Judge rules in favor of House vs NCAA. Revenue sharing on the way.
- Thread starter DesotoCountyDawg
- Start date
From what I understand, it means there will be a standardized amount given to the athletic programs to disperse among the sports and then your collective will supplement for the big time players.
I’d love to know exactly what they changed to get her approval. Also a 4% increase in the rev share each year is no joke. Because I don’t think media rights payments increase each year. But the real questions are:
1. How do the other cases impact this?
2. What happens if this conflicts with state law?
1. How do the other cases impact this?
2. What happens if this conflicts with state law?
Us as in Mississippi State:
An expense added to the budget for the next ten years of 22% of annual revenue to pay former players.
Another expense item added to pay current athletes $21-22 million a year in revenue sharing.
Us as in fans: an email asking for more money.
I will continue to make most of my contributions to the collective then.
Basically, 22M of our money is going to players now. Plus we're about to get get bigger rosters in multiple sports, which we will have to fund to be competitive I'm sure. So that takes more of our revenue - see below.
What makes things complicated, is that the State Excellence fund has to be spent on football. And I'm sure we'll have to show that the 22M is coming from TV money (or revenue in general, who knows). The question is, what athletes get the 22M? Seems to me it should go to revenue sports only.
So that means, the revenue left over from TV and everything else, can be spent on non-revenue sports (or football too, if needed). And the BI can be spent on anything we want. My prediction is....things will get tight there.
Looks like I'm ordering another gumbo from Oby's for the NIL round-up.
I think the schools can decide to allocate how they want but it seems unanimous that they will face Title IX scrutiny.
I'm guessing baseball is what will suffer, across the country. And other men's sports.
While I'm asking dumb questions.....At this point in the game what could "Realistically" be something that could happen that could help us ?
I'll find something else to consume. This is ridiculous.
More to the point. How will programs like Southern Miss pony up $22 million in revenue sharing? They will be our example to follow in about 3 years if not sooner.
Is the collective money commingle with the 22 million giving control completely with the school?
I see nothing that helps MSU at present, as far as winning SEC or B1G games. The only good thing is that the B2 money will help us against the rest of the P4 and the G5.
Doing some quick math......if they split the 22M between the revenue sports, let's just assume football and basketball, that's 135 players. That's $163,000 per player per year. On top of a scholarship. For shlt previous players before you helped build.
This is so 17ed up. I am not giving another dime to this bullshlt. 17ing idiots in charge of this crap.
On future payments It says up to $22 million. Also it is based on a % of their revenue. I imagine they just won't have much to pay with sunbelt revenue.
This also allows for sec and etc to offer more scholarships and rev sharing money. 105 for football and 34 for baseball. So with sec schools Paying more in revenue sharing, it will be up to a kid. If they want to be the 105th football player and make money. Or be a player at a G5. Or baseball..... be the 30th player at MSU and get paid or a starter at USM and get less money.
On damages G5 payments will be smaller because they didn't have the tv contracts the P4s had. We will all still be broke though.
I dated a girl that worked as a bank teller in Starkville during the time I was fresh out of college and working for MSU. She named one of the running backs on the football team and said she cashed his check the other day like she does every couple of weeks or so and that it was more than my check. She said it looked just like my MSU employee check. I had no reason to doubt her because she didn't have a care in the world about sports. NIL is nothing new. Revenue sharing is. We sucked then and it will probably stay the same relative to the other SEC teams.
Capitalism gonna kick in soon. Only a handful of programs will be able to afford all of this. Tv money helped programs like us but now it's gonna go to players which no saying it shouldn't, but the market is going to reset itself on buildings, programs, etc. the slice of pie is getting smaller
I don’t see the path to not legally sharing the revenue with players in all sports, unless you just eliminate those sports altogether (or make them club sports).
The swimmers, track athletes, softball players, soccer players, etc. all put forth the same physical and time commitment as football and basketball players. And in the majority of cases they also are much higher academic performers. It’s a tough sell to say that a 4th string center or long snapper in football should get $150k while the soccer player who is a legit Olympian only gets $20-$30k. Its class-action lawsuit city if those players get less of a cut.
You have to either apply the same standard across all sports (the total hands-off approach above), or you have to analyze each athlete’s contribution at a microscopic level to establish things like Caitlin Clark being worth a far larger salary than whoever Iowa’s starting QB is. The first option will lead to gross inefficiencies all over the place, while the collectives have to come in to address those, while the second option isn’t really practical to do at any sort of scale.
So, the first option will take hold, and therefore well over 50% of this revenue share money will be flushed down the toilet….barring something unforeseen like the NCAA changing the rules on number of sponsored sports that are required to remain in Division 1.
