Judge sending House case agreement back for rework
Per Ross Dellenger:
"The issue — the prohibition of third-party booster payments — resulted in a more than 30-minute discussion between the judge, NCAA counsel Kilaru and the plaintiff attorneys, mostly Kessler. The conversation centered around what is one of the biggest questions related to the settlement: How will the NCAA and power leagues prohibit and then police third-party booster payments to athletes?
Such payments are happening now as boosters and booster-led collectives are distributing millions of dollars in salary-like payments to retain and recruit athletes, many of them disguised as commercial and endorsement deals. The settlement would potentially reduce or eliminate such payments, instead permitting schools to directly pay their athletes within a salary-cap system.
However, Wilken suggested that such a move may limit the pay that athletes are currently receiving — some of them “large sums,” she said — and she expressed skepticism that the NCAA could enforce, or should enforce, its policy prohibiting “pay-for-play.”
In one of the more shocking moments, Wilken appeared to acknowledge that she entered the hearing with the understanding that the settlement permitted “pay-for-play” from third-party entities. The NCAA's prohibition on pay-for-play is “not going to be there anymore, right?” she asked Kilaru in one of the hearing’s most jarring exchanges."
IMHO, The judge is right about NCAA's ability to enforce any play-for pay rules. The "NIL must be NIL agreement" simply will never work. For all the talk about donor fatigue, her are plenty of donors who love having their Jerry Jones moments, throwing money around to attract talent to Dear Ole U. They have tasted it the last 2 years, and aren't about to give it up. Let these guys coordinate with the coaching staffs on who gets paid what, make sure there are binding contracts in place, and make sure taxes are withheld. Don't keep trying to limit what you have never been able to limit.
** Edited by PadrosWindup at 9/5/2024, 11:45:48 PM
Link:
Ross in the House
106 Replies
I don't understand...can you opt out of this mess?
Obviously this stuff is going to be a bridge too far for many schools. The mission is not to have a professional sports program. But can you still have an amateur intercollegiate sports program without paying players? What triggers you to have to pay them? Is it enough that they can leave if they want and go play for pay somewhere else? Or if you have a certain amount of revenue you have to pay them? Seems crazy.
(In response to this post by PadrosWindup)
1y
(In response to this post by VictoryTurkey)
1y
their media contracts. Everyone is focused on what is going on at the NCAA DI level. While the answer to your question may reside with what happens at the NCAA DII, NCAA DIII, NAIA DI, NAIA DII, and JUCO levels.
** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 9/7/2024, 10:50:37 AM
(In response to this post by VictoryTurkey)
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
1y
This post by NokieHokie removed by Tech Sideline admin
2
2hhoop3
1y
This post by 2hhoop3 removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
2
2hhoop3
1y
This post by 2hhoop3 removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
1y
This post by Gobbler-100 removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
1y
This post by Gobbler-100 removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
1y
This post by Gobbler-100 removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
S
saret
1y
This post by saret removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
S
saret
1y
This post by saret removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
R
RJHokie
1y
This post by RJHokie removed by Tech Sideline admin
1y
This post by NokieHokie removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
1y
This post by NokieHokie removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
R
RJHokie
1y
This post by RJHokie removed by Tech Sideline admin
1y
This post by Gobbler-100 removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
2
2hhoop3
1y
This post by 2hhoop3 removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
S
saret
1y
This post by saret removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
S
saret
1y
This post by saret removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
S
saret
1y
This post by saret removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
S
saret
1y
This post by saret removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
S
saret
1y
This post by saret removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
S
saret
1y
This post by saret removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
S
saret
1y
This post by saret removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
1y
This post by NokieHokie removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
1y
This post by NokieHokie removed by Tech Sideline admin
R
RJHokie
1y
This post by RJHokie removed by Tech Sideline admin
1y
This post by Brewing_Hokie removed by Tech Sideline admin
2
2hhoop3
1y
This post by 2hhoop3 removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
2
2hhoop3
1y
This post by 2hhoop3 removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
S
saret
1y
This post by saret removed by Tech Sideline admin
2
2hhoop3
1y
This post by 2hhoop3 removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
2
2hhoop3
1y
This post by 2hhoop3 removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
2
2hhoop3
1y
This post by 2hhoop3 removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
1y
This post by Brewing_Hokie removed by Tech Sideline admin
S
saret
1y
This post by saret removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
2
2hhoop3
1y
This post by 2hhoop3 removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
S
Stech
1y
This post by Stech removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
S
Stech
1y
This post by Stech removed by Tech Sideline admin
W
WarHog38
1y
This post by WarHog38 removed by Tech Sideline admin
V
VPI 1924
1y
This post by VPI 1924 removed by Tech Sideline admin
1y
This post by VTMONEY94 removed by Tech Sideline admin
S
Stech
1y
This post by Stech removed by Tech Sideline admin
1y
This post by VTMONEY94 removed by Tech Sideline admin
S
Stech
1y
This post by Stech removed by Tech Sideline admin
1y
This post by VTHokie2000 removed by Tech Sideline admin
1y
seeking. They wanted a real cap. She effectively said no.
(In response to this post by PadrosWindup)
Yep. She correctly pointed out trying to pull back something the players
already have and having no plan in how to enforce the pull back is a non-starter.
