ADVERTISEMENT

Judge postpones her final decision on whether to approve the House settlement.

R

retired711

Heisman Winner
Nov 20, 2001
19,371
9,521
113
73
Cherry Hill
There are 73 objectors and so (not surprisingly), Judge Wilken declined to rule from the bench. It is thought that her decision will be out within two weeks

Note that the settlement does not resolve anti-trust litigation brought by athletes who decided not to be among those who are settling. Note also that the judge regards the treatment of third-party NIL as an important issue.

https://www.post-gazette.com/sports/2025/04/07/house-settlement-update-ncaa/stories/202504070041
 
bac2therac said:
The womens issue looms large
Click to expand...
What I found interesting is that there's no mention of it in the story I linked. Have you seen other stories that mention it?

The women are not in a good position. I can't imagine that the Trump Administration will do much to enforce Title IX, much less extend it to player compensation. And there's nothing in the law that allows a private citizen to bring suit to enforce it.
 
It is supposed to be revenue sharing & if it is then women will get scraps
 
retired711 said:
This story goes into more detail, and says that Judge Wilkin said this is not a Title IX ccase.

https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2025/ncaa-house-settlement-hearing-1234846744/
Click to expand...
As you can see, Judge Wilken questioned the proposed limits on third-party NIL, saying she needed to see a "pro-competitive justification" for them. To me, the pro-competitive justification is that they put teams pretty much on an equal footing with each other. If third-party NIL remains as it is now, Rutgers will be paying $20 million to athletes but still losing out because other schools can generate more NIL from boosters than Rutgers possibly can. The result might be that schools like Rutgers would drop out of major sports, which means few opportunities for athletes. But apparently Judge Wilken thinks the limits could unduly restrict athletes' earning power. We'll see if the parties can reach a compromise that she will go along with.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ring-live-updates-college-sports/82968197007/
 
Last edited:
I don't think NIL should be part of Title IX.

Males playing as females is much more relevant to Title IX. It is about opportunity, right? Available scholarships and even non-scholarship head-count for teams.

The opportunity is there regardless of how much they might be paid. They will continue to have equal opportunity to get college scholarships for athletics.

BTW.. Title IX should only benefit AMERICANS. How you can bring in females from around teh world to get scholarships and count that toward giving American women equal access to opportunity is just ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CERU00
GoodOl'Rutgers said:
I don't think NIL should be part of Title IX.

Males playing as females is much more relevant to Title IX. It is about opportunity, right? Available scholarships and even non-scholarship head-count for teams.

The opportunity is there regardless of how much they might be paid. They will continue to have equal opportunity to get college scholarships for athletics.

BTW.. Title IX should only benefit AMERICANS. How you can bring in females from around teh world to get scholarships and count that toward giving American women equal access to opportunity is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Title IX is about preventing discrimination for all women, not just American women. A true education includes a diversity of people. If you work in a multinational corporation, you work with a variety of people from all over the world. This is what a university education helps prepare for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RU848789
rutgersal said:
Title IX is about preventing discrimination for all women, not just American women. A true education includes a diversity of people. If you work in a multinational corporation, you work with a variety of people from all over the world. This is what a university education helps prepare for.
Click to expand...
Call me uninformed but when did Title IX become an issue for the UN?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodOl'Rutgers and bac2therac
rutgersal said:
Title IX is about preventing discrimination for all women, not just American women. A true education includes a diversity of people. If you work in a multinational corporation, you work with a variety of people from all over the world. This is what a university education helps prepare for.
Click to expand...
Yes
e5fdny said:
Call me uninformed but when did Title IX become an issue for the UN?
Click to expand...
The statute says "person" not citizen. Al is right.
e5fdny said:
So it’s not. Got it. 👍

@GoodOl'Rutgers is right.
Click to expand...
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

20 U.S. Code § 1681 - Sex

www.law.cornell.edu

Seems to be a common problem of interpretation these days, like the due process clause applying to "persons" not citizens.

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

Logging back off. Have fun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KevH, mosito, RU848789 and 5 others
Knight Shift said:
Yes

The statute says "person" not citizen. Al is right.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

20 U.S. Code § 1681 - Sex

www.law.cornell.edu

Seems to be a common problem of interpretation these days, like the due process clause applying to "persons" not citizens.

