House settlement approved

[Paul Jespersen]

1 hour ago, Bobby Burton said:

There are lots of ways this could go.

Who will challenge the various aspects of the rulings first? What rules will be upheld and which ones will be bogus?

But at least now we’re moving forward. 

I bet there are filings by Monday...

🤘

[Bevo92]

Summary article from ESPN…

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/45467505/judge-grants-final-approval-house-v-ncaa-settlement

New Commissioner of College Sports announced…NCAA no longer in charge of rule enforcement. 

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/45468012/mlb-exec-bryan-seeley-ceo-new-college-sports-commission?consent_mode=ccpa

Edited 15 hours ago by Bevo92

[Burnt Orange Horn]

2 hours ago, Bobby Burton said:

There are lots of ways this could go.

Who will challenge the various aspects of the rulings first? What rules will be upheld and which ones will be bogus?

But at least now we’re moving forward. 

Forward or sinking face down??  🤔

[Burnt Orange Horn]

The effect on recently concluded recruitments will be interesting to monitor.

Edited 14 hours ago by Burnt Orange Horn

[Thorn007]

and were in the sec now.  bagmen galore yo

[harveycmd]

Countdown until the federal courts throw out the limits on NIL payments. 

[harveycmd]

Probably a legal challenge before the football season starts. An injunction will be granted. Court cases then until the NCAA decides to stop trying to limit compensation for players they refuse to make employees.

[Jack Lala]

7 hours ago, AJJ_Sports said:

So was this the final nail in the ncaa coffin ? 

Pretty much self inflicted 

[harveycmd]

It's mind boggling to me that the NCAA thinks they can put a third party entity that they hire and control to decide what is and isn't "fair market value" for marketing deals. It's truly bizarre. The Supreme Court has already warned them not to come back asking for protection. They're hoping for federal legislation, but that won't pass judicial review either. Only thing dumber than this in world history I can think of is the Nueces as the border of Texas in 1845. 

[harveycmd]

They're making billions, and they think the people who generate the revenue need to have artificial limits placed on their monetary compensation so they can manipulate the market. Were these people born in Russia in 1917? You can make them employees without unionization. Most of the workers in the US don't belong to a union. There's no necessity for unionization because it's sports. Make them employees and negotiate pay. That's capitalism. 

[chennups]

For the people that wanted it explained, here is a good article.  Seems like there will be all full scholarships (no more partials) and a sort of salary cap for the entire roster of sports. 
 

A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here’s how

https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-house-settlement-aa3169056e8194aeebf34495641bce0b
 

 

[harveycmd]

1 minute ago, chennups said:

For the people that wanted it explained, here is a good article.  Seems like there will be all full scholarships (no more partials) and a sort of salary cap for the entire roster of sports. 
 

A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here’s how

https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-house-settlement-aa3169056e8194aeebf34495641bce0b
 

 

You can't legally have a "cap" without an employment agreement. There's nothing in the settlement that says otherwise. Wouldn't matter if it did. Only thing this "settled" was past compensation. Judge isn't deciding on future compensation. You can't legally do that. 

[harveycmd]

Most ball chasing fans are dumber than dirt. Media says cap. Goobers repeat it. There's no constitutional way to deny compensation without a contract between the payer and the payee. No current college player has signed such an agreement with the NCAA or the institution for which they play. They have marketing deals called NIL. You can't just assign a third party to limit that. There's nothing in this court decision that mentions that. Judge doesn't care about that. Not her business. 

[Zachery Nelson]

Still not understanding this at all, can we do a video on this 

[harveycmd]

2 minutes ago, Zachery Nelson said:

Still not understanding this at all, can we do a video on this 

Video won't clear it up because the guys who make videos don't understand the foundational principles of free market capitalism or constitutional law. You need to study the Supreme Court decision that legalized NIL. That decision clearly stated that the NCAA and their member institutions can't prevent anyone from earning anything. The only way to establish a limit on compensation is through an employment agreement. For some reason these idiots won't acknowledge that people who generate revenue are employees. You can avoid that legally, but then you can't limit their monetary opportunities for the service they provide that generates the revenue. I don't understand the deal here. It's really pretty simple.

