Judge Claudia Wilken has spoken on the revenue share issue.

[BigBlueFanGA]

So she wants the players to be paid much like professional players but she is insisting that players roster spots be guaranteed.

If I'm reading this right I'm now convinced she's an idiot. There's nothing quite like a one-sided solution to fix an opposite one-sided situation.

I think she is in this way over her head and frankly I don't think she has the authority for some of this. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. I hope I am.

Judge Threatens to Reject $2.8 Billion House v. NCAA Settlement

She said that the sides had 14 days to fix the deal or she would reject the settlement that would clear the way for colleges to pay athletes.

frontofficesports.com

 

[Rideordiewildcat]

They need to limit transfers to 2 times.

They need to cap how much each player can make, say 2 mil.

They need to have parts of each payment based on performance since they're pros now. Plus can get bonus for titles, FFs etc...

Once you sign portal or Frosh that should be it, a contract that if voided by player university can gain percentage of players future earnings to where he leaves for to recoup what is lost, time, money, future players.

This isn't hard. Just common sense. Just like NFL etc there's rules. It shouldn't just protect players but universities paying out millions too. Let everyone earn but put a stop to bidding wars and crazy money to kids. Anything over 2 mil for 1 college season, 34-40 games for unproven freshman is crazy. Kids making 25k-50k per game or more is nuts.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

They need to limit transfers to 2 times.

They need to cap how much each player can make, say 2 mil.

They need to have parts of each payment based on performance since they're pros now. Plus can get bonus for titles, FFs etc...

Once you sign portal or Frosh that should be it, a contract that if voided by player university can gain percentage of players future earnings to where he leaves for to recoup what is lost, time, money, future players.

This isn't hard. Just common sense. Just like NFL etc there's rules. It shouldn't just protect players but universities paying out millions too. Let everyone earn but put a stop to bidding wars and crazy money to kids. Anything over 2 mil for 1 college season, 34-40 games for unproven freshman is crazy. Kids making 25k-50k per game or more is nuts.

Yes and no. The NFL doesn't control endorsements. The other controls they do have are based on collective bargaining. College players don't have a union...yet. The courts generally want the players treated like every other student.

A union could limit transfers but not NIL. Yep, the money is crazy and this judge is making it worse.

 

[SkyPrince1]

I think the roster spots are mainly non revenue sports.
With football being at 105 and basketball being at 15, none of those guys are getting pushed out the door.
I think it was a swimmer who testified at the hearing.
Non revenue wants guaranteed roster spots.

 

[SkyPrince1]

They need to limit transfers to 2 times.

They need to cap how much each player can make, say 2 mil.

They need to have parts of each payment based on performance since they're pros now. Plus can get bonus for titles, FFs etc...

Once you sign portal or Frosh that should be it, a contract that if voided by player university can gain percentage of players future earnings to where he leaves for to recoup what is lost, time, money, future players.

This isn't hard. Just common sense. Just like NFL etc there's rules. It shouldn't just protect players but universities paying out millions too. Let everyone earn but put a stop to bidding wars and crazy money to kids. Anything over 2 mil for 1 college season, 34-40 games for unproven freshman is crazy. Kids making 25k-50k per game or more is nuts.

An NIL Clearinghouse will take care of most of that.
It will let players like Bronny James, Caitlin Clark that have true presence in the marketing world earn all they can while making sure a backup freshman QB isn't paid like Patrick Mahomes for a public appearance.

 

[wildcatknh]

So she wants the players to be paid much like professional players but she is insisting that players roster spots be guaranteed.

If I'm reading this right I'm now convinced she's an idiot. There's nothing quite like a one-sided solution to fix an opposite one-sided situation.

I think she is in this way over her head and frankly I don't think she has the authority for some of this. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. I hope I am.

Judge Threatens to Reject $2.8 Billion House v. NCAA Settlement

She said that the sides had 14 days to fix the deal or she would reject the settlement that would clear the way for colleges to pay athletes.

frontofficesports.com

Maybe I'm reading it differently .. but sounds to me like she's only wanting to protect a number of the plaintiff athletes that would apparently lose the scholarships they already are on immediately if the settlement is approved. She argues the roster restrictions could be phased in over time and current athletes could be grandfathered in and protected. Doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me. Maybe I'm under-thinking it though?

 

[bigblueinsanity]

So she wants the players to be paid much like professional players but she is insisting that players roster spots be guaranteed.

If I'm reading this right I'm now convinced she's an idiot. There's nothing quite like a one-sided solution to fix an opposite one-sided situation.

