Breaking Down the NCAA NIL Lawsuits (Ep. 212)

Zach and Jake break down the live, ongoing NCAA NIL settlements and lawsuits. There is a lot currently happening, and we try to make sense of it all!                         

Twitter: https://twitter.com/FlurrySportsPod     
Website: https://flurrysports.org/

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, hey, don't listen to play Flurry sports will save
your day. Joke Swiss Sports inside Zach Nshake, they get
it right.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
Fuck you.

Speaker 3 (00:23):
Hello, Welcome back to the Florida Sports Podcast. Last week
we got lost. We didn't know where we were. Were
we in Kansas or India? That was a difficult situation
to navigate ourselves out of. Every We figured it out.
But last week of every month we're playing nothing but games.
But it's all business today, baby, I mean, last time,

(00:44):
what people have been clamoring Zach Jake discuss more legal things,
get more into the woods here with the legal paperwork
in the court system, because you guys explained it better
than anybody.

Speaker 2 (00:59):
Last time we did this.

Speaker 3 (01:00):
We're explaining the lawsuit with Fox News or Fox Sports,
which seemingly nothing has happened and has been completely swept
under the rug. This time, there's currently live as we
are going right now. This is Monday night, so if
you're watching this after the fact, they're in the court
right now. Disgusting stuff for the NCAA settlement like a

(01:24):
two point eight billion dollar settlement for former athletes over
the past ten years. They didn't get paid with nil
stuff and along with it somehow, I'm not sure how
it's the same thing, but they're gonna company with it.
The new profit sharing essentially between the schools and the players.
There's that salary cap. There's some roster confusing this. We

(01:45):
are going to go through it all as much as
we possibly can. Jake anything you want to say before
we just jump into the basics of this, and this
is something I haven't fully looked into, so my live
reaction along with you all in the chat, definitely jump
in and give your two cents as well.

Speaker 4 (02:03):
First of all, go Cougars, we record this. No, come on,
go Coug's win me fifty bucks.

Speaker 3 (02:11):
Okay, I have a little boar on Florida going, so
hopefully they win.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
But okay, this is just.

Speaker 3 (02:19):
Not a basketball school, you know. I like what they've
been doing. I like that they're bullies. Yeah, no, your role.
I don't know what kind of school they are. They're
just not really they need to be good, not great.
They're the Wisconsin of the South.

Speaker 4 (02:34):
I will say they were kind of what made me
think of this topic because the coach went off about
how Duke was from some pink pony. I think he's
some weird in salty through at them conference, at the
ACC and how strong the Big Twelve is. It's like, Okay,
what's going on? Do we care where we play? Like

(02:55):
I've never like untill then I was like, Houston's proud
about being in the Big twelve.

Speaker 2 (03:00):
The only school. Yeah, they're battle tested.

Speaker 3 (03:03):
Yeah, Iowa State, Kansas State, you know how tough it is.
You were the thick of the Big twelve down there.
I mean, I know it is. It's a bloodbath.

Speaker 4 (03:11):
Well, It's like, on one hand, I was honored because
I was like, yeah, stand up for the Big twelve.

Speaker 5 (03:15):
And on the other hand, it's it's like when the.

Speaker 4 (03:18):
In law stands up with the family reunion is like
I'd like to say something. It's like, you just got here.
I love it, you like it, but you know pretty new.

Speaker 2 (03:27):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (03:28):
Also I love kicking the a sec when they're down though,
because that's what.

Speaker 4 (03:32):
We need to do, especially in basketball. So sure, so
that is what made me think of it. Otherwise, just
because we teased it last week. We did enjoy a
wonderful baseball game this weekend. We did twins won, and
then they blew a seven to one lead the next day.
So we were at the right game.

Speaker 3 (03:49):
Okay, fair enough. It was a little nippoly. Uh yeah,
a little cold, you know what. I will say this
before we get into everything. Of the three baseball games
I've ever been to, and I think only two were
with you. The other one was with the band. It
was in the Metro Dome, So tell me how long
ago that one was. I don't know who won, don't

(04:10):
know who played, other than pretty confident the Twins were
one of those teams. But other than that, I think
this was the game I enjoyed most watching it from
a game and maybe this week can talk about this
next week. I think baseball's having a moment right now.
I think they're doing their absolute best with what they have,
and what they have is just baseball, which isn't much.

(04:33):
But I'm slightly enjoying baseball. I came into the season
with the mindset of trying to like it, and it's
kind of working.

Speaker 2 (04:42):
I think it's enjoyable.

Speaker 3 (04:43):
I don't want to sit down and watch a full game,
which I think most baseball fans would also agree with,
which is funny. Like I've been telling people that they're like, yeah,
why would you like? Oh, I thought you watched every
game but like I'm cool with tuning into like the
first inning and then like seven eight.

Speaker 4 (05:01):
Well, it's what I've been telling people. It's not a
ringing endorsement of the sport. Like our grandparents were super
into baseball, never watched the whole game. They liked it
because it was like on all day, go mel Coals,
come back in seven, still got the best parts of
the game left.

Speaker 5 (05:17):
Right.

Speaker 2 (05:17):
Yeah, yeah, I've been again. I'm never going to be
someone who gets deep into the strategy.

Speaker 3 (05:22):
I don't think. I don't care that much about it,
but you know, for what it is, and it is
a beautiful support.

Speaker 2 (05:33):
I like it.

Speaker 3 (05:33):
We need to keep those damn torpedo bats around, though,
if the if baseball gets rid of them, I promise
I'll be fully out forever, because it's an active decision
to not be exciting, so I will be completely out.

Speaker 4 (05:45):
We do need to keep them around. And speaking of
things we need to keep around, Zach, that's right.

Speaker 5 (05:52):
I tried.

Speaker 4 (05:53):
I don't know if I believe that, But here's the
actual brief I'll give for it today. It says in
the article, but just because it doesn't go that in
depth to it, i'll say it here at the front.
It takes a while for this article to get into
what the lawsuit is about, and that is because this
hearing that, as Zach mentioned, is actively going that we're
going to dive into today, is actually an amalgamation of

(06:14):
three lawsuits they've combined together, so gets into some of
the specifics. But if you're like, how come this article
just doesn't come out and say what's on the line here,
it's because it's many defendants. There's specific schools, there are defendants.
The NCAA is a defendant, several conferences are defendants. So

(06:35):
it will have an impact on college sports as a whole.
And as it gets into this is not specifically deciding
whether NIL states or not. This is not like the
state of NIL, but it is involving money in college sports,
so ride with that. But keep in mind that like
whatever happens here, money wise, NIL will likely stay relatively intact.