[harveycmd]

Another way to describe the cap nonsense talk is that idiot reporters repeat what they're told by the NCAA and universities don't know what they're talking about. Professional sports can have a "cap" because they have employees who agree to conditions of employment. This hasn't happened in college sports. This "settlement" has nothing to do with that. The SEC making their member schools agree to refrain from legally challenging the "settlement" doesn't mean anything. The individual players will legally challenge the limit on compensation, not the schools. Being a college sport or school doesn't exempt you from constitutional law. That's what the 2021 Supreme Court decision that allowed NIL clearly stated. Before that, there wasn't a federal court case that addressed the billion make in college sports. 

Edited 8 hours ago by harveycmd

[.45s]

We need a Labor and Employment lawyer familiar with this to come on the show and discuss the intricacies of this agreement as signed by the judge and to lay out the probabilities of what is kosher or not in the agreement relative to the Supreme Court ruling, labor and employment law, and their relationship with NCAA rules.

[harveycmd]

3 minutes ago, .45s said:

We need a Labor and Employment lawyer familiar with this to come on the show and discuss the intricacies of this agreement as signed by the judge and to lay out the probabilities of what is kosher or not in the agreement relative to the Supreme Court ruling, labor and employment law, and their relationship with NCAA rules.

Most trial lawyers don't understand larger constitutional principles. They worry about juries and who feels what. There aren't juries at the federal appellant level. This decision doesn't mean anything other than past players get money. Apply common sense rules to your employment. Does anyone have the right to deny your ability to make money through marketing deals? No. There's not a limit on marketing deals for pro athletes. The fact that most of these "deals" are brokered by colleges doesn't change that they are legally third party deals. That can't be legally limited. Judge didn't say it could.

[Jordan91]

What’s crazy is even with collective bargaining you can still have strikes. It will be a negotiation for eternity. 
 

[HornsInAmarillo]

9 hours ago, Burnt Orange Horn said:

Forward or sinking face down??  🤔

Yeah, I don’t think this will go well for any of the big athletic programs. Welcome to mediocrity for everyone. 

[Inspired73]

12 hours ago, Derek Handler said:

It’s bad for us unless we start using bag men.   We need to lawyer up our athletes and start the lawsuits.  This is not a good deal for players either, really bad for baseball. 

As I read the early press of this decision, the ruling just governs what each school can pay out of its budget.  I assume that this makes the players employees.  This decision does not (as yet) affect what outside sources can pay.....ie Campbell at Tech or Tito's at Texas., etc.  These collective funds seem to be unaffected.  (if i am wrong, please so note).

If this is in fact true, then the big money schools will not be affected one bit.  It does however, allow schools with no 'collective' funds to get into the NIL game.  The real question is "does this decision really change anything?"  It really does not appear so to me.  

Interesting side note: If a kid takes school NIL check, they become an employee.  They will pay taxes.  They will probably no longer qualify for tax free Pell.  Their parents will no longer be able to take them as dependent.  If schools divvy up the money ratably, then it looks like a net of about 50K each.  Good money for a 20-year-old, but not life altering.  In fact, their "consultants" will be taking a pay cut.  Or, will they even need a consultant? For UT athletics, it probably means no more Drone shows or department sponsored concerts.  Oh, the sacrifices we will need to make!

On the surface, the only good thing this legislation appeared to do was remove football from the NCAA and signal the end of NCAA division one rule.    

[.45s]

7 hours ago, harveycmd said:

Most trial lawyers don't understand larger constitutional principles. They worry about juries and who feels what. There aren't juries at the federal appellant level. This decision doesn't mean anything other than past players get money. Apply common sense rules to your employment. Does anyone have the right to deny your ability to make money through marketing deals? No. There's not a limit on marketing deals for pro athletes. The fact that most of these "deals" are brokered by colleges doesn't change that they are legally third party deals. That can't be legally limited. Judge didn't say it could.

Many labor and employment lawyers are not litigators and would understand the law as applied here. I agree that most litigators would probably not be appropriate for this, but even some contract lawyers might be.  I am a lawyer myself but this kind of law is far afield from my expertise.