 |
|
The house settlement won't do that
Posted on: May 3, 2025 at 12:34:47 CT
SatoriTiger JC
Posts:
60000
Member For:
19.25 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
but it's going to happen because of the transfer portal and NIL anyway.
The House settlement doesn't mandate any school spend $20.5 million on athletes, but rather allows a school to use 22% (or something like that) of its revenue (analyzed based on some criteria) on directly paying athletes. So first off, your S20.5 million is not correct. It's an estimate for the first year based on large schools' revenues. Smaller schools won't even have the option to spend that much.
The big schools (SEC/B10/ND etc) already outspend smaller schools (ksu, devry, that group) on getting kids. They are not competing generally with those schools, save for a few kids a year because of some personal connection (parents, grew up in the town, etc). The SEC is generally competing with the other major programs and conferences for recruits. They will still do that, but each now will have an additional pot of money to use directly. The disparity will be greater, true, but for the most part there are two or three tiers of competitors anyways. This doesn't fundamentally alter the historical state of play that sees the same 10-15 teams be in the top-10/15 annually. It will make it take it from 90% impossible for other schools to compete yearly to 95% impossible.
Second, the schools have to use their money evenly across mens' and womens' sports to not run afoul of Title IX. So even that $20 million or so won't all go to football/MBB. There is more to discuss here but the short of it is Title IX and the cases interpreting are fairly clear on a school's obligations under the law. I could see it making womens' sports for other schools harder as well, though.
Third, the current trajectory is, imo, unsustainable but not because of this case. The rapid turn to college being semi-pro, the unregulated transfer market, the lack of transparency behind these NIL deals, and the chaos to fans and teams is what is driving this all.
Also, I don't see any need to exempt the NCAA/universities from antitrust regulations generally but rather some targeted legislation to return some core principals to college sports would be better suited. For example, something targeting the transfer portal chaos and college eligibility are likely better suited. In fact, because these are all statutory cases, Congress can pass a law directly rejecting these holdings and return antitrust law to what it wants it to be. That's likely simpler. Will it do it? No, but probably won't exempt them from antitrust regulation either.
I agree with your overall fear, but not your reasoning here.
And: http://tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=19381761
The House settlement doesn't mandate any school spend $20.5 million on athletes, but rather allows a school to use 22% (or something like that) of its revenue (analyzed based on some criteria) on directly paying athletes. So first off, your S20.5 million is not correct. It's an estimate for the first year based on large schools' revenues. Smaller schools won't even have the option to spend that much.
The big schools (SEC/B10/ND etc) already outspend smaller schools (ksu, devry, that group) on getting kids. They are not competing generally with those schools, save for a few kids a year because of some personal connection (parents, grew up in the town, etc). The SEC is generally competing with the other major programs and conferences for recruits. They will still do that, but each now will have an additional pot of money to use directly. The disparity will be greater, true, but for the most part there are two or three tiers of competitors anyways. This doesn't fundamentally alter the historical state of play that sees the same 10-15 teams be in the top-10/15 annually. It will make it take it from 90% impossible for other schools to compete yearly to 95% impossible.
Second, the schools have to use their money evenly across mens' and womens' sports to not run afoul of Title IX. So even that $20 million or so won't all go to football/MBB. There is more to discuss here but the short of it is Title IX and the cases interpreting are fairly clear on a school's obligations under the law. I could see it making womens' sports for other schools harder as well, though.
Third, the current trajectory is, imo, unsustainable but not because of this case. The rapid turn to college being semi-pro, the unregulated transfer market, the lack of transparency behind these NIL deals, and the chaos to fans and teams is what is driving this all.
Also, I don't see any need to exempt the NCAA/universities from antitrust regulations generally but rather some targeted legislation to return some core principals to college sports would be better suited. For example, something targeting the transfer portal chaos and college eligibility are likely better suited. In fact, because these are all statutory cases, Congress can pass a law directly rejecting these holdings and return antitrust law to what it wants it to be. That's likely simpler. Will it do it? No, but probably won't exempt them from antitrust regulation either.
I agree with your overall fear, but not your reasoning here.
And: http://tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=19381761
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
The house settlement won't do that - SatoriTiger JC - 5/3 12:34:47
-