Houston Christian files appeal in motion to intervene in House v. NCAA settlement
Houston Christian University filed an appeal Wednesday in the wake of U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken denying its motion to intervene in the House v. NCAA antitrust case.
HCU is appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a filing that was expected and comes less than a week after the 100-plus page long-form House settlement was submitted – a historic agreement poised to radically reimagine college sports’ financial model.
If certified by Wilken early next year, the settlement entails the NCAA and all 32 Division I conferences paying $2.8 billion in damages over a 10-year period, and schools, at their discretion, being permitted to share as much as $22 million annually with athletes. The settlement is also expected to settle two other antitrust cases facing the NCAA: Carter and Hubbard.
Houston Christian’s June 20 motion to intervene in the case was the first formal objection to the settlement, whose broad terms plaintiffs and named defendants agreed on May 23. Houston Christian, a member of the Southland Conference, contends its interests were not represented in settlement talks.
Top 10
- 1Breaking
Michigan loses QB
Carter Smith decommits from Wolverines
- 2
Hunter Heisman
Colorado star becomes betting favorite
- 3Hot
Terrible calls
10 worst CFB ref blunders
- 4
Nightmare scenario
ACC tiebreak chaos
- 5
Donald Trump
Former President nixes PSU vs. Ohio State
Why did judge deny Houston Christian’s motion?
In her July 24 denial of Houston Christian’s motion, Wilken wrote that the Huskies’ arguments in support of its motion for intervention are “essentially objections to the settlement agreement, which are premature because the settlement agreement has not yet been filed. But even if they were not premature, the court would not consider them because HCU, as a non-class member, lacks standing to object to the settlement agreement.”
Wilken added that HCU argued that its motion to intervene was not untimely because it acted as soon as it learned that the proposed settlement agreement was contrary to its interests and that it could not have moved to intervene sooner because the parties did not conduct their settlement negotiations publicly. The court is not persuaded, she wrote.