For the first few weeks of college sports’ new paid rules, there are only two possible explanations: either deceiving the power meeting by signing houses with NCAA and NCAA solutions, or establishing a situation of intentional failure.
You can make a good argument for both.
advertise
Here is the basic review: Last week, the new university athletic committee sent a memo to the school explaining that certain names, images and similarities were rejected because they came from booster collectives rather than regular business. The CSC is a panel appointed by the Powers Conference, whose mission is to implement the $20.5 million revenue sharing ceiling and zero rules proposed from the settlement.
Plaintiffs attorneys in the House case, led by Jeffrey Kessler and Steve Berman, demanded the memorandum to be withdrawn and suggested that the CSC must treat the collective like other businesses – otherwise it will appear again.
Now on Wednesday, Yahoo! Sports reported that the power conference resumed negotiations on the issue, and SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey admitted that there could be a “softer ceiling” if the boosters were collectively placed in the same category as other businesses.
We have 17 days, guys – it’s already a (exaggerated) show.
View of the NCAA headquarters in Indianapolis.
Should we really believe that after years of settlements to establish the so-called guardrail school near Zero Zero – by the way, this settlement will result in $2.8 billion in compensation over the next 10 years – they are not clear about them this Does it have a key element of opportunity to work?
advertise
From the outset, everyone (including schools signed on the solution) understands that the new system faces lawsuits almost immediately on two different aspects: whether it complies with Title IX, and whether the CSC determines what constitutes a fair market value CSC is legal.
Caught off guard: University leaders don’t know Trump’s Zero Executive Order Plan
In other words, if some wealthy business owners want to pay $750,000 to Johnny’s defender in order to play for their favorite schools and local TV commercials, a third-party law enforcement group can really deny the payment because the attached money is much larger than a comparable endorsement deal? This is an interesting question and will undoubtedly face legal scrutiny.
But if university administrators want to live in a different world than the fake booster deals of the past four years, they have no choice but to go to the wall to protect the authority they believe in through the reconciliation process.
advertise
The agency includes the ability of CSC to reject transactions that do not meet the “effective business purpose” criteria.
However, this is the crux of the problem. The CSC defines an effective business purpose as “evidence of using student-athletes nil to promote the provision of goods or services to the public for profit” while also holding “an entity with a business purpose that may provide payments or benefits to students or institutions rather than meet the effective business purpose ncaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa incaa ince.
In other words, if collectives are used as third-party marketing agencies to facilitate accreditation transactions, that can be allowed. But the existing collective shifts funds from boosters to athletes so that schools can circumvent income sharing caps, regardless of how much money is involved or what athletes need to do.
In other words, the CSC (against the willingness to implement the power meeting that ratifies the settlement), he said the collective cannot function as they operate. It makes sense if the goal is to really curb the change and stop boosting the flow of money.
advertise
But Kessler, according to a person familiar with the matter, was surprised by the position of CSC and believed that the language in the agreement was directed at the transaction itself, not the organization that facilitated the transaction.
I was surprised that he was surprised. Because why did the school settle with him first? Essentially, what we have here are two high-priced lawyers in different ways who have spent months reaching an agreement and now disagree with the wording of the most important issues in the agreement. Now, they are negotiating again to see if they need to go to court to resolve the dispute.
oops?
But if interacting with Kessler can create a “soft hat” with Sankey’s words, then the collective will essentially be a green light that can be restored to the exact way it has been operated in the past few years. This means that the school has done nothing but a slight move.
advertise
In fact, within 17 days, this is even problematic.
So is this just a law firm, or is it possible that some groups can actually effectively collapse and return to the status quo, and the real salary cap is what their collective can raise, not $20.5 million?
This is the usual suspect when you consider who performs on the show these days and who might benefit the most from the real hat. SEC and the top ten. Heck, during this week’s SEC media era, Ole Miss coach Lane Kiffin said, “It’s obvious” that competitors ignore the ceiling when recruiting the cycle. Let’s say this: No one thinks they have a chance to win national titles over the next five years plan to spend as much as $20.5 million on their football team, let alone the entire sports department.
In the process of full disclosure, in the settlement drama, I talked to many in the two leagues who thought it was a mistake to resolve for this reason: there was no tec at all to curb the money without exempting the long-term legal protection of Congress against the antitrust.
advertise
From the coach’s lifestyle perspective, zero environment is annoying from the perspective of the past few years, but it certainly doesn’t hurt the SEC or the Big Ten. If the solution becomes fake, these schools will become alright because of the huge amount of TV income it brings. But most others will return to the begging for the booster effort to get them to provide them with millions of dollars in revenue on the income sharing ceiling – a battle they are doomed to lose.
Given what happened last week, doubts about the solution are much more than just legal. To complete the whole process, and still cannot answer with certainty whether the collective can function as it used to be, is perhaps the stupidest of the stupid legal situation that has found itself in college sports over the past decade. The only question is whether they are malicious or incompetent.
This article originally appeared in the settlement in USA Today: NCAA Targets College Sports Faces. Is this a plan?
