Proposed settlement of the House lawsuit. This part of it would be an ongoing agreement for each P4 university to pay athletes from athletic department funds every year going forward.

Quote:

---

... an agreement from, specifically, power conference schools to directly share revenue with their athletes and even buy their exclusive NIL rights.

As reported by Yahoo Sports earlier this month, administrators briefed on a proposed new revenue-sharing model are expecting to share as much as $15-20 million per school, with a spending limit similar to a professional sports team's salary cap.

The per-school figure was determined from an average of power league athletic department revenues (ticket sales, sponsorships, etc.) and is expected to be the same for all schools despite wide variance in resources. Ohio State's athletic department, for instance, led all programs with $250 million in revenue last year $100 million more than the program that ranked 20th in the nation (Arkansas at about $150 million).

A $20 million price tag for Ohio State is 8% of its budget. A $20 million price tag for Arkansas is 13% of its budget.

---

https://sports.yahoo.com/what-would-house-v-ncaa-settlement-mean-a-revenue-sharing-model-to-end-college-amateurism-124301018.html

That's a minor inconvenience for Ohio State and Texas, and a major inconvenience for ACC and Big 12 teams.

In reply to BearSD

BearSD said:

---

Proposed settlement of the House lawsuit. This part of it would be an ongoing agreement for each P4 university to pay athletes from athletic department funds every year going forward.

Quote:

---

... an agreement from, specifically, power conference schools to directly share revenue with their athletes and even buy their exclusive NIL rights.

As reported by Yahoo Sports earlier this month, administrators briefed on a proposed new revenue-sharing model are expecting to share as much as $15-20 million per school, with a spending limit similar to a professional sports team's salary cap.

The per-school figure was determined from an average of power league athletic department revenues (ticket sales, sponsorships, etc.) and is expected to be the same for all schools despite wide variance in resources. Ohio State's athletic department, for instance, led all programs with $250 million in revenue last year $100 million more than the program that ranked 20th in the nation (Arkansas at about $150 million).

A $20 million price tag for Ohio State is 8% of its budget. A $20 million price tag for Arkansas is 13% of its budget.

---

https://sports.yahoo.com/what-would-house-v-ncaa-settlement-mean-a-revenue-sharing-model-to-end-college-amateurism-124301018.html

That's a minor inconvenience for Ohio State and Texas, and a major inconvenience for ACC and Big 12 teams.

---

If done, it should be a set % of every schools' media revenue and ticket sales.

This is also one of the reasons why I've been saying it makes sense to outsource the revenue sports to an alumni run not for profit organization that can professionally market the team and pay the players.

In reply to calumnus

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Proposed settlement of the House lawsuit. This part of it would be an ongoing agreement for each P4 university to pay athletes from athletic department funds every year going forward.

Quote:

---

... an agreement from, specifically, power conference schools to directly share revenue with their athletes and even buy their exclusive NIL rights.

As reported by Yahoo Sports earlier this month, administrators briefed on a proposed new revenue-sharing model are expecting to share as much as $15-20 million per school, with a spending limit similar to a professional sports team's salary cap.

The per-school figure was determined from an average of power league athletic department revenues (ticket sales, sponsorships, etc.) and is expected to be the same for all schools despite wide variance in resources. Ohio State's athletic department, for instance, led all programs with $250 million in revenue last year $100 million more than the program that ranked 20th in the nation (Arkansas at about $150 million).

A $20 million price tag for Ohio State is 8% of its budget. A $20 million price tag for Arkansas is 13% of its budget.

---

https://sports.yahoo.com/what-would-house-v-ncaa-settlement-mean-a-revenue-sharing-model-to-end-college-amateurism-124301018.html

That's a minor inconvenience for Ohio State and Texas, and a major inconvenience for ACC and Big 12 teams.

---

This is also one of the reasons why I've been saying it makes sense to outsource the revenue sports to an alumni run not for profit organization that can professionally market the team and pay the players.

---

College football is going to be a very crowded scene with 60+ clubs (plus G5s, etc.) trying to market themselves independently of each other, money aside the chaos that will ensue probably makes a commissioned league the way out of such a mess.

In reply to BearSD

BearSD said:

---

Proposed settlement of the House lawsuit. This part of it would be an ongoing agreement for each P4 university to pay athletes from athletic department funds every year going forward.