I think she is in this way over her head and frankly I don't think she has the authority for some of this. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. I hope I am.

Judge Threatens to Reject $2.8 Billion House v. NCAA Settlement

She said that the sides had 14 days to fix the deal or she would reject the settlement that would clear the way for colleges to pay athletes.

frontofficesports.com

She is at least inserting herself into places she doesn't belong. I know class actions require judicial approval, but she is basically practicing the case for each side.

She needs to stick to her role. She is making this way worse.

 

[bigblue2243]

They need to limit transfers to 2 times.

They need to cap how much each player can make, say 2 mil.

They need to have parts of each payment based on performance since they're pros now. Plus can get bonus for titles, FFs etc...

Once you sign portal or Frosh that should be it, a contract that if voided by player university can gain percentage of players future earnings to where he leaves for to recoup what is lost, time, money, future players.

This isn't hard. Just common sense. Just like NFL etc there's rules. It shouldn't just protect players but universities paying out millions too. Let everyone earn but put a stop to bidding wars and crazy money to kids. Anything over 2 mil for 1 college season, 34-40 games for unproven freshman is crazy. Kids making 25k-50k per game or more is nuts.

This spot on 100 percent.....

 

[phyrekat]

If 60 years on this planet have taught me anything, it's that there are a lot of judges out there who shouldn't even be trusted with a sharp stick.

 

[rick64]

There should be a limit on the number of times you can transfer. Two maximum.

 

[etowncatfan]

Make the Contracts and money for 2 years . That would keep some stability in the system and cut out players going to a different school every year.

 

[Ella Delby]

Would you all be okay with these restrictions placed on you in your jobs?

 

[bthaunert]

So she wants the players to be paid much like professional players but she is insisting that players roster spots be guaranteed.

If I'm reading this right I'm now convinced she's an idiot. There's nothing quite like a one-sided solution to fix an opposite one-sided situation.

I think she is in this way over her head and frankly I don't think she has the authority for some of this. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. I hope I am.

Judge Threatens to Reject $2.8 Billion House v. NCAA Settlement

She said that the sides had 14 days to fix the deal or she would reject the settlement that would clear the way for colleges to pay athletes.

frontofficesports.com

She’s not wanting to guarantee roster spots forever. She’s wanting to phase in roster limits over a 5 year period so that athletes who are already on teams and those entering college in the fall don’t lose their spots they have agreed to.

From another article: “Wilken wants to see current athletes "grandfathered in" and allowed to remain on rosters until their eligibility expires. This would enable schools to temporarily exceed new roster limits, which include unlimited scholarships. Hard cuts would likely leave nearly 5,000 athletes without spots on rosters across the NCAA's 43 sponsored sports.”

I don’t see any issues with that and it seems fair. The revenue sharing and NIL clearinghouse seem to be done deals. It’s only the roster limits that is still up for discussion.

What am I missing where the judge is in over her head? It’s three specific lawsuits. She’s not ruling on transfers, as that’s not part of the lawsuit.

 

[JwUKFan11]

She wants current players to not lose their roster spots as a result of this settlement. I’m not sure how that makes her an idiot. Sounds like they will try to implement a phased approach and have 14 days to come up with it.

 

[SkyPrince1]

She wants current players to not lose their roster spots as a result of this settlement. I’m not sure how that makes her an idiot. Sounds like they will try to implement a phased approach and have 14 days to come up with it.

She's also going to be on the side a non revenue athlete who probably won't see any of the revenue sharing money.
Almost positive none of the 5,000 potential lost scholarships are in football or men's basketball.

 

[chroix]

Almost positive none of the 5,000 potential lost scholarships are in football or men's basketball.

Why not? Why would you pay a kid hundreds of thousands of dollars and then throw a scholarship on top. If they were smart they’d use this as an opportunity for those schools to gift their revenue sports scholarships to non revenue student athletes. Win win.

 

[UKnCincy]

Maybe I'm reading it differently .. but sounds to me like she's only wanting to protect a number of the plaintiff athletes that would apparently lose the scholarships they already are on immediately if the settlement is approved. She argues the roster restrictions could be phased in over time and current athletes could be grandfathered in and protected. Doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me. Maybe I'm under-thinking it though?

You’re understanding things correctly.

 

[UKnCincy]

Yes and no. The NFL doesn't control endorsements. The other controls they do have are based on collective bargaining. College players don't have a union...yet. The courts generally want the players treated like every other student.

A union could limit transfers but not NIL. Yep, the money is crazy and this judge is making it worse.

The NFL prohibits circumvention of the salary cap. That’s what this settlement is attempting to do for student athletes.

