https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...urt-cases/

"...One Power Five athletic director recently winced after taking a glimpse at his balance sheet. His financial outlook is not much different than his peers' with multiple high-speed bullet trains all coming into the station at the same time. The most unpredictable of all being expected revenue sharing with athletes through collective bargaining.

"It feels like my budget is about to look like a murder scene," that AD said.

Those projections -- typically called pro forma budgets -- are based on "what if?" hypotheticals. Like any good business person, an AD attempts to determine what expenditures are ahead and how much revenue will be coming in. Right now, they are struggling to project either.

Put up the yellow crime scene tape and pull up a chair because "what if?" is getting complicated. The NCAA and the Power Five conferences find themselves as defendants in four high-profile antitrust lawsuits. Settlements in those cases have become the next hurdle toward whatever college sports will look like in the future.

NCAA president Charlie Baker is being urged by a sizable portion of the membership to settle the cases because the alternative is too chilling to consider.

"You may bankrupt some universities," another Power Five AD said...."

The problem is the lawsuits and that is against the whole NCAA and not just P5. The P2 breaking off could lead for more lawsuits.

I didn't know there were four different cases


Outstanding legal cases:

House v. NCAA: The most urgent and significant in regard to the existing collegiate model. It seeks backpay for athletes in NIL benefits as well as shares of broadcast and video game revenue. The case goes to trial in January 2025.

Fontenot v. NCAA: It alleges, based on broadcast rights alone, that colleges can certainly afford to pay players. Example: Texas A&M had enough money to pay Jimbo Fisher's $76 million buyout.

Hubbard v. NCAA: This seeks backpay for the Alston verdict. That landmark 2021 decision saw the Supreme Court vote 9-0 to allow limited educational benefits that the NCAA had fought.

Carter vs. NCAA: Like Hubbard, it argues that athletes should be paid more than the NCAA basics -- room, board, tuition, books and cost of attendance. This case was filed in December 2023 and could take years to litigate.

From the article:

Quote:In House alone, trebled damages would be a reported $4.2 billion, which could conceivably bankrupt the NCAA as well.

That figure is incorrect. Back in December, Jeffrey Kessler said plaintiffs will seek "significantly more" than the reported $1.4B at trial, a sum no doubt in the billions. So... up to $6B or more after trebling if there's a trial and plaintiffs win. (Plaintiffs will win.) That's just the House case.

I'd be surprised if they're willing to settle the Carter & Fontenot antitrust cases since they would open the door to further pay for services. (As opposed to direct pay for NIL, House, or pay for Alston Awards, Hubbard.)

The only Alston that ever mattered

(03-14-2024 09:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...urt-cases/

"...One Power Five athletic director recently winced after taking a glimpse at his balance sheet. His financial outlook is not much different than his peers' with multiple high-speed bullet trains all coming into the station at the same time. The most unpredictable of all being expected revenue sharing with athletes through collective bargaining.

"It feels like my budget is about to look like a murder scene," that AD said.

Those projections -- typically called pro forma budgets -- are based on "what if?" hypotheticals. Like any good business person, an AD attempts to determine what expenditures are ahead and how much revenue will be coming in. Right now, they are struggling to project either.

Put up the yellow crime scene tape and pull up a chair because "what if?" is getting complicated. The NCAA and the Power Five conferences find themselves as defendants in four high-profile antitrust lawsuits. Settlements in those cases have become the next hurdle toward whatever college sports will look like in the future.

NCAA president Charlie Baker is being urged by a sizable portion of the membership to settle the cases because the alternative is too chilling to consider.

"You may bankrupt some universities," another Power Five AD said...."

Like I said in another thread---I have yet to see the leadership of college sports preemptively get out in front of any of these kinds of issues---much less look to speed up a dramatic change like pay-for-play leagues that would create an employee-employer relationship between the players and the schools. Not to mention that most schools dont have their budgets set up to quickly transition to spending 15-25 million a year on player salaries. Thats why I didnt really think the P2 would run off and create a pay-for-play league at this point in time. But down the road? Sure---I think its pretty much inevitable that we will see a straight pay-for-play league with revenue sharing, player unions, and something nobody ever mentions---4 year contracts (with option years) that bind a player to a team so schools dont have to bid for free agent players every year. Your also going to see players without contracts cut. Sorry kids---thats how pro ball works.

The interesting thing is---what happens to everyone else? My belief is that once you have a substantial "pay for play" college league, you then have a "market" that decides if your are good enough to be "pro" or if you are simply an amateur player. Seems to me, that market based filtration would open the door to the rest of college football returning to something similar to what we have now---regular scholarship college football with some outside NIL money flowing to the players who can command it. So, the schools that are left behind may have a couple of choices for their future. They can either do a pay-for-play league that operates at lower compensation points than the P2----or they can differentiate themselves entirely from the P2 league and go with a scholarship only model marketing their league as "traditional college football".

(03-15-2024 04:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 09:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...urt-cases/

"...One Power Five athletic director recently winced after taking a glimpse at his balance sheet. His financial outlook is not much different than his peers' with multiple high-speed bullet trains all coming into the station at the same time. The most unpredictable of all being expected revenue sharing with athletes through collective bargaining.

"It feels like my budget is about to look like a murder scene," that AD said.

Those projections -- typically called pro forma budgets -- are based on "what if?" hypotheticals. Like any good business person, an AD attempts to determine what expenditures are ahead and how much revenue will be coming in. Right now, they are struggling to project either.

Put up the yellow crime scene tape and pull up a chair because "what if?" is getting complicated. The NCAA and the Power Five conferences find themselves as defendants in four high-profile antitrust lawsuits. Settlements in those cases have become the next hurdle toward whatever college sports will look like in the future.

NCAA president Charlie Baker is being urged by a sizable portion of the membership to settle the cases because the alternative is too chilling to consider.

"You may bankrupt some universities," another Power Five AD said...."

Like I said in another thread---I have yet to see the leadership of college sports preemptively get out in front of any of these kinds of issues---much less look to speed up a dramatic change like pay-for-play leagues that would create an employee-employer relationship between the players and the schools. Not to mention that most schools dont have their budgets set up to quickly transition to spending 15-25 million a year on player salaries. Thats why I didnt really think the P2 would run off and create a pay-for-play league at this point in time. But down the road? Sure---I think its pretty much inevitable that we will see a straight pay-for-play league with revenue sharing, player unions, and something nobody ever mentions---4 year contracts (with option years) that bind a player to a team so schools dont have to bid for free agent players every year. Your also going to see players without contracts cut. Sorry kids---thats how pro ball works.

The interesting thing is---what happens to everyone else? My belief is that once you have a substantial "pay for play" college league, you then have a "market" that decides if your are good enough to be "pro" or if you are simply an amateur player. Seems to me, that market based filtration would open the door to the rest of college football returning to something similar to what we have now---regular scholarship college football with some outside NIL money flowing to the players who can command it. So, the schools that are left behind may have a couple of choices for their future. They can either do a pay-for-play league that operates at lower compensation points than the P2----or they can differentiate themselves entirely from the P2 league and go with a scholarship only model marketing their league as "traditional college football".

You may end up with something like the Baker proposal requiring schools to compensate student athletes through institutional money to meet the Title IX requirement.

Mid majors then do a form of pay-for-play light where they supply minimum guranteed NIL money to the student athletes.