House Settlement Approved | Page 3 | Syracusefan.com

House Settlement Approved

Chip said:
Might open the door for new finance jobs at the University.

I should apply, the free kids tuition alone...

Wonder if they're ok with working remote and paying for travel up there for meetings on Fridays of home football weekends and midweek for select hoops games.
Expand...
Where's your sarcasm font?
 
kingtidge said:
90% will be auto-approved by Deloitte's AI I bet.

Only the red-flagged potential problem deals will get bubbled up for human review.
Expand...
Possibly - but more red flags mean more billable hours …
 
Chip said:
And they won't be from the schools with the deepest pockets.
Expand...
We will see. I think schools have experienced a lawless system for long enough these last few years and are, quite frankly, tired of it. And they know in order for this whole “organization” to work, there needs to be some enforcement. It’s why they are asking the government to get involved. It’s gone well beyond kids getting their “fair market value”. They’re exploiting schools, to the point where they stay in school because the money is better than in the pros. In no other industry does the kid who has little experience make more than the more skilled, better employee. It’s crazy.
 
If a school opts out of the settlement, are they subject to any limitations on what they
can pay in any sport?
 
dasher said:
If a school opts out of the settlement, are they subject to any limitations on what they
can pay in any sport?
Expand...
The school can pay zero if they opt out. Third party deals are not subject to clearinghouse review however.

I believe every P4 conference is “opted” in.
 
Consigliere said:
The school can pay zero if they opt out. Third party deals are not subject to clearinghouse review however.

I believe every P4 conference is “opted” in.
Expand...
I was thinking about UConn and the Big East
 
dasher said:
I was thinking about UConn and the Big East
Expand...
There's been "chatter" about The Big East being able to pay their basketball players more than the P4 conferences will but I thought that required them to opt-in. UConn could be at a disadvantage vs the rest of the BE teams as they have a football team. Unless they don't give any money to their football players. Schools that opt in are not required to pay their athletes $20.5 million. That's just the cap.
 
Consigliere said:
The school can pay zero if they opt out. Third party deals are not subject to clearinghouse review however.

I believe every P4 conference is “opted” in.
Expand...
Are we sure the third party deals are subject to the clearinghouse? Is there anything out there confirming this? Just wondering - as that seems pretty chaotic.
 
Consigliere said:
It’s all in the terms of the settlement. We’re sure it’s there. We will see how effective it is.

www.cbssports.com

House v. NCAA settlement approved: Landmark decision opens door for revenue sharing in college athletics

A federal judge granted final approval for the $2.8 billion lawsuit Friday evening
www.cbssports.com www.cbssports.com
Expand...
If the kid doesn't report it how will anyone know? Or if they sign for a figure for a certain amount, they can still get more under the table which can't be traced.
 
FloridaCuse said:
Getting money "under the table" is the way some have gotten it in the past. So for that method nothing has changed, or presumably ever will.
Expand...
There are so many specious arguments in this thread it's hard to count. 1) Athletes should get a piece of the action because U's and the NCAA (both NFP's prohibited from making a profit) are "making money". lol. Maybe my middle schooler should get a share of the bloated salaries his district doles out to administrators. As though student athletes (the vast majority) aren't in learning institutions and administrators haven't completed their education and taken up careers. This is an inane category error that is beneath some of the posters who repeat it.

2) Athletes should get a "piece of the pie" because their skill contributes to team success. As though performance (and recruitment) were actually legal under the new NCAA rules. News flash, it's still against NCAA rules to pay a SA for performance or recruitment. We just say it's "NIL" with a wink and a nod.

3) There was corruption before so why not expand it, legalize it and rationalize it? As though its not 100x worse now, with college sports up for sale to the wealthiest car dealerships. Let's be honest: every single dollar of NIL is paid because of an athlete's "worth" as a player, i.e., his skill ... (euphemisms for performance).

4) Athletes deserve NIL because their images are used in TV and advertising. Ok. Then let ESPN pay them. Otherwise, NIL is a transparent ruse to justify pay for play. In simple terms, if you take the jerseys off the backs of star players, no one would pay them a dollar ... because it's TEAMS that hold the value, Universities' with 150 year-old brands. They have the intellectual property value, not individual players.

Speeding is illegal. And people still do it. That doesn't mean we should take all the signs down and encourage speeding. Same with corruption in college sports. It's still going on - NIL wasn't was never going to be a panacea. Stop kidding yourselves (some of you). I know this is unpopular with some. IDC.

Scholarships are legit if in fact players are actually students who have a legitimate financial need. Even stipends to help them with transportation, clothing and other costs. The rest is all a farce. The settlement just makes it a more organized farce.
 
Last edited:
0.2 YNdeeR said:
There are so many specious arguments in this thread it's hard to count. 1) Athletes should get a piece of the action because U's and the NCAA (both NFP's prohibited from making a profit) are "making money". lol. Maybe my middle schooler should get a share of the bloated salaries his district doles out to administrators. As though student athletes (the vast majority) aren't in learning institutions and administrators haven't completed their education and taken up careers. This is an inane category error that is beneath some of the posters who repeat it.