(07:00):
So what it looks like if it doesn't straight up
increase from.

Speaker 3 (07:03):
This, Yeah, yeah, at this point you can't take money
out of people's pockets. That will go over very well.
So I'm gonna bring an article up here, as is
the theme with this season on Flurry Sports or the
Floury Sports podcast. If you're listening to the audio podcast,
god bless you, but head over to the Flurry Sports

(07:24):
YouTube channel Twitch channel. We go live every Monday night,
usually round five thirty to six thirty Central somewhere around there.
Jump in the chat, watch live, or just watch this
after the fact. Go to the YouTube page Flurry Sports YouTube,
click the live section and the whole podcast will be
in there. But we got a nice little article here
from Associated Press. So two point eight billion dollar NCAA

(07:48):
settlement goes to the final hearing today. Seismic change is
looming for college sports, So let's get into it. This
is all happening in California. Basically the last bit of
sports that are happening in Oakland is this lawsuit. It
seems like final hearing for a landmark two point billion
dollars settlement will impact every corner of college athletics. Opening Monday,

(08:12):
several athletes criticizing the sprawling plan for undervaluing them and
leading to a widespread confusion of whether to opt in
or opt or not opt into this settlement. That's talking
about the former athletes who would be given money for
you know, not being able to collect on their nil name, image,

(08:32):
and likeness. So the judge is Judge Claudia Wilkin, and
she has already granted preliminary approval of the settlement involving
the NCAA in the nation's five largest conferences, and she
gave no indication during the hearing that anything has changed
her mind. So we're operating under the assumption she's going

(08:52):
to improve this. The new structure would begin July first,
and it would clear the way for each school to
share up to twenty and a half million dollars each,
So each school would have twenty and a half million
dollars to pay their student athletes. Give no timeline for
the final decision though, so it's probably not coming today.
But the important note is that twenty and a half

(09:14):
million that's up to the school's discretion, essentially how they
spend it in terms of how everything's worded right now.
You can spend it on, however, whatever sport you want.
I assume some bit of money has to go to
every sport, but there isn't like a set in stone
this percentage to this sport, et cetera.

Speaker 5 (09:35):
They could decide.

Speaker 4 (09:36):
The article is going to get into this a little bit,
but to kind of tease it out a little bit.
It does structure out that that money is somewhat based
on revenue that the school.

Speaker 5 (09:47):
Makes from sports, a percentage.

Speaker 4 (09:49):
That could depend based on the judge's ruling, So that
will be one of the things that she's deciding on.
Is are there any mandates with how it gets spended?
Is it based on revenue this sport brings into the school?
Is it based on how much money that school has?
These are all things the judge could rule on, which
is why the last part of that top part of

(10:10):
the article goes into detail on she's basically allowing more
testimony is what they're hearing today. She could have decided
on it already, but she's trying. Bait Zex said this
before the show. I think the judge is also a
little aware of, like, I don't know why I am
deciding the whole outline of college sports. So I think
she's trying to get much context as possible of like

(10:32):
how specific do I rule here today? Because if she
just gives a blank statement of you have to pay
out this amount with no guidelines, that obviously leaves some
specific schools and some specific athletes in the lurch. But
it gets more in detail to that. But that's kind
of what's the debate here is it seems like this

(10:53):
is going to happen, but the judge could rule from
anywhere from yes, it's happening, figure it out, to give
specific settlements on amounts ohed.

Speaker 2 (11:05):
Yes, yes, binga.

Speaker 3 (11:07):
And then it also says the settlement was hashed out
last year, so that number essentially by attorneys and defendants,
those representing thousands of current and former athletes. Smaller schools
say this is going to leave them behind deep pocketed
donor heavy programs, and even the proposed guidelines are not
expected to call them the huge spending now that is

(11:29):
common across college sports. So there are people with issues,
as we will get into, including LSU gymnasts, millionaire influencer
Livy Done. Olivia Done one of the four athletes to
testify against the settlement. Three represented Olympic non revenue sports,
and then Benjamin Burr Curvin was a linebacker from Washington.

(11:50):
So a big money program, big money sport is also
against the settlement, which is interesting and important. Livvy Dunn
said the settlement shou not be improved, be approved. She
specifically objected to the formula used to set the athlete's
NIL value, arguing that hers was estimated too low. In

(12:11):
a testimony, she described herself as a Division one athlete, businesswoman,
and she is the highest earning female athlete since NIL
rules changed. She said the settlement hardly acknowledges her true
value in earning power. The settlement uses old logic to
calculate modern value. It takes a narrow snapshot, a snapshot

(12:32):
of a still maturing market and freezes it, ignoring the
trajectory we were on and the deals we lost in
the future we could have had.

Speaker 2 (12:40):
She said.

Speaker 3 (12:40):
The website where athletes could find their damage estimates didn't
work at the time of the deciding whether to opt
in or not. When she was able to get into
the website finally on January thirty first, she said the
data was incorrect. It didn't match what I actually earned,
noting she was required to opt into the settlement in

(13:02):
order to submit accurate data and that she never heard
back from the settlement administratives. That's not surprising whatsoever. So
the estimated value for these athletes completely off. That's not surprising.
We don't have like their formula of how they you know,
came up with a number, and then the website. In

(13:24):
terms of how they did it, I'm sure some sixty
seventy year old was creating this website and it didn't
even work. So this is the most NCAA thing of
all time so far, I would say, yeah.

Speaker 4 (13:34):
And it's like what I really liked about this article
is I thought, as best as it could, this is
so frickin' messy, and I was like, this does as
good as job as you probably could of, showing how
complex this issue is. Because you might expect athletes to
firmly be on the side of like, let's get this,
let's get this lawsuit to happen. Basically, what this lawsuit

(13:56):
is saying is universities ohe the athletes that are making
money for them, money directly, not just nil deals which
are essentially sponsorships, but the school itself owes the money. However,
this is where it gets complex. If they settle this
as they've established, as Libby Done testifies here too, if

(14:18):
they opt into the settlement, they are potentially especially for
someone like Libby Dune, agreeing to what their value is
and could lose out on chances to further advocate for
further value. Like if she signs a document that says, yeah,
I'm only worth so much, she'd lose out on any
right to further you know, challenge for that money.

Speaker 2 (14:40):
Yeah. Yeah, it's not exactly the system that should have
been in place. That's no sane.