Quote:

---

... an agreement from, specifically, power conference schools to directly share revenue with their athletes and even buy their exclusive NIL rights.

As reported by Yahoo Sports earlier this month, administrators briefed on a proposed new revenue-sharing model are expecting to share as much as $15-20 million per school, with a spending limit similar to a professional sports team's salary cap.

The per-school figure was determined from an average of power league athletic department revenues (ticket sales, sponsorships, etc.) and is expected to be the same for all schools despite wide variance in resources. Ohio State's athletic department, for instance, led all programs with $250 million in revenue last year $100 million more than the program that ranked 20th in the nation (Arkansas at about $150 million).

A $20 million price tag for Ohio State is 8% of its budget. A $20 million price tag for Arkansas is 13% of its budget.

---

https://sports.yahoo.com/what-would-house-v-ncaa-settlement-mean-a-revenue-sharing-model-to-end-college-amateurism-124301018.html

That's a minor inconvenience for Ohio State and Texas, and a major inconvenience for ACC and Big 12 teams.

---

It will be easier for some ACC schools since they'll receive a portion (like, 1 million $ each) of Cal's "donation" for the next seven years. Add to that what Stanford and SMU are kicking in . . .

One of our "own", Claudia Wilkins, (Furd undergrad, Boalt JD, Boalt Prof) is going to decide this. She already ruled in favor on the O'Bannon case and she opened the House case to class action. Everyone was distracted by Realignment last fall as this case was progressing.

How a single person gets to have such a unilateral impact on college sports is head scratching.

I mean you're not supposed to judge a book by it's cover... but look at this pic of her and tell me the odds the House Class winning are not 100%.

In reply to Bobodeluxe

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Those women folk just don't understand the importance of laundry, unless they are doing it.

---

Oh jeez, don't go there. I'd post a picture of Dirks if he was the judge and ask the same question.

In reply to 95bears You have this exactly opposite, I think?

The judge (or Dirks) looks like an academic who would side with the universities and want the universities' "adults" to keep all the money and make college athletes be unpaid forever. You are presuming she would go the other way and side with the athletes, despite not looking like an athlete.

(And of course Judge Wilken is only the trial judge, and any ultimate decision she made would be appealed by the losing side.)

In reply to 95bears

95bears said:

---

One of our "own", Claudia Wilkins, (Furd undergrad, Boalt JD, Boalt Prof) is going to decide this. She already ruled in favor on the O'Bannon case and she opened the House case to class action. Everyone was distracted by Realignment last fall as this case was progressing.

How a single person gets to have such a unilateral impact on college sports is head scratching.

I mean you're not supposed to judge a book by it's cover... but look at this pic of her and tell me the odds the House Class winning are not 100%.

---

More detail:

In the O'Bannon case, she said that it was an anti-trust violation that athletes were prohibited from exercising their right of publicity by not allowing them to use the name and likeness in promotion with third parties. She also severally limited damages so that schools now pay relavtivey small stipends to all athletes. Using a rule of reason argument, she basically ruled that college could place as much as $5,000 into a trust for each athlete per year of eligibility, arguing more money would give an advantage to wealthier institutions. Both the NCAA and the plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit and lost. The case was then subsumed by SCOTUS' Alston decision. After that the O'Bannon parties entered into a $40 million settlement that could net as much as $4,000 to as many as 100,000 athletes. So you know how these things go, the NCAA was also ordered to pay the plaintiffs $42.2 million in fees and costs, so the biggest winner from the case were the lawyers and experts. Such a result in the House litigation would be a bad result for players, but an acceptable results for schools, that are fearing far worse.

That said, House really is a different case, and the damages could be way more significant. It is about the players' ability to be compensated from any means, whether that be income from schools themselves or third parties such as NIL collectives, not simply third party promotion that was at issue in O'Bannon. The revenue at stake is much larger. The person that struck fear into the NCAA and school is Justice Kavanaugh, who in his concurrence in Alston, suggested players are akin to employees and it is apparent rules restraining an athlete's ability to make money probably are a per se anti-trust violation (I'm paraphrasing), which is way beyond strict NIL third party promotion. A concurring opinion technically is non-binding, but lower court judges have followed it (e..g, the Tennessee football team's violations investigation case), which led to the NCAA throwing up its hands and saying there are no rules anymore. Obviously the House plaintiffs' pleadings are based on Justice Kavanaugh's opinion.