The swimmers, track athletes, softball players, soccer players, etc. all put forth the same physical and time commitment as football and basketball players. And in the majority of cases they also are much higher academic performers. It’s a tough sell to say that a 4th string center or long snapper in football should get $150k while the soccer player who is a legit Olympian only gets $20-$30k. Its class-action lawsuit city if those players get less of a cut.
You have to either apply the same standard across all sports (the total hands-off approach above), or you have to analyze each athlete’s contribution at a microscopic level to establish things like Caitlin Clark being worth a far larger salary than whoever Iowa’s starting QB is. The first option will lead to gross inefficiencies all over the place, while the collectives have to come in to address those, while the second option isn’t really practical to do at any sort of scale.
So, the first option will take hold, and therefore well over 50% of this revenue share money will be flushed down the toilet….barring something unforeseen like the NCAA changing the rules on number of sponsored sports that are required to remain in Division 1.
They could do it on the sport level. I mean, most sports don’t cover scholarship costs and travel costs. I haven’t read the specifics of this ruling, but you’d potentially run into title ix issues, and some schools are going to test the limits of that by giving revenue all to football. Regardless of revenue sharing, you can’t do anything at all to stop NIL. I can see schools settling on revenue sharing as a “norm” and decreasing NIL, but you can’t stop NIL right now. When game theory optimal decisions make all the players (colleges) lose, seeking government regulation is a typical approach. This is similar to tobacco advertising, but incomplete because NIL is still an option.
Oh I know for sure NIL is here to stay.
I was only highlighting how much this is just going to create more inefficiency that is just going to make everything more expensive.
Nah, it really isn’t. Now, it’d be a lot better if the revenue sharing was the only revenue source. But they’ve just added a welfare component to it where undeserving athletes in all sports are going to all get some minimum cut, even if they aren’t even on the field or court.
I mean 17, they’re paying millions to athletes who have been out of college athletics for years. What does that accomplish besides egregious waste? Who’s to say what some dude who played for Tulane in 2006 would have been worth in terms of NIL? Its just nonsense.
It's considerably better than what we have now and you'll see more once it's fully set up. This is step one in a process that's going to continue to develop the next several years.
Sounds to me like this will quickly be the end of programs at places like southern miss, south Alabama, Arkansas State, the Louisiana directional schools, etc, and schools like State may follow sooner rather then later. We had a good run and it’s been great fun for a long time, but it’s about over.
Someone creates a time machine and Tonya Hardings the dipshit politicians that decided college athletes needed payouts beyond free education, room and board, and the opportunity to showcase their talents to future employers for four years.
Could happen.
It was always going to suffer most of tried to tell you non revenue sports weren’t going to take dirt naps.
Last edited:
Oh look moving of the goal post….. AGAIN Goat
You are part of the problem. You and others are a detriment to this program.
In the last three weeks you have continued one theme that is this … you are a negative poster that won’t give… yet you want to somehow think that’s the higher ground
Again dude you are part of the problem
Get off your *** and give. Let’s pull in the same direction
Well one piece of good news, in the original settlement, it said the NIL is to be true NIL. No pay for play and the ncaa can enforce that rule. We shall see if that happens. But ncaa rules around nil is a part of the settlement.
The preliminary approval also opens the door for the creation of a third-party body to vet NIL payments greater than $600. A revised version of the settlement filed on Sept. 26 referred to “faux” NIL deals — payments that are functionally “pay-for-play” deals being procured under the guise of NIL.
Wilken voiced particular concern over the restricting of what athletes could earn, while representatives for NIL collectives across the country have been adamantly against the proposal that would limit their involvement and create more oversight on certain deals.
In an effort to assuage those concerns, the revised settlement exempted anyone who's given less than $50,000 to a school from the aforementioned NIL enforcement rules, along with removing the word “booster” and replacing it with “Associated Entity or Individual."
“... On balance, permitting [the] Defendants to retain some existing rules that prohibit affiliated parties from providing faux NIL payments that are not actual commercial transactions is a fair exchange for the tremendous benefits the settlement provides,” the brief said.
The preliminary approval also opens the door for the creation of a third-party body to vet NIL payments greater than $600. A revised version of the settlement filed on Sept. 26 referred to “faux” NIL deals — payments that are functionally “pay-for-play” deals being procured under the guise of NIL.
Wilken voiced particular concern over the restricting of what athletes could earn, while representatives for NIL collectives across the country have been adamantly against the proposal that would limit their involvement and create more oversight on certain deals.
In an effort to assuage those concerns, the revised settlement exempted anyone who's given less than $50,000 to a school from the aforementioned NIL enforcement rules, along with removing the word “booster” and replacing it with “Associated Entity or Individual."
“... On balance, permitting [the] Defendants to retain some existing rules that prohibit affiliated parties from providing faux NIL payments that are not actual commercial transactions is a fair exchange for the tremendous benefits the settlement provides,” the brief said.
Last edited:
Get unlimited access today.