to sparman
No doubt.
|
mbaprof
Masters Student
Posts: 404
Age: 67
Reg: 12-24-11
|
05-27-24 06:14 AM - Post#368764
In response to CM
Anyone have any idea if recent ivy bball alums will get any $ out of the settlement?
|
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts: 1448
Loc: Chester County, Pennsylva...
Reg: 11-21-04
|
05-27-24 09:59 PM - Post#368769
In response to mbaprof
These links are to the most complete summary I have read about the proposed settlement. They may be behind a paywall.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/24/us/ncaa-se ttlem...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/23/us/ncaa-at hlete...
|
JDP
Masters Student
Posts: 636
Reg: 11-23-04
|
House v. NCAA
05-28-24 09:35 PM - Post#368829
In response to Stuart Suss
The former athletes covered by this settlement (should they opt in) include an estimated 14,500 Division I athletes who played from June 15, 2016 until the class was established in the case November 3, 2023 and could have received money for commercial use of their NIL, video games and broadcasts if the NCAA had permitted it. The $2.8 billion part of the settlement is for them, although 25-35% of it will go to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, as determined by the judge.
Berman told ESPN the money will be divided between athletes pursuant to a formula created by a sports economist. Some money will be split equally between all athletes who opt into the class, while some money will be allocated based on each athlete’s market value. That market value might be determined by such factors as career snap count or a player’s star rating.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/2024 /05/24...
Another good write-up.
It will be interesting to see if Ivy Alums opt in or out ... I would think any NCAA tournament team would have broadcast right claims ... as well as all the ESPN games - is not playing for ESPN+ subscription a form of NIL payment that could be shared with the student athletes?
Two thoughts on why an Ivy Alum may opt out.
1.) Without any scholarships, should an Ivy Alum get a higher % of revenue sharing as they do not have any other athletic related remuneration
2.) Were the Ivy NIL rules more constraining that other conferences, so they could get a higher award.
Then again, would the awards be so different that the ease of signing on to House v. NCAA may be the path of least resistance
Bigger issue for me is does the Ivy League and the non-Power 4/5 sign on ... Clear that the Dwarf 27 are paying a larger share than what they should ... so why should the D27 sign on and jeopardize their athletic budgets?
https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/columnis ts/g...
Edited by JDP on 05-28-24 09:36 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2833
Reg: 11-23-04
|
Re: House v. NCAA
05-29-24 07:31 AM - Post#368831
In response to JDP
Aaaagggghhhh! Suit up the attorneys.
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1369
Reg: 12-08-04
|
05-29-24 08:40 AM - Post#368832
In response to JDP
I have not read the pleadings so may have missed the answer, but why the cutoff at 2016? The Alston decision upholding NIL rights was in 2021.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4966
Reg: 02-04-06
|
05-29-24 08:02 PM - Post#368835
In response to sparman
I read in Wired that a lawyer involved in this or similar litigation is next planning to sue on behalf of OnlyFans clients allegedly defrauded by the routine/universal use of paid overseas chatters to pose as the content creator in “personal” interactions.
|
Stuart Suss
PhD Student
Posts: 1448
Loc: Chester County, Pennsylva...
Reg: 11-21-04
|
05-29-24 08:15 PM - Post#368838
In response to SRP
I am not an antitrust expert, but I believe that the 2016 date for eligibility has to do with the statute of limitations for filing a claim for relief.
The Alston decision did not pertain to NIL. It was about educational benefits. However, the subsequent actions of the NCAA with respect to NIL and to the immediate eligibility of transfers had to do with the fear on the part of the NCAA that they would lose their ability to make and enforce rules in these areas in light of the Alston ruling.
The NCAA was made particularly fearful in light of Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion in Alston, even though no other Justice joined that opinion.
If you have not read the Alson opinion and the Kavanaugh concurring opinion, I encourage you to do so. You do not have to be an attorney to understand most of it. You may skip the four pages of small print entitled the Syllabus. Just read the actual opinions.
|