Increasingly feels like the players being employees with collective bargaining is the best approach.
(In response to this post by LeadingEdge)
D
daveinop
1y
Lots of university employees have side gigs, small and large. Sometimes being a university employee is the side gig.
(In response to this post by Femoyer Hokie)
True. But why is that a problem?
(In response to this post by daveinop)
D
daveinop
1y
is one of maintaining some type of competitive balance.
The judge is saying anyone can pay a player for whatever reason including incentivizing playing for one school versus another. That's the bomb she dropped (or re-dropped) this week. That means the only real competition is who can pay the most. The pros understand that loss of competitive balance means they have no viable product...people won't watch. That's why they have various limitations on pay. I think colleges will have the same problem with their TV contracts.
I had viewed employing players as a way to keep some balance. But upon thinking about it a little more, since employees of universities can (and often do) have side hacks, then making the athletes employees solves nothing, especially for the revenue sports. Outside entities will still provide financial incentives to steer players where they want them to go.
The only thing we're seeing now to counter that is that players with pro aspirations are moving around wholesale to get playing time. Miller Moss stayed put until he got his shot; but he is an exception, not the rule.
** Edited by daveinop at 9/8/2024, 1:50:16 PM
(In response to this post by Femoyer Hokie)
V
VPI 1924
1y
No season and they get paid.
(In response to this post by Femoyer Hokie)
1y
(In response to this post by VPI 1924)
That might actually be a good thing in the long run.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
next thing to go?
(In response to this post by Femoyer Hokie)
1y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
Why bother at that point? So "eligibility" would no longer be a thing.
Not that I believe that will happen.
** Edited by Pylons at 9/6/2024, 6:28:46 PM
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
D
daveinop
1y
if whatever league(s) that come about aren't competitive, there is no product to sell. at that point you fold up the tent.
(In response to this post by Femoyer Hokie)
1y
How will money be allocated across sports?
Do all players need to be paid the same?
How will Title IX compliance be achieved?
These questions and many others will determine if any college sports other than FB and BB survive. At this stage it seems like folks are just arguing about moving the deck chairs on the Titanic.
(In response to this post by Femoyer Hokie)
1y
any pay plan that does not first get settlement of Title IX will be bounced back and forth through the courts.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
S
Strider2
1y
It seems to me the purpose behind Title IX goes away is they aren't student athletes with a scholarship but are now paid professionals. It should only now apply - if at all - to any remaining student athletes on scholarship.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
1y
federally-funded educational institutions. People think of it as a sports thing because that's the only context in which the general public ever hears the term, but athletics are never even directly addressed in Title IX. The "purpose" for Title IX had zero to do with athletic scholarships.
I've taken Title IX training multiple times at multiple universities. Never had an athletics job.
(In response to this post by Strider2)
1y
opportunity for both men and women to participate in sports (among other purposes). Pay every athlete the same amount and, "mission accomplished." That also simplifies the bargaining relationship between the school and the union.
(In response to this post by Strider2)
1y
I guess the football players will throw a fit because of all the money they think they deserve subsidizing the other athletes on campus.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
1y
what is more important is how it has been interpreted. Equal opportunity has been interpreted to mean an equal number of scholarships. Now that the question is direct payments to athletes, that could easily be interpreted to mean equal payouts. Unfortunately, we live in a society where equality of opportunity and outcome are too often interpreted to mean the same thing.
In today's world, there are still more male athletes because only a small percentage of them get scholarships outside football and basketball. How are they going to balance the payouts without cutting male athletes from participating if all players that participate get paid?
(In response to this post by Pylons)
1y
And an NIL payment is potentially treated differently from a scholarship opportunity. Just as employee salaries are not treated like they have to be *equal* between genders.
(In response to this post by Vienna_Hokie)
1y
to bear on college sports. The explanation you posted pops up on realignment boards from time to time; maybe from you. But, thanks.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
1y
Like you said, it's more about *opportunity*
It's about non-financial things as well, fwiw
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
1y
calculation of which athletes are worth more? What is a football player worth vs a golfer? How about a Heisman winning QB vs below average golfer? How about a National Champion golfer vs a backup punter? All MBB players not are worth more than all tennis players. The job description is generally the same, representing the school in intercollegiate sports.
Labor organizations tend to seek equal treatment for all members. Keep it simple.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2
2hhoop3
1y
and on one hand I agree but, your solution points up the total hypocrisy of the situation in granting athletes the revenue they have a hand in generating and then to turn around and allocate the award equally to all. The other reality is a lot of these kids will earn more from sports in college than they will likely ever earn in a professional league. NIL is a CF and the pending House arrangement is a CF X 100 but, as long as the lawyers get paid it's all good.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
1y
sports team at a school is daunting, at the least. And if we attempt that and succeed, will individuals in each sport seek to be paid in comparison to their teammates? Moving away from equal pay opens the door to endless calculations and, almost certainly, more lawsuits.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
it is in reality a life size game of whack-a-mole, solve one issue and likely create another.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
1y
a big part of how we got here is "the players don't get to share in all the revenue they generate." If you then turn around and treat revenue-generators the same as non-, it's kind of an odd solution.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
1y
mean "the players" collectively, not as individuals. I think these lawsuits have been class-actions, if that carries any weight.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
True. None of those things happens until this case is decided is the way
I see it.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)