2) Athletes should get a "piece of the pie" because their skill contributes to team success. As though performance (and recruitment) were actually legal under the new NCAA rules. News flash, it's still against NCAA rules to pay a SA for performance or recruitment. We just say it's "NIL" with a wink and a nod.

3) There was corruption before so why not expand it, legalize it and rationalize it? As though its not 100x worse now, with college sports up for sale to the wealthiest car dealerships. Let's be honest: every single dollar of NIL is paid because of an athlete's "worth" as a player, i.e., his skill ... (euphemisms for performance).

4) Athletes deserve NIL because their images are used in TV and advertising. Ok. Then let ESPN pay them. Otherwise, NIL is a transparent ruse to justify pay for play. In simple terms, if you take the jerseys off the backs of star players, no one would pay them a dollar ... because it's TEAMS that hold the value, Universities' with 150 year-old brands. They have the intellectual property value, not individual players.

Speeding is illegal. And people still do it. That doesn't mean we should take all the signs down and encourage speeding. Same with corruption in college sports. It's still going on - NIL wasn't was never going to be a panacea. Stop kidding yourselves (some of you). I know this is unpopular with some. IDC.

Scholarships are legit if in fact players are actually students. Even stipends to help them with transportation, clothing and other costs. The rest is all a farce. The settlement just makes it a more organized farce.
Expand...
Your #4 is particularly Pollyanna rubbish. Look at attendance figures when SU FB is winning and not winning. Look at TV slots, more viewers, when SU is winning and not winning. Conversely, look at the drop in attendance and enviable tv appearances as SU MBB has deteriorated as an on the court product.
If it was only about the brand, the Dome would be full every game, no matter performance or outcome. We would still be must see TV.
In the words of Billy Bean in Moneyball; adapt or die.
Also, comparing compulsory attendance of primary education to an independent, voluntary trade of services for compensation is a ridiculous argument.
 
Capt. Tuttle said:
Your #4 is particularly Pollyanna rubbish. Look at attendance figures when SU FB is winning and not winning. Look at TV slots, more viewers, when SU is winning and not winning. Conversely, look at the drop in attendance and enviable tv appearances as SU MBB has deteriorated as an on the court product.
If it was only about the brand, the Dome would be full every game, no matter performance or outcome. We would still be must see TV.
In the words of Billy Bean in Moneyball; adapt or die.
Also, comparing compulsory attendance of primary education to an independent, voluntary trade of services for compensation is a ridiculous argument.
Expand...
You're right about one thing: the U brand is improved by winning. That is true. The problem for you (or your position) is that winning is just another way of saying performance, which is non-compensable. You have it twisted: the ridiculous argument is that SA's should get paid because the U faculty and the NCAA "make money". As you well know, or should know. students are students and those who've completed their education and chosen careers ... are employees. It's pointless to keep conflating the two to justify the farce that major college sports have become. I'm just willing to be honest about it.
 
SUFan44 said:
Sorry I didn’t type that out right - are we sure the schools that don’t opt in, aren’t subject to the clearinghouse?
Expand...
I think opt-outs are still subject to the clearinghouse.
 
longtimefan said:
I think opt-outs are still subject to the clearinghouse.
Expand...
Could well be. The way I read it a school opts in or out of the settlement and you opt in or out to the whole package. Of course roster limits are part of the settlement too and can’t imagine a school could opt out and field 300 football players.
I will see if I can find a definitive answer.
 
Consigliere said:
Could well be. The way I read it a school opts in or out of the settlement and you opt in or out to the whole package. Of course roster limits are part of the settlement too and can’t imagine a school could opt out and field 300 football players.
I will see if I can find a definitive answer.
Expand...
Didn’t take much digging. If a school opts out of the settlement they cannot pay athletes directly and remain bound by existing NCAA rules. Certain provisions of House, including the clearinghouse (NIL Go) and roster limits will be codified by the NCAA as of July 1. So I was incorrect. All deals over $600 with athletes from all NCAA schools will be reviewed. There may be a loophole if an individual athlete opts out and participates in a lawsuit challenging that they have an existing contract that may not meet Deloitte’s interpretation of FMV. In that scenario the athlete can continue to receive payments without clearinghouse review, but that’s the only exception I have found so far.
Sorry for the confusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

OrangeXtreme
    • Like
House Settlement Approved
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
9K
FloridaCuse
FloridaCuse
W
CBS article Biggest Winners and Losers
Replies
5
Views
2K
oldpinepoint
oldpinepoint
BillSU
    • Like
    • Wow
Did you know...
Replies
12
Views
2K
Consigliere
Consigliere
SUFan44
    • Like
    • Love
Importance of Attendance at Dome Moving Forward
2 3
Replies
65
Views
6K
Consigliere
Consigliere
Eric15
    • Like
ESPN's College Football Future Power Rankings through 2026
Replies
19
Views
3K
wfschrec
wfschrec

Forum statistics

Threads
173,915
Messages
5,120,778
Members
6,074
Latest member
CheerMom12

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
172
Guests online
1,209
Total visitors
1,381
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom