So apparently the revenue sharing is an opt-in thing?

[OG Goat Holder]

In or out? College athletics preparing for every conundrum as revenue sharing promises to reshape landscape

From obscene NIL payments to governing shifts, universities are facing scenarios never before seen at this level

www.cbssports.com

The 22M or whatever is the maximum? And you can essentially pay whatever you want to players under that amount? For some reason I thought many of them were mandated to do it........what about that settlement where we have to pay a certain amount to players from 2016-2021 or something?

Now obviously I realize MSU will opt in....I'm not suggesting they don't or any other P5, they have to. I'm more thinking about the low-end of G5, FCS and on down.

 

[Xenomorph]

So apparently the revenue sharing is an opt-in thing?​

So is attending games.

 

[johnson86-1]

In or out? College athletics preparing for every conundrum as revenue sharing promises to reshape landscape

From obscene NIL payments to governing shifts, universities are facing scenarios never before seen at this level

www.cbssports.com

The 22M or whatever is the maximum? And you can essentially pay whatever you want to players under that amount? For some reason I thought many of them were mandated to do it........what about that settlement where we have to pay a certain amount to players from 2016-2021 or something?

Now obviously I realize MSU will opt in....I'm not suggesting they don't or any other P5, they have to. I'm more thinking about the low-end of G5, FCS and on down.

If the revenue sharing doesn't replace NIL, then it may be better for State if the settlement doesn't go through. The whole thing is an exercise in trying to craft legislation through the courts, which I'm not sure is going to withstand scrutiny. You've got one judge trying to craft a solution for a bunch of athletes that aren't represented. That's not an uncommon feature for class actions, but you don't usually have competing concerns to this extent. You're basically gutting women's sports in general in exchange for a small amount of money going to some women's basketball players. I don't think that's necessarily unreasonable, and it's certainly not more unreasonable than the crazy expansive interpretation of Title IX that has prevailed for the last however many decades, but not really sure it's a judge's role to make that call at this point, even if judges contributed to the problem in the first place.

 

[The Peeper]

So is attending games.

as is donating, or not............

 

[HotMop]

as is donating, or not............

As is giving a 17, or not........

 

[The Peeper]

As is giving a 17, or not........

I'm slowly running out of all 17s, damns or sh!ts to give too