Speaker 3 (14:48):
So that college football linebacker also spoke, went to have
an NFL career before leg injury, questions the errors in
establishing the athletes's value. It's gonna be impossible to establish
what an athlete'svalue is.

Speaker 2 (15:02):
By the way he said, it's.

Speaker 3 (15:05):
Within the specific allocation that things get real squirrely, great
way to describe it. I was a fairly decorated football player,
and I'm getting paid the same as walk ons I
played with. Then there are kids who I played with
who were rotational players were getting five times as much
and we can't find the evidence for why or how
they got there. The only thing I think I would

(15:29):
push back on that, and again, I don't think anybody
knows how they got to this number, which is the
issue of zero zero clarity. But I mean, does anybody
know this guy? I recognize his name, but I don't
know who this guy is. Yeah, your accomplishments don't necessarily
mean your notoriety or what your name, image and likeness
is worth.

Speaker 2 (15:50):
Like there are.

Speaker 3 (15:52):
I mean, just look at the manager for McNee State
who got one hundred k deal.

Speaker 2 (15:59):
He has no value, no or not no value.

Speaker 3 (16:02):
He has no value on the court in terms of basketball,
he has no name recognition.

Speaker 2 (16:07):
You can't say his name right now. I can't say
his name right now.

Speaker 3 (16:10):
But like it's a sponsorship deal if he's known, if
it's about clicks, baby, So like just talking about what
your value is in terms of on field production or awards,
I'm not sure if that's going to get him very far.
But the fact that there's zero clarity of how they
came up with the numbers, obviously that's the issue.

Speaker 2 (16:30):
And this is anything but sport. How did UNC get
in the tournament?

Speaker 3 (16:35):
It's all it's everything's the same here, Like there's no
clarity with anything.

Speaker 4 (16:39):
Yeah, And it's that's such a good point with him
because it's like him and Livy Dunn are on opposite
ends of the spectrum, and like Livy Livvy done, I
could also somewhat come in a bit and be like
she's got a really good case. I somewhat understand like
it's impossible to make a formula that does this.

Speaker 5 (17:00):
Is Livy done based.

Speaker 4 (17:02):
On her name, image and likeness, should be making as
much money as any female athlete in the NCAA period,
But I know because it touches on it here a
lot of the folks who came forward Olympic sports. It's
very heavily weighted towards what school are you at?

Speaker 2 (17:20):
Sure?

Speaker 5 (17:20):
Which is the.

Speaker 4 (17:21):
Washington guys point of Like, he's just not gonna make
as much money as a Washington linebackers an Alabama linebacker,
no matter how good he is.

Speaker 5 (17:29):
Which is that good or is it not? I don't know.

Speaker 4 (17:32):
And to Livy Dunn's point, she's not gonna make as
much as a football player whether but she's way more
famous than freaking Kevin Brown. And it's like, but because
she's a gymnast like that, I think is value differently.
And like they're saying this, the formula isn't known, but
it does talk through like it's all we know is

(17:53):
that it's based on revenue earned through the sport.

Speaker 5 (17:57):
That's what I think it's.

Speaker 4 (17:58):
Really missing, is it it's trying to separate it out
from nil And I don't think that's super fair to
the athletes at all, because I mean Johnny Manziel is
still the example I think of, and like, yes, he
was good on the football field, but how you made
money was putting his name on T shirts?

Speaker 5 (18:18):
Like so it still is nil.

Speaker 2 (18:21):
Yeah, I yeah.

Speaker 3 (18:24):
What the way she spoke about it initially in terms
of their using outdated you know, measurements for a modern thing.
I almost guarantee, like a very large portion of what
the number was derived from is like how many viewers
watched the game, their game, and there's some multiplier based
on it, So gymnast. I mean, everybody knows who Livy

(18:46):
Done is. I've never tuned into one of her competitions
or even guarantee ticket revenue is part of it too,
yeah so, and which is so stupid, like how much
of it is determined based on their online presence, their
social media presence, which is almost all of their value now,
especially as an individual, it's ninety nine percent of their value. Truly,

(19:11):
their accomplishments on the field do not matter. And if
it's a team sport, there's no way you can derive
like like the viewership or ticket sales based on one person.
There's just no way you can do that, I and
again we're speculating, but yeah, yeah, I don't know how
you do that.

Speaker 4 (19:30):
No, that's one section in this This is almost another
section that's about to start. And this was the one
where I'd like sent it to you because I'm like,
this is so freaking messy, but so interesting what they'll
decide to do here.

Speaker 3 (19:42):
Okay, So the settlement also calls for replacing scholarship limits
with roster a limits. The effect would allow every athlete
to be eligible for a scholarship well, cutting the number
of while cutting the number of spots of AIL. Okay, sorry,
I'm just reading this for the first time. So taking
away scholarship limits and then cutting the roster size correct
a proposal that the judge indicated could be phased in initially,

(20:08):
and there will be winners and losers under such formula,
though some fear could signal the end of walk on
athlete obviously in college sports, in also smaller sports programs
that feed the US Olympic teams, yes, obviously. Steven Molo,
an attorney for the group of athletes objecting the plan,
told the judge that roster limits would unnecessarily limit opportunities.

(20:30):
He noted that football teams would be capped at one
hundred and five and the average roster size in twenty
twenty four was one hundred and twenty eight. In a
free market, Molo said, a team would be able to
have as many players as they want.

Speaker 2 (20:43):
This is so stupid, Wilkins said.

Speaker 3 (20:46):
She understands athletes not chosen to be on the roster
would be disappointed, disappointed it ruins their life, but that
limiting number of athletes on a team is a matter
of fairness. How sorry, she doesn't she's never played a sport.

Speaker 4 (21:03):
The next sentence is somewhat helpful, but it's not sports
based at all.

Speaker 2 (21:07):
It could give some sort of competitive advantage if you
have fifty people running around and sub them in every
couple of minutes. She said.

Speaker 3 (21:15):
That's a different scenario than someone who's got twenty five people.

Speaker 5 (21:19):
So I looked into this a little bit more.

Speaker 4 (21:21):
I'm not defending her, but I here's the thing again,
this is why she's having more hearings.

Speaker 5 (21:26):
She's fucked, just like she's There's no way to get
this right.