The Deloitte clearinghouse will permit athletes to enter into as many NIL deals as they want. What they’re attempting to block is pay for play. Almost all of the deals athletes have with collectives are not NIL deals in reality. They are pay for play deals that they simply call “NIL.”

If an NFL team wants to retain a player but doesn’t have cap space, they are prohibited from making an “NIL” arrangement where the player receives additional money from a third party. That’s circumventing the cap and it’s prohibited.

Remains to be seen how the approach with Deloitte will play out.

 

[SkyPrince1]

Why not? Why would you pay a kid hundreds of thousands of dollars and then throw a scholarship on top. If they were smart they’d use this as an opportunity for those schools to gift their revenue sports scholarships to non revenue student athletes. Win win.

Just making the point that football and basketball are allotted more scholarships than they actually need.

 

[Lempface]

So she wants the players to be paid much like professional players but she is insisting that players roster spots be guaranteed.

If I'm reading this right I'm now convinced she's an idiot. There's nothing quite like a one-sided solution to fix an opposite one-sided situation.

I think she is in this way over her head and frankly I don't think she has the authority for some of this. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. I hope I am.

Judge Threatens to Reject $2.8 Billion House v. NCAA Settlement

She said that the sides had 14 days to fix the deal or she would reject the settlement that would clear the way for colleges to pay athletes.

frontofficesports.com

She’s insisting that players part of the lawsuit do not have retaliatory action against them for bringing the lawsuit, i.e. lose their roster spot.

“To modify the settlement agreement to ensure that no members of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Class who have or had a roster spot will lose it as a result of the immediate implementation of the settlement agreement.”

The easiest things for institutions to do would be to cut ties with any member of the settlement class. I’m not sure how you got she was an idiot over this.

 

[wildcatglenn]

I thought from the start the decision by the Supreme Court was wrong. It has created this mess

 

[Oldbluefart]

I am no lawyer or judge, so I really do not know what the lady is saying but it all this keeps going like this, multiple transfers, huge paychecks, we will one day soon I feel that non revenue sports will start being eliminated at schools to pay for all this crap.
These schools can say all they want but at the end of the day they are like any other business and that is to make money.

 

[bowfreak]

Would you all be okay with these restrictions placed on you in your jobs?

Who doesn't have restrictions on their jobs?

 

[TM2013]

There is no easy way to fix this imo. Gonna be a long and complicated stretch to get this under control. Not sure you can ever tell an adult that they aren't allowed to fully capitalize on their own name and image.

 

[UKnCincy]

I am no lawyer or judge, so I really do not know what the lady is saying but it all this keeps going like this, multiple transfers, huge paychecks, we will one day soon I feel that non revenue sports will start being eliminated at schools to pay for all this crap.
These schools can say all they want but at the end of the day they are like any other business and that is to make money.

Division 2 schools aren’t making huge amounts of revenue and yet, on average, each school sponsors 16.5 sports. The average Division 1 school sponsors 18 sports. You don’t need huge sums of money to sponsor non-revenue sports.

One of the biggest differences between Division 1 programs and Division 2 programs is that Division 2 programs aren’t spending tens of millions on salaries for coaches/administrators nor are they constantly spending millions on a steady stream of facility upgrades.

 

[NociHTTP]

I am no lawyer or judge, so I really do not know what the lady is saying but it all this keeps going like this, multiple transfers, huge paychecks, we will one day soon I feel that non revenue sports will start being eliminated at schools to pay for all this crap.
These schools can say all they want but at the end of the day they are like any other business and that is to make money.

I feel like we're really not far off from stadiums getting fewer and fewer spectators. If people were complaining before about not being able to get to know the players, just wait until ALL players are OAD, whether that be the draft or portal. And I can't imagine too many fans liking the idea of COLLEGIATE athletes making millions of dollars on top of scholarships. The whole system is sickening! But hey, #9 here we come and GO CATS!

 

[Ella Delby]

Who doesn't have restrictions on their jobs?

Of the type some of you all are suggesting on these players?

Do you have to pay back money if you leave your current job? Are you only permitted moving jobs so many times? Do you have a salary cap on your earning potential?

 

[CELTICAT]

this judge is a moron and she's about to abolish college sports entirely.

 

[chroix]

Just making the point that football and basketball are allotted more scholarships than they actually need.

Yeah. Seems like an opportunity for them to build some good will if they’d allow these to be donated to non revenue kids.

 

[SkyPrince1]

this judge is a moron and she's about to abolish college sports entirely.

