NCAA Eliminating National Letter of Intent
- Thread starter Knight Shift
- Start date
"By December, all athletes who have competed in a Division I sport since 2016 will be able to receive an estimate of how much they could receive from the damages pool."
www.espn.com
Landmark college settlement gets preliminary OK
A judge granted preliminary approval to the landmark $2.78 billion legal settlement that would transform college sports by allowing schools to pay players.
Does this mean players can be poached from day one of the season up until the Championship Game?
At this point remove the student charade and make them pay for their courses.
At this point remove the student charade and make them pay for their courses.
"When the walls come crumblin' down"
There is a lot of things in play - transfer periods (both periods will remain, though the December period will be shortened), financial aid deals, schools directly paying players (this is the biggest item, IMO) and somehow putting the booster genie back a little bit in the bottle.
These are seismic changes in major college sports.
The proposed House v. NCAA settlement, which includes the landmark $2.78 billion settlement of three separate antitrust cases facing the NCAA and power conferences, received preliminary approval on Monday from Judge Claudia Wilken in the Northern District of California, clearing the way for schools to begin paying players directly through revenue sharing as early as 2025.
The approval comes after a preliminary hearing last month during which Wilken sent the settlement parties “back to the drawing board,” mainly over issues regarding proposed restrictions on third-party name, image and likeness (NIL) payments to college athletes.
The proposed House v. NCAA settlement, which includes the landmark $2.78 billion settlement of three separate antitrust cases facing the NCAA and power conferences, received preliminary approval on Monday from Judge Claudia Wilken in the Northern District of California, clearing the way for schools to begin paying players directly through revenue sharing as early as 2025.
The approval comes after a preliminary hearing last month during which Wilken sent the settlement parties “back to the drawing board,” mainly over issues regarding proposed restrictions on third-party name, image and likeness (NIL) payments to college athletes.
One more paragraph from the article:
An approved settlement will not resolve all of the NCAA’s legal battles — including employment status and collective bargaining efforts, possible Title IX complaints or other antitrust litigation — which is why the organization will continue to pursue antitrust exemptions and federal NIL legislation through Congress.
An approved settlement will not resolve all of the NCAA’s legal battles — including employment status and collective bargaining efforts, possible Title IX complaints or other antitrust litigation — which is why the organization will continue to pursue antitrust exemptions and federal NIL legislation through Congress.
Bold proposal.
As their sport generates more and more billions of dollars, provide them with less benefits?
At this point remove the amateur charade and pay them adequately for the money they help generate?
Waiting for “classes optional” clause to be invoked. Although, I’m sure the handshake version of this already applies.
Can't have it both ways. You can have this or you can have Title IX. If every legal ruling is based upon revenue to the conferences, i.e., acknowledging the economic realities of major college sports, how do you continue to fund Olympic Sports?
This eventually ends up as revenue sharing environment between conference and athletes. If that's the case let the colleges decide what sports they can afford based on the economics. If you do that then watch certain constituencies freak out when Title IX rules go the way of the Dodo. Does anyone seriously think that men's BB and FB players give a rats ass about their fellow athletes enough to fund their sport's participation and taking less money? I doubt it.
Should BB and FB players be funding their fellow athletes?
Why is it their responsibility?
How did they end up the scapegoats for Universities being cheap and not wanting to fund Olympic Sports?
You're correct.
Their should be an acknowledgment of the economic realities.
What is stopping the University (or taxpayers or constituencies) from funding Olympic Sports?
Economics, bad publicity, rent seeking politicians, i.e., Rutgers 1000, taxpayers, NJ.com.
Previously Title IX was enabled by funding from conference revenue, most of which is related to men's FB & BB. That is now gone since much of that will go to FB and BB player payment. However, Title IX will continue to REQUIRE equity.
Currently this is done on a total scholarship basis with revenue sports (XY = XX scholarships). Maybe you take the revenue sports out of Title IX calculations and base it strictly on Olympic Sport scholarships. That might be doable as it would allow for universities to eliminate non revenue sports teams which they will no longer be able to afford.
Last edited:
So under the old system, a couple "select departments" generated nearly all the revenue. But they had to subsidize the "other departments".
Now those "select programs" get to keep a greater share of the revenue they are generating themselves.
That's a bad thing?
If keeping these "other departments" is such a crucial objective, then nothing is stopping the rest of the organization (and their investors/taxpayers) from providing additonal funding and subsidizing them.
In a world without Title IX, Universities would cut all "other sports" and fund zero Olympic Sports?
That's what a "self sufficient athletic department" implies.
Now those "select programs" get to keep a greater share of the revenue they are generating themselves.
That's a bad thing?
If keeping these "other departments" is such a crucial objective, then nothing is stopping the rest of the organization (and their investors/taxpayers) from providing additonal funding and subsidizing them.
In a world without Title IX, Universities would cut all "other sports" and fund zero Olympic Sports?