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

Logging back off. Have fun.
Click to expand...
I prefer any all help go to American gals first.

Those coming over as carpetbaggers or mercenaries probably already have their ducks in a row.

If not, it’s on them, their family, the governing body from where they came from and of course somewhat of the schools where they end up responsibility.

And IMO the intent of the “person” part of it was to cover guys here too.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MADHAT1
bac2therac said:

Judge wants range of issues addressed in $2.8 billion NCAA settlement before final approval

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken has asked attorneys in the landmark $2.8 billion House settlement to come up with solutions for issues raised at a hearing in Oakland, California, before she grants final approval.
apnews.com

some of the quotes by athletes infuriate me

also remember they are back dating payouts...imo just incredibly absurd
Click to expand...
The settlement provides damages for those who were injured by the NCAA's restrictions. There's nothing extraordinary about that. And it's not surprising in a law suit brought by past athletes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MADHAT1
Knight Shift said:
Yes

The statute says "person" not citizen. Al is right.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

20 U.S. Code § 1681 - Sex

www.law.cornell.edu

Seems to be a common problem of interpretation these days, like the due process clause applying to "persons" not citizens.

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

Logging back off. Have fun.
Click to expand...
I don't know why we're discussing Title IX in this thread, but I might as well mention that, as @Knight Shift knows, the term "person" includes a corporation because corporations are considered to be persons by the law. This has been established law for close to 150 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rutgersal, Knight Shift and MADHAT1
e5fdny said:
I prefer any all help go to American gals first.

Those coming over as carpetbaggers or mercenaries probably already have their ducks in a row.

If not, it’s on them, their family, the governing body from where they came from and of course somewhat of the schools where they end up responsibility.

And IMO the intent of the “person” part of it was to cover guys here too.
Click to expand...
I hearya but players are brought from around the world to play at US colleges and professional leagues.

If you say you just want American citizens to play collegiately or professionally in US Ok if you want to limit yourself but many US athletes in a given sport are not the best players in that sport. Some think the US is the best place in the world without ever stepping foot outside of its borders.

Ignorance is bliss I guess.

GO RU
 
satnom said:
I hearya but players are brought from around the world to play at US colleges and professional leagues.

If you say you just want American citizens to play collegiately or professionally in US Ok if you want to limit yourself but many US athletes in a given sport are not the best players in that sport. Some think the US is the best place in the world without ever stepping foot outside of its borders.

Ignorance is bliss I guess.
Click to expand...

The pages on my passport beg to differ with the bold.

Would I prefer our athletes at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey were mostly from NJ and the US? Of course.

Do I realize that probably won’t be the case for some sports? Also of course.

But saying the former doesn’t make me the bad guy considering I understand the latter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac and satnom
retired711 said:
I don't know why we're discussing Title IX in this thread, but I might as well mention that, as @Knight Shift knows, the term "person" includes a corporation because corporations are considered to be persons by the law. This has been established law for close to 150 years.
Click to expand...
I just prefer my “person” to be from NJ or the US, if possible.🙂
 
retired711 said:
I don't know why we're discussing Title IX in this thread, but I might as well mention that, as @Knight Shift knows, the term "person" includes a corporation because corporations are considered to be persons by the law. This has been established law for close to 150 years.
Click to expand...
Me neither. Persons have rights. It's important to know your rights with authoritarian creep coming from all sides. Shout out to The Clash, a timeless song. Last verse is so true.

 
Knight Shift said:
Me neither. Persons have rights. It's important to know your rights with authoritarian creep coming from all sides.
Click to expand...
See what I said to our friend above.

Would I like it to be one way? Sure.

Do I know that would be kinda tough to do across the board? Also, sure.
 
e5fdny said:
I just prefer my “person” to be from NJ or the US, if possible.🙂
Click to expand...
Why?

I prefer the best athlete and fit for the program.

Thought we (smartly) abandoned the provincial "all Jersey" thinking for that reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: retired711
retired711 said:
I don't know why we're discussing Title IX in this thread, but I might as well mention that, as @Knight Shift knows, the term "person" includes a corporation because corporations are considered to be persons by the law. This has been established law for close to 150 years.
Click to expand...
I might as well mention that for 150 years the Supreme Court has held that anyone on American soil, even if he or she is here illegally, is protected by the due process clause. In fact, the Supreme Court has held for 75 years that laws that differentiate between aliens and citizens are subject to the same "strict scrutiny" as laws that discriminate on the basis of race or national origin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RU848789 and rutgersal
satnom said:
I hearya but players are brought from around the world to play at US colleges and professional leagues.