Speaker 4 (21:30):
And I'm not saying that is a defense of this
point of hers, but looking into this a bit Basically,
what she's getting at is essentially, of course right, of
course she is acknowledging what you're gonna run into is, well,
if I open this up and there's no limits at all,
then what's to stop If I don't put a roster

(21:53):
limit on it, but say everyone has an access to scholarships, well,
then Alabama could offer twice as many scholarships as Maryland. However,
she's choosing to cut like people will still abuse this
Like I understand her attempting to be like, well, I
have to put limits somewhere, but why would you put

(22:16):
it here when it's like scholarship access, especially to the
scholarship access to walk on athletes or athletes who won't
make it professionally, seems to me to be like the
crux of what little moral value we still put on
college sports is like, well, Kevin Brown's of the world
broke the leg, but at least they still had education

(22:39):
paid for. And now it's like teams are going to
be way more selective of the athletes who get in.
So my big takeaway from this, as much as I
disagree with this section on the judge's outcome, is I
don't want folks to totally forget that this is also
a reason to be pissed at the NCAA, who, no

(23:01):
doubt about it, is putting all of this in the
judge's hands on purpose, rather than having them make the regulations.

Speaker 2 (23:10):
There's already a roster limit.

Speaker 3 (23:11):
Though I know of all the things that everybody's upset with,
nil scholarships, money in general, there has never ever ever
been anyone who's like, the football team needs more people.
There's already a limit set to the point that there's
an average one hundred and twenty eight or one hundred
and twenty four whatever it's said, why are we reducing it?

(23:34):
And by the way, if we reduce it by twenty
people by twenty percent is what they said. Basically, that
doesn't affect anything game day they're talking about, Oh, it
would be an unfair competitive advantage. That doesn't affect game
day roster. That affects the total roster. So you're reducing
the number of people you can have on the team
that can get paid, which does not affect competitive advantage

(23:54):
actually whatsoever, zero percent. But what you're doing is that
means there's less kids who get into school, it's less
kids who get to make money. And by the way,
having less bodies on the football team, less people to develop,
it's gonna lead to a worse product, worse money, less money.
On top of that, there's gonna be less people to
do scout team and everything like that, which means the

(24:17):
star players, the players who are playing every single week,
the ones who you're talking about competitive advantage, You're they're
gonna be worn down. They're gonna suffer more injuries because
you're asking them to do more. So really, cutting this,
you're it's leading to more injuries, it's leading to a
worse product, and it's leading to no competitive advantage whatsoever.
This is someone who doesn't know anything about sports making

(24:37):
a sports decision. It makes no sense.

Speaker 4 (24:40):
No, it doesn't make any sense. It also doesn't make sense,
Like I don't even truly understand. Again, this is where
I'm getting really speculative of. Like they mentioned that. To me,
it seems like maybe this was a if her goal
is to appease both sides on this, she was hosed

(25:02):
from the beginning because if her goal was Okay, I'm
finding that these teams, these schools have to give out
more scholarships or allow everyone on a team to have
a scholarship offer or some kind of peace. And then
those schools came back and went, well, then you have
to make it be less. No, well then then you're not.

(25:25):
Then the schools still get what they want, like they
don't care if it's less like you should uphold both
sides of it. You should make them keep same size
as they are now. Yeah, you know, don't give more
opportunity the less people. If the whole decision was more
opportunities are into your keep the size the same. And
so I am hoping because I agree with everything you said.

(25:47):
So I'm adding on stuff that is just also there,
but no that I agree with it.

Speaker 5 (25:53):
I'm hoping.

Speaker 4 (25:53):
And it says in this next paragraph you're one of
the plaintiff states that like, we can make some of
these adjustments as folks are making cases on some of
these pieces. And then it when it comes out that
maybe this part can be removed because I don't know
why roster size has to be a piece of this,
I'm missing that. In No, it doesn't have to be

(26:15):
the size. It's also not the number one way they're
going to be use this. If anything, you need harsher
limits on how small these rosters could be because schools
will manipulate the shit out of that after this.

Speaker 2 (26:26):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I mean again, can.

Speaker 5 (26:31):
They just cut sports?

Speaker 4 (26:33):
I haven't heard that, like it mentioned very briefly, like
this will know heavily impact non major funding sports. Well,
like can schools choose to keep roster sizes the same
but cut several sports because that's also that's a competitive.

Speaker 2 (26:47):
Advantage, that's a competitive advantage.

Speaker 3 (26:49):
Or the schools who don't have football already and stuff
like that, like that's that's the biggest competitive advantage. You're
talking about Saint John's one of the best basketball teams
in the country this year.

Speaker 2 (26:59):
They don't have a football team.

Speaker 3 (27:00):
How big of a competitive advantage is that they don't
have to pay one hundred and twenty eight guys on
a football team, you know, they can pour all that
into twenty guys for the basketball team or whatever that
would be. That's the biggest competitive advantage of all And
I'm not saying that should be changed either. I think
that's just the advantage of that school. It is what
it is. I'm not going to force them to have

(27:22):
a football team. I'm not going to force them to
have less money to spend.

Speaker 2 (27:26):
It's possible.

Speaker 4 (27:28):
It's impossible to do that without giving someone else a
competitive advantage. So that's why it's silly, like it's okay
to think about those things. But you're just Yeah, if
you're gonna punish somebody to uplift someone else, you're gonna
run into the same exact issues that you're facing now.

Speaker 3 (27:44):
By the way, it's trickled down too. So we're talking
about the five biggest conferences right now. So if we
did this, we're cutting. We're saying every big school has
less players than smaller schools. So then the players who
get cut from the bigger schools are going to go
to the smaller schools to play, and then all the
kids who are currently going to the smaller schools those
opportunities are gone. Yeah, just because for no reason, no

(28:07):
reason whatsoever.

Speaker 4 (28:09):
Yes, I don't know if this is the point I
interject this, but just to make sure I get it
out of here too, because I realize I haven't said
it yet.

Speaker 5 (28:17):
I do want to state my overall feelings on this
is I am.

Speaker 4 (28:24):
I'm pissed at some of her decisions, but I am
still like my main point of anger and frustration is
the NCAA who could have chosen and done a lot
of this in a more organized way or conferences themselves
sooner if they wanted to and cared about their athletes
making a fraction of the insane amount of profits they make,

(28:45):
they could have. I will also say, I guess where
I'm landing on a coming into the article, and as
I read it today and talk about it more with you,
I really respect the athletes who are like, it's not
worth pass the settlement as is, and that's really made
me think. I think I'm still in the camp, and
I don't know if you are, of like I guess,

(29:08):
my decision is always what is the NCAA hoping to happen?
And I think I want the opposite, and I still
think that they're like these don't let this pass. So
I wanted to pass in some form because at the
heart of it, I just do think that we have
to start somewhere on athletes deserve a percentage of money

(29:29):
made off of athletics, not just nil, but like athletics themselves.
And I think this is starting point A but with
everything in college sports, like, I just want folks to
remember that there are people incentivized. I'm making this as
messy as possible. Like, if this was super streamlined, we'd
be done and then they'd have bargaining rights and everything else.

(29:51):
But we're making it super hard on purpose, getting like
that site that does the calculations could be so much better.

Speaker 2 (29:58):
Oh, I mean he could work. I aparently didn't even work.

Speaker 5 (30:01):
Like, what are we doing there like that? There's no
reason that's bad?

Speaker 3 (30:06):
No, no, it makes no sense. Okay, So we're getting
to the end of this first article. So universities across
the country have been busy making plans under the assumption
that the judge will put those terms that we just
talked about due to effect. We're going to have a
plan going out into July first, and we're probably going

(30:27):
to spend next year figuring out how good a plan
that is and how we need to modify it going forward,
said Florida Athletic director. Yeah, it's so stupid. The so
called House Settlement, named after Arizona State swimmer Grant House,
includes three similar lawsuits that were.

Speaker 2 (30:45):
Bundled into one. The defendants are the NCAA and then.

Speaker 3 (30:49):
The Big Five Conferences, the SEC, Big Ten, acc Big twelve,
and rest in peace to the Big Twelve or the
PAC twelve, all of whom have been touting the settlement
as the best path forward for college athletics landscape in turmoil.
It's a huge step forward for college sports, especially at
the highest level, said NCAA President Charlie Baker, whose organization

(31:11):
continues to seek anti trust protections from Congress. The most
ground shifting part of the settlement calls on schools from
the biggest conferences to pay some twenty two percent of
the revenue from media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorships, which
equals about twenty and a half million dollars in the
first year directly to the athletes for their use of
their nil name, image and likeness. Still allowed would be

(31:36):
nil payments to the athletes from outside sources, which is
what triggered the seismic shift in college sports over the
past four years. Anyway, So all this is so we're
talking about the pack or the big power five conferences,
PAC twelve, Big twelve, Big ten, SECACC interesting that Big
East isn't included, by the way, It's actually really interesting.

(32:00):
So the average twenty two percent of the average ticket sales,
media rights, and sponsorships equals twenty and a half millions.

Speaker 2 (32:08):
So for like Alabama institution.

Speaker 3 (32:11):
Right, it has to be a blank they have to
have this number has to be the same twenty and
a half.

Speaker 5 (32:17):
Million, so twenty one institution.

Speaker 3 (32:20):
Yeah, right, So the twenty two percent is the variable
part because twenty and a half million is much less
than twenty two percent of Alabama, but it's probably much
more than twenty.

Speaker 2 (32:31):
Two percent of like Vanderbilt, So that's a little unfair.

Speaker 3 (32:34):
But essentially, all this is is they're saying, instead of
scholarships getting handed out to the athletes, now the school
has to pay twenty and a half million every single
year their athletic program. That's all that's saying. But the nil,
the money that the athletes are currently making, that can
all stay the same. So this is just twenty and
a half million of new money to the players. And

(32:56):
this isn't profit sharing amongst the teams in the way
like sports media rates go.

Speaker 2 (33:00):
This is just a school.

Speaker 3 (33:02):
It has to pay out some of the money that
they've been collecting this entire time.

Speaker 2 (33:06):
Essentially, Yeah, all.

Speaker 4 (33:07):
That's the part I like, like, that's well yeah, right,
Like it's like that's the part in a nutshell, I
agree with, Yeah, pay them this fraction, like you said
some schools for sure are coming on like, well, that's
not fair to us because that's higher than our twenty
two percent.

Speaker 5 (33:24):
And then some schools are very much above that.

Speaker 4 (33:28):
So but by the way, they could change that up too,
like do conferences pool money and then split it proportionally,
like they could do that.

Speaker 5 (33:38):
That's all in there.

Speaker 4 (33:40):
I will one quick plug if you're in the chat today,
thank you so much. As always, thank you Randy for
telling me how jacked I look. Always pick me up,
I look forward to. But if you have questions coming through,
let us know. I agree with Randy that we should
also get money.

Speaker 3 (33:55):
That was what Yeah, I was missing that part of it.
I mean, we should at least get a percent.

Speaker 4 (34:00):
I agree with the judge if there's a part of
you that says we're sponsored, but I did so. We'll
get questions or comments in as they come. I did
want to specifically jump in for this next one because
it was the one I was like, Zach's gonna lose it.
The only NIL implication that goes into specifics on is
we're getting a clearing house involved Zach. It it calls

(34:23):
for clearing house to make sure any NIL deal worth
more than six hundred dollars is pegged at fair market value. Again,
on its surface, fine clearing houses are a whole other
thing you should look into, but it's appeared to be
a challenging set of numbers to settle up.

Speaker 2 (34:38):
This is the flock yeah.

Speaker 4 (34:41):
Prevent straight pay for play deals, though many critics believe
the entire news structure simply nil as garating as that, Yes,
nil is pay for play, Like that's the whole deal
is Like nil exists so schools didn't have to figure
out how to pay their athletes directly. So to try

(35:04):
and separate that out from this, that's gonna be a
freaking nightmare. Like six hundred dollars is an interesting line
to set of that. I'm curious about that too, but again,
and it's hard.

Speaker 2 (35:15):
That's that's tax.

Speaker 3 (35:17):
That's just a tax thing, yeah, because it's gotta be
this is all like, uh, it's individual income, so like
the number already for like my taxes, even like if
I get more than six hundred dollars for a thing,
I have to report it. So I'm guessing it it's
uh listed at six hundred because of that, But it's

(35:37):
saying any an ideal NIL deal worth more than six hundred,
they're gonna they're gonna scout it out and sniff it
out and just make sure it's fair. Like first off,
if it's football, if it's basketball, which is really the
only two sports we're talking about, Yeah, because those are
the ninety five percent of the money. Essentially, that's just
a number I pulled out of the air. It's probably

(35:58):
that's probably high, but you get the point. All those
deals are worth more than six hundred dollars. And we've
already got history from two scrolls up saying that they
don't know how to make formulas pegging value. So now
they're going to determine what's fair market value on current players.
And what a current player is doing today is different
than tomorrow. That's it's nothing like if they say that's

(36:20):
not fair market value, they have no idea, Like, that's
going to be a complete nightmare.