That's what a "self sufficient athletic department" implies.
"AD Smith - question. Why isn't the University providing the funding to maintain the gymnastics team at the level they are used to? Does the University not consider funding gymnastics a priority? Thanks."
I think you and I are in general agreement in every area as well as where this is all going.
The point I was trying to make is the difference between what would/should be under the discretion of the university vs what many would like to continue as mandatory under Title IX.
The genie is out of the bottle and the bottle has been smashed into tiny pieces. It's not going back in there.
North Carolina already has that in play.
How about dropping any semblance of a diploma?
University and College sponsored professional sports. The question will be what’s to stop other businesses from joining. Can’t wait for Rutgers to play Walmart in the B1G Championship.
ESPN stating that the NLI is being replaced with a contract tied to financial aid.
NCAA replaces natl. letter of intent for recruits
The NCAA Division I Council has approved the immediate elimination of the national letter of intent program, marking a historic shift to the recruiting landscape.
I'm not grasping how moving from an NLI to a different contract is tied to nation-wide revenue sharing. Under NLI there was no legal path to revenue sharing?
Schools are going to be allowed to pay players in the near future so that's the revenue sharing (tv money etc) part and instead of a NLI it'll be some contract for money and probably stipulations and clauses etc..ESPN stating that the NLI is being replaced with a contract tied to financial aid.
NCAA replaces natl. letter of intent for recruits
The NCAA Division I Council has approved the immediate elimination of the national letter of intent program, marking a historic shift to the recruiting landscape.
I'm not grasping how moving from an NLI to a different contract is tied to nation-wide revenue sharing. Under NLI there was no legal path to revenue sharing?
NIL also isn't going away. That's something in addition to the revenue sharing element of paying players.
I still hate the charade of calling it "financial aid", instead of a "salary" which is what it is for the top earners in revenue sports of CFB and MBB when payouts may likely exceed cost of their college education.
Why doesn't the NCAA branch off of schools and let athletics be different from academics? Have the schools sponsor the teams instead of having players do the coursework. That way it's more like a minor league for football with paid players instead of this NIL/portal transfer system.
This could at least work for power 4 conferences I feel like.
This could at least work for power 4 conferences I feel like.
I think you are correct, but it’s also possible that Congress passes a law giving the universities antitrust exemptions. I have no insights on the probability, just that it is a consideration to cap or regulate booster activities.
ESPN stating that the NLI is being replaced with a contract tied to financial aid.
NCAA replaces natl. letter of intent for recruits
The NCAA Division I Council has approved the immediate elimination of the national letter of intent program, marking a historic shift to the recruiting landscape.
I'm not grasping how moving from an NLI to a different contract is tied to nation-wide revenue sharing. Under NLI there was no legal path to revenue sharing?
This is all part of the NCAA versus House settlement agreement. This settlement covers many semi-related areas.
NIL isn’t going away, but it is likely to regulated, possibly heavily regulated. IMO, that’s a step up from the current Wild West situation.
I would like to see regulation so that schools don't just rob the lower ranked programs of talent. But as I understand it, courts are basically telling the NCAA to pound sand about doing anything regarding NIL.
As much as it pains me, I'm not sure the NCAA has any power to do anything about NIL itself. The portal transfer could and should be changed though.
I'm not sure how much regulation is going to take place.
Regulation would likely be terms of NIL transparency but I don’t expect limits. So you can see the market and also not have Sluka type issues.
Everyone complains about NIL and portal but all I see is the most parity ever in college football. There will never be true parity in CFB but it’s much better than it ever was. We just saw Vandy beat the number 1 team in the country and it’s never beat a top 5. They look like a possible bowl team and a big contributing factor is a qb out of the portal. Cincy, TCU made appearances in the 4 team playoff. Washington with transfer Penix made the champ game which it hadn’t come close to in a generation. Even Michigan although a blue blood but doesn’t recruit at the absolute top of the sport was able to win a championship which it hasn’t done in a generation. I see a lot more things happening now that weren’t possible before or hadn’t happened in a long time. The expanded CFP will help that too.
Here’s an article about why Kirby Smart thinks there’s more parity now. Basically, qb talent spread out more and that’s a big key piece of a team. I’ve always said there’s a balance between playing time and money and each individual is different.
This is an area where I could see regulation be helpful. Prevent exploitation, create transparency etc…but not limits on how much you can make etc..
they already all take 100% online joke classes, apparently Shedeur Sanders showed up to his first in-person class after 3 semesters.
Who can regulate NIL? Isn't NIL an agreement between a player and a third party in which neither the schools nor the NCAA are a party.
Who else could have standing to interfere?
I would think that there would have to be new legislation to create a tax-exemption for player revenue-sharing. And such a law would probably be pretty unpopular among most taxpayers.
Latest posts
-
Olympic Sports Women's Soccer Falls Short in Big Ten Championship Game- Latest: rubaseball78
-
-