How so?
I don't see it as heading in the wrong direction based on this ruling.

 

[HogFan2012]

It's not going to matter what she ends up deciding on.
It will be slapped with a injunction and taken to a higher court.

 

[catfan220]

Would you all be okay with these restrictions placed on you in your jobs?

Which restrictions?

 

[catfan220]

Of the type some of you all are suggesting on these players?

Do you have to pay back money if you leave your current job? Are you only permitted moving jobs so many times? Do you have a salary cap on your earning potential?

I understand what you're saying but they're not classifying the athletes as employees. If they would do that it would answer a lot of these questions because there's an established precedent for all of it. They're essentially creating a special class for college athletes, which opens it up to all kinds of unique rules and restrictions/benefits.

 

[flacat22]

75 years old, went to Stanford then Cal-Berkeley Law, described as "even handed" by the NYT, appointed by Clinton...

 

[HogFan2012]

It will be interesting to see how the back pay and profit sharing gets broke down along with title 9.

With women's sports at most schools it's all a expense, some of the basketball teams might break even or turn a profit.
So do they get a equal share of the overall profit the school makes from sports or will they divide it up by each sports profit?

 

[bthaunert]

She's also going to be on the side a non revenue athlete who probably won't see any of the revenue sharing money.
Almost positive none of the 5,000 potential lost scholarships are in football or men's basketball.

It's not abut scholarships, it's about roster size and that's how football is impacted. UK had 118 guys on their roster last year (not all on scholarship obviously). The current averages for NCAA football rosters is 128 believe it or not. So, if 128 players have been promised roster spots next year, she believes those 23 additional players should not be impacted by a ruling, regardless if they are on scholarship or not. So, that's over 3,000 football players that would be impacted by the ruling...by far the most of any sport. The next closest is baseball, which would have 6 players per school, on average, impacted.

 

[bthaunert]

It will be interesting to see how the back pay and profit sharing gets broke down along with title 9.

With women's sports at most schools it's all a expense, some of the basketball teams might break even or turn a profit.
So do they get a equal share of the overall profit the school makes from sports or will they divide it up by each sports profit?

I don't think it's going to be an issue. Title IX says that it gives women athletes the right to equal opportunities not that everything has to be shared equally. This is all about revenue sharing. It's going to be very easy for a school like UK to show that women's sports is a blip on the radar for revenue that comes into the program and therefore, they should have a small piece of the pie. In FY25, UK men's sports will bring in a projected $88.8 million. Women's sports will bring in a projected $910,000. And those numbers don't even include $40 million in media rights, which are all about football and basketball.

 

[SkyPrince1]

It's not abut scholarships, it's about roster size and that's how football is impacted. UK had 118 guys on their roster last year (not all on scholarship obviously). The current averages for NCAA football rosters is 128 believe it or not. So, if 128 players have been promised roster spots next year, she believes those 23 additional players should not be impacted by a ruling, regardless if they are on scholarship or not. So, that's over 3,000 football players that would be impacted by the ruling...by far the most of any sport. The next closest is baseball, which would have 6 players per school, on average, impacted.

How did UK have 118 on scholarship?

 

[BlueSince92]

Maybe I'm reading it differently .. but sounds to me like she's only wanting to protect a number of the plaintiff athletes that would apparently lose the scholarships they already are on immediately if the settlement is approved. She argues the roster restrictions could be phased in over time and current athletes could be grandfathered in and protected. Doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me. Maybe I'm under-thinking it though?

What you got from it is exactly what I got from it. I read it real carefully expecting to see how she was being an idiot. But how is she being an idiot or heavy handed at all?

By my reading it’s the NCAA that is being as obtuse and idiotic and abusive as ever: pretending like the fact they’re paying out a settlement to mitigate exploiting kids’ marketability gives them the right to get out of existing contracts with specific kids wherever they feel like it. Pretending like not being able to abuse student athletes in that new way would be tantamount to being forced to support an infinite number of high-cost roster spots on every team. What the ever-loving F***, NCAA? This is just one more bit of proof they need to be done away with.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

this judge is a moron and she's about to abolish college sports entirely.

I think she's mainly micromanaging which is always a bad move for a judge. Judges never know the case nearly as good as the sides litigating, so any agreements should be left up to the litigants with very few extreme exceptions.

It will be interesting to see how the back pay and profit sharing gets broke down along with title 9.

This will be the next fight. It will actually be revenue vs non revenue, but will play out in the title 9 context because there is existing framework.

It makes no sense to me that any group of athletes should be entitled to revenue they did not create, but that will be the fight.