If you say you just want American citizens to play collegiately or professionally in US Ok if you want to limit yourself but many US athletes in a given sport are not the best players in that sport. Some think the US is the best place in the world without ever stepping foot outside of its borders.

Ignorance is bliss I guess.

GO RU
Click to expand...
Do you need to visit Iran to determine if that country is a better place to live than the USA?
 
e5fdny said:
The pages on my passport beg to differ with the bold.

Would I prefer our athletes at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey were mostly from NJ and the US? Of course.

Do I realize that probably won’t be the case for some sports? Also of course.

But saying the former doesn’t make me the bad guy considering I understand the latter.
Click to expand...
Don’t take offense. Was talking in generalities.

FYI: Most schools and organizations just care about winning and getting the best athletes wherever they are.

GO RU
 
satnom said:
Don’t take offense. Was talking in generalities.

FYI: Most schools and organizations just care about winning and getting the best athletes wherever they are.

GO RU
Click to expand...
That part I get too. As we all do.

Just if I had my druthers…more Garden Staters, who could do the job (win) for us.
 
Last edited:
rurichdog said:
Ah yes. But are those rights endowed by their Creator, or are they granted by the State?
Click to expand...
Thomas Jefferson, although not much of a religious believer, adopted the first approach in the Declaration of Independence. Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court has held for a half century that property rights are created by state law, and so a state could presumably take them away. But the Court has never even hinted that to be the case for other rights. Rather, the Court says, they are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.
 
e5fdny said:
That part I get too. As we all do.

Just if had my druthers…more Garden Staters, who could do the job (win) for us.
Click to expand...
Yup but it narrows the talent pool significantly even though NJ takes a back seat to no state in scholastic sports talent overall.

I like Greg’s approach. Offer the best in NJ if no reciprocal interest, offer the best wherever there’s a connection and a genuine interest in RU.

GO RU
 
retired711 said:
Thomas Jefferson, although not much of a religious believer, adopted the first approach in the Declaration of Independence. Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court has held for a half century that property rights are created by state law, and so a state could presumably take them away. But the Court has never even hinted that to be the case for other rights. Rather, the Court says, they are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.
Click to expand...
Nice to see the court granting themselves authority. There's that authoritarian creep.
 
satnom said:
Yup but it narrows the talent pool significantly even though NJ takes a back seat to no state in scholastic sports talent overall.

I like Greg’s approach. Offer the best in NJ if no reciprocal interest, offer the best wherever there’s a connection and a genuine interest in RU.

GO RU
Click to expand...
There just isn’t enough.

And I totally believe in the State of Rutgers approach.

A very famous and well liked poster once said, “Give me the Star Ledger 1st Team All State guys and I’ll put them up against anybody.”

Great idea, but just not enough.
 
Leonard23 said:
View embedded media
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting this. The stories linked in this thread are, to put it mildly, inconsistent with each other. For instance, this story makes it sound as though Judge Wilken has no problem with the limits on third-party NIL. The inconsistencies are not terribly surprising for articles by non-lawyers on a seven hour hearing in which Her Honor refrained from making any definitive rulings. Everyone is trying to read the tea leaves. We'll see what the parties come back with and with whether Judge Wilken is satisfied.

This story also makes clear that the NCAA wants Congress to enact the settlement into law to eliminate the possibility of further lawsuits and to override any states that don't like the settlement. Any bill has to be bipartisan because it would be subject to the possibility of a filibuster in the Senate, where the Republicans do not have the 60 votes needed to end debate. We'l see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leonard23
fsg2 said:
Why?

I prefer the best athlete and fit for the program.

Thought we (smartly) abandoned the provincial "all Jersey" thinking for that reason.
Click to expand...
"If possible"

As I said later in the thread, I acknowledge it's not.

Would I like to be that way, sure. But the overall depth isn't there to just rely on the Garden State.

"The State of Rutgers" is clearly the way to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back