Speaker 2 (36:25):
There's going to be zero clarity in that. That's so stupid.

Speaker 3 (36:30):
The proposal would pay more than two and a half
billion dollars back in damages as well for athletes who
played sports between twenty sixteen twenty twenty four, and we're
not entitled to the full benefits of nil at the
time when they attended schools.

Speaker 2 (36:43):
Those payments will be are being.

Speaker 3 (36:45):
Calculated again by a formula that will favor football and
basketball players because they made all the money and will
be doled out by the NCAA Conferences plaintiff's council. Kessler
told the judge eighty eight thy one hundred and four
college athletes have filed claims to participate in the settlement.
Another thirty thousand have indicated that they will file claims. So, yeah, Jake,

(37:10):
let me know if I'm right on this.

Speaker 5 (37:13):
Maybe they're.

Speaker 3 (37:15):
So they picked twenty sixteen for a reason. Twenty fifteen
who's in the class of twenty fifteen who just missed
out on it. I do believe we're talking about Jameis
Winston and Marcus Mariota who would have made so much
fucking money.

Speaker 2 (37:29):
And I believe the year after that was no, but
it was like Jared Goff was the first overall draft pick.

Speaker 5 (37:36):
So but it's worth it every year.

Speaker 4 (37:38):
You could do this a big, big sports here for
NCAA just because it's fresh on the mind. I agree
with you one hundred percent on the football players, and
they're not the only ones who get screwed on this.
But you know who'd have made so much goddamn money
and did for folks is by school. I don't think
there's been a group of folks who's made more money

(38:00):
randomly for school than the twenty fifteen Badgers basketball team did.

Speaker 2 (38:04):
True, Like that's taking the.

Speaker 4 (38:06):
Comparison, like Alabama always makes money. That's what I mean
by that, Like the Badgers basketball team does not always
make money. And it was like every other school besides
Kentucky's favorite basketball team was that group of Badgers.

Speaker 2 (38:20):
They're on Sports Illustrated cover and they won't get any
of this.

Speaker 5 (38:23):
Neither will that slime bag at Duke who kicked people. Allen.
I'm so sorry those Rudy.

Speaker 2 (38:31):
You don't need to apologize to Grayson Allen.

Speaker 5 (38:32):
That's fine, but you nailed it.

Speaker 4 (38:34):
I want to answer some questions in the chat as
we go, because yeah, we got some big ones in
Randy on the the We're gonna cover that one by
go because that's a big one. Some quick ones from Randy.
The amount of money athletes get separately will depend on this,
uh forila that we've been talking about, and effectively, this

(38:56):
would not only pay a certain past percentage of players
that we're talking about from that twenty sixteen four range.
Assumably this formula would hold going forward until it was
adjusted or impacted by I guess the NCAA, or would
it take a court order to change this formula? Again,
that's a question. And then I have Houston tonight Zach's

(39:18):
ruin for Florida. But the big question is from goat there,
which I really appreciate you.

Speaker 3 (39:26):
Going back to Randy, there's two parts here, So I'm
assuming you're talking about not the past athletes, you're talking
about future. Yes, so that twenty and a half million
they get to at the moment, separated out however they
want to separate it out. But then nil, So all
the money that they are currently receiving at the current moment,
with how it's designed is that doesn't even change. So

(39:48):
it's just how much is your new contract essentially worth
with the school. That's new money, and then all this
nil money should stay the same. However, I can almost
guarantee I don't have like insider knowledge of this at
the moment, but I can almost guarantee there's going to
be like those collectives for schools that are created by

(40:08):
the school where a lot of that nil money's coming from.
Right now, those will get taken away and it's just
going they're just gonna rely on that twenty and a
half million. So at that point, I don't know, they're
gonna have to rework all these contracts. And that's the
biggest issue right now. I think in nil like there
is no contracts. There's kids getting absolutely screwed, and there's

(40:29):
no like framework on anything, and that's the big part
that's gonna have to get figured out after they figure
out the money that they have to work with.

Speaker 4 (40:36):
Well, and to Goat's question, one of the impacts they're
just directly tie from it, and he had to follow up
one of any new info today. One of the things
that the judge is open hearing on is testimony from
Levy Dune, so they could one of the things I
think they would obviously be ruling on is that nil
pieces does your nil worth impact this formula or should

(41:00):
And so that's been one of the things I think
has been most in the air. Yeah, to go specific thing,
I'll read it out for folks. I'm a part of
the class action for Power five Football, but my last
year was twenty eighteen so only eligible for one year.
My estimate payout is forty three thousand dollars, and then
later they add in I have two I have teammates

(41:21):
two years younger with payouts of two hundred and fifty thousand.
That to me, go, first off, that sucks. I'm so
that really stated. I would say the new info is
that apparently the settlements that were thought to be you know,
everyone's been acting like this is going to go into effect.
As we've explained, the judge has reopened it. So this

(41:44):
is going to happen. But could there be changes to
it that's actively being discussed, and we might go into
any live updates now.

Speaker 5 (41:53):
But I would say to that point.

Speaker 4 (41:56):
There that you're really asking about is I do think
what change and what they've discussed specifically in there today
is that ear range that you're talking about. Is we
see some places, say twenty sixteen, some places twenty eighteen.
If they change that, that could impact the amount of
money folks make. They could also impact this formula of
like when they say percentage of income. To Zach's point,

(42:20):
like that twenty and a half million is set, but
they could decide, you know, how well did your team
do that year. Should that make an impact like schools
have that right when it comes to past athletes. That
seems to be up in the area yet. So those
are some of the things we're talking about but got
sorry about. I mean, just how shitty it is that

(42:41):
that payout difference is so much. But we appreciate you
sharing some of that info because it's super helpful to
talk about for sure.

Speaker 2 (42:47):
So let's get into the live updates here. USA today
has those.

Speaker 3 (42:52):
I mean, right off the bat, the judge said she
would not be ruling today, so I guess that's an
important point to just say, yeah, right off the top,
and again this is we're looking at this for the
first time, so excuse me as we jump around here.
The judge says she needs a pro competitive justification for
the proposed system under the settlement that would set up

(43:13):
a more stringent evaluation by the NC double A and
conferences of the athletes and IL deals that are worth
more than six hundred That is, how would this promote
competition for athletes and IL services and how would it
not hurt athletes? I will say as much of a
dufist that I think this judges and she knows nothing
that's going on in terms of how sports operate. I

(43:34):
appreciate that she's at least like listening to feedback and
like actually seemingly open to ideas, right, Like she's open
to like listening to the people who know what they're
talking about. I like that that's something that maybe we
can become. We should implement that more in decision making
in terms of government.

Speaker 2 (43:53):
That's all interesting.

Speaker 4 (43:54):
Yeah, I think this next quote is pretty telling, right.
I think the NC double A coming out in so
stretch such strong support of the current settlement again is
red flag for me anytime they're like do it, do it?

Speaker 5 (44:06):
Do it.

Speaker 4 (44:07):
She even says she's asking NCAA lawyer Rakesh Karu, sorry
if I butchered that about due process issues for future
college athletes, and he's rejecting her idea of having the
possibility of different rules for different class years. So that
goes to what we were talking about with Gout, like
of course that should what like why wouldn't it be
different year by year? Like we need a ten year agreement?

Speaker 2 (44:30):
He says, brother, Yeah, like what's twenty thirty five gonna
look like? The n double A is not going to exist.
That's all you're trying to do is save them.

Speaker 4 (44:38):
Well, and that's the whole thing. That's why I totally
get Livy done in. Some of these other folks like
to lock into this with I hope what the judge
is really fighting for, which is so fair.

Speaker 5 (44:49):
This should not be locked in. This has to be adjusted.

Speaker 2 (44:55):
And not by her.

Speaker 5 (44:56):
I don't blame her, being like, why me right? Why
am I the final decision on this. That's never had
a decision before.

Speaker 3 (45:04):
So the NCAA's lawyer says, we need a ten year agreement.
There's got to be the same rules for everyone. We
need ten years. Without that, there won't be stability, there
won't be a deal. The judge says, go over it
again with your people. There are rules. It may be technical,
but there are rules in the law of concerning due process.
So she says, hey, go fuck yourself, and then now

(45:27):
he has to go do that. The judge's idea on
dealing with roster limits, this is the one I guess
I'm almost upset about. She returns to the issue of this, saying,
my idea is grandfathering. So it's not that many people,
it's not that much money. She added, it would be
a good will move that would result resolve a lot

(45:50):
of the drain. So she's just saying we're gonna make
the rule of the roster limits, but everyone who's currently
on roster they're just gonna be grandfathered in and be
good to go. Wilkins suggests that to the NCAA's lawyer,
and he says, I'll talk to my client, get back
to you, and.

Speaker 5 (46:10):
He pushes back, drama.

Speaker 3 (46:12):
Yeah, I know Trava that he's smacked her. He says,
independent of the settlement, a coach could cut an athlete
at any point and could reneg a roster spot commitment
to a high school recruit as long as an athletics
scholarship commitment is honored. He continues that roster limits are

(46:33):
part of the overall settlement and the issue before the
judge today is whether the overall settlement is reasonable. He
adds that roster limits, in combination with the lifting of
all scholarship limits, increases competition and opportunity for athletes. It's
a benefit for them. He adds that the roster limits
were not reached arbitrarily, but based on the total number

(46:55):
of athletes who actually participate in competitions in the various
sports over the course of the season. I agree on
that part. I agree on that part with him and
the NC double A. There shouldn't be there should be
a roster limit. I just don't know why we're fucking
touching it, like it should just be what it is currently.
In addition, he says roster limits the roster limits issue

(47:17):
affects a small number of folks compared to hundreds of
thousands covered by the settlement.

Speaker 2 (47:22):
Okay, yeah, I guess yeah.

Speaker 3 (47:26):
Judge pressing lawyers about claims of future college athletes. The
judges acting asking questions about how future athletes interests would
be represented under the ten year settlement being proposed. The
plaintiff's lawyer, Jeff Kessler, explains that incoming athletes annually will
be presented with a notice of opportunity to raise objections
with the court.

Speaker 2 (47:45):
Of course they would.

Speaker 3 (47:47):
They would be advised to consult a lawyer or a parent.
This would allow athletes and or a judge to respond
to changes in circumstances in college sports. This would mean
future athletes' rights are not being bargained away.

Speaker 2 (48:01):
That's good.

Speaker 3 (48:02):
We think this is a totally consistent with due process.
The judge seems reluctant on the issue whether there are
legal precedences. I understand the question. The plaintiff's lawyer says
he thinks the annual review would cover the issue. Then

(48:22):
the enemy, Rakeshlario comes in. He's stormed in from the shadows,
attorney for the NC double A, reiterates that the future
of college athletes will be able to come before a
court in the same way that current and former athletes
have been able to come before.

Speaker 2 (48:40):
The court, which is what Rakesh none. This is the issue, brother, Yes.

Speaker 4 (48:47):
And it seems like where his line in the sand
is the NC double a's line. The stand not to
bury it all on this lawyer who's a mouthfeast. But
you suck to Rakesh. But they don't want which I understand,
and in the vacuum, I'm not rooting for them, but
I guess I get it. What they don't want is
it to become a process in itself where students, could

(49:10):
you know, within their school or whatever object to this.

Speaker 5 (49:13):
They want there to be enough barriers where.

Speaker 4 (49:16):
Every time they think some they're not getting paid what
it is, they have to make a legal case out
of it. Well, that obviously limits the number of objections
they're gonna get rather than the NCAA having to, I
don't know, police their own bullshit because that would be
new for them to try and do that. So that'sm
I also think God said this way earlier. But this

(49:39):
for sure is going to spawn into several lawsuits. I mean,
we're gonna have a whole d of not only future years,
but if they come out and they say, we get
a clearing house out of here to come and say well,
these nil deals were fair or unfair. I mean you're
gonna get all these folks come out and say, well,
my nil deal was for sure not fair.

Speaker 5 (50:00):
These new standards, where's my work? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (50:03):
By the way, everybody's value is going to be unfair.

Speaker 5 (50:08):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (50:09):
Do you think I was wondering this because I was.
You know, I always get a little suspicious when the
NCAA sports any part of this. The nc double A
seems supportive of some independent agency coming in and saying, here,
this nil deal was fair or unfair. Do you think
this leaves the door open? I think it does, and
that's shitty as well. Do you think this leaves the

(50:30):
door open? Like I'm an athlete, I sign a NIL
deal with that I don't know Hooters, and I'm a
really good basketball player, and then I break my fucking leg.
Do I owe Hooters my money back?

Speaker 5 (50:44):
Like?

Speaker 3 (50:44):
So that's that's the whole thing that I'm most concerned about,
and that this current.

Speaker 2 (50:51):
Situation isn't getting This doesn't really cover that.

Speaker 3 (50:56):
Just the contracts of college athletes, how that's going to
be figured out. That's what needs a complete overhaul, needs
restrictions because that's still the wild West. Like there needs
to be whether it's a per game paycheck, whether it's
you know, whatever it is, that needs to be very
much specified. And especially this first wave, this first few years,

(51:17):
like kids are essentially representing themselves these random ass agents
that aren't really you know, they're just pop up agents
just trying to collect a quick buck. They're predators on
these kids and signing all these terrible deals. The people
handing out the money are signing terrible deals. It's you know,
it's gonna be It's like, yeah, it's.

Speaker 4 (51:39):
Also the point of that, the point of this shouldn't
be the NCAA clawing back as much money as they can. Listen,
that's how contracts work. That's the NCAA doesn't want to
end up in a situation where money is guaranteed. But
that's how sponsorship goes. Like do you think Livy don
sponsors give a shit how she finishes at the you
know meets she does us, or that she's just Livy Dunn,

(52:02):
you know, like.

Speaker 2 (52:03):
And she a bad example, I think. But I get
your point. Yeah, I think they do.

Speaker 5 (52:09):
Though they care to an extent, but I think there's
a piece of them that makes the same money.

Speaker 4 (52:16):
I'll use it. I'll use the McNeese manager. They care
to an extent, but they make the same money off
of them somewhat regardless of what they do on the court. Obviously,
they are gonna pay folks who are more known for
their output more than others, as they should.

Speaker 3 (52:31):
But it's like it's like I was saying before, they
you know that that Washington linebacker is the one who
spoke up saying, correct, I make less money than people
who are less accomplished than me. What you do on
the field is partially included in what your personal value is,
but it's not all of it. And you know, social

(52:52):
media is the biggest thing. There's a lot of people
huge on social media that are not talented.

Speaker 2 (52:57):
They suck.

Speaker 3 (52:58):
They are whatever they are, but they're valuable because it's
all about clicks, it's all about these, it's all about
all of that. So Livvy Dune's a bad example, just
because again I have never watched one of her competitions
that almost none of her target market has either, but
very she's very popular, so they don't care about Livvy Dun's.

Speaker 2 (53:17):
It's like the the.

Speaker 3 (53:19):
You know their name because they think they're as signed
to ww's, but the twins down in Miami who played
basketball for twenty years.

Speaker 2 (53:26):
Oh, I don't think they're good at basketball, but you know,
it is what it is.

Speaker 4 (53:32):
That's one hundred percent. I and I don't know their name,
but I agree completely. I think as you were saying it,
I found my articulation, which is one percent. Now that
you've said it, I'm like, what they need to do
and they're just not there yet is exactly what Livvy Done,
I guess, is articulating for. And despite her case not

(53:52):
being the best one, however they calculate this has to
somewhat include name brand value because yeah, because on one hand,
exactly what you're saying. On one hand, the guy from
Washington maybe didn't make as much money as you know
Monte Tea or whoever who's obviously bigger name value.

Speaker 5 (54:13):
But on the other hand, you know Kevin Ware and
I can tell you his name.

Speaker 4 (54:19):
Yeah, Like and you know, should my boy Kevin have
gotten a Mayo Clinic sponsorship? I like to think so
we can get on the whole rehab spin off. Like,
so right now they're trying to separate that out. I
was just going to tie in one of this other paragraph.
Raqush gave the game away. We were alluding to it earlier.
Judge literally asked, could I approve part of the settlement

(54:42):
but not the others? And Quess says no, the NCAA
would like you to approve it in bulk, which I mean,
that's what they're going for right so, very interestingly, because
we haven't talked about it, and just to put it
in quick, has not yet decided the role of the
College Football Playoff. You mentioned that earlier, that being a

(55:02):
separate entity from the nc double A. I think that
will be very very telling because here's what you gotta know, folks.
If they decide the college Football Playoff is separate from this, well,
then there goes March madness. They'll separate that out too,
and then we'll have everything separated from the conferences themselves.

Speaker 3 (55:23):
Right right, I mean college football playoffs a separate entity
from NC DOUBLEA. And it's the first step of college
football forming its own league and getting separate from the
NC DOUBLEA, which is going to happen. And if March
Madness does the same thing in college basketball can separate
themselves from the NC Double A. Boy, the NCUBA is
has no power anymore, which is what we are all

(55:45):
shooting for.

Speaker 2 (55:47):
Goat really quick.

Speaker 3 (55:48):
I do have a question for you, since you are
more personally like intertwined with this in terms, like I'm
trying to figure out in my personal mind, like what
is the best way to frame college contracts and these
deals going forward. And there's pros and cons to absolutely everything.
So my idea does not have you know, it's not

(56:12):
like it has zero cons, right, but in my mind,
going doing a two year contract, two year contracts with
all of these players, I feel like that's the way
to do it. So like, if these schools are signing
on these these kids out of high school, it should
be a two year contract so they're not hopping in
transfer portals. Willy Nilly but it also provides the kids

(56:34):
some stability. And the contracts coming from the school obviously
very different than nil, so it wouldn't be performance based,
it wouldn't be game based, it wouldn't be anything like that.
But then you have a two year deal with the
kid that you just signed from high school, so freshman
sophomore year, and then you know what the contracts up.
Can they hit the transfer portal and find another two

(56:54):
year deal and that doesn't diminish or get rid of
the fact that they could go to college after three years,
you know, talking football or whatever. For basketball, you can
opt out of the deal and go to pro. You
would probably forfeit x amount of money. It's probably paid
out as a year by year basis, but the contract
itself is a two year deal. I feel like that
covers that is a pro to the school.

Speaker 2 (57:17):
It's a pro to the sport in terms.

Speaker 3 (57:18):
Of people wanting to get rid of the hopping in
the transfer portal every year, but it's the pro to
the kid as well, because there's a defined amount of
money and you have a guaranteed to have it be
fully guaranteed assuming you stay with the school right or
stay in the sport. Like, I think that helps everybody
and it's the same as a scholarship essentially. Like that's
how I feel like it should be designed.

Speaker 5 (57:40):
Yeah, I'll be.

Speaker 4 (57:41):
I'll talk until go tights in if they're still around,
hopefully they are. But I think how they'd want that
frame for a contract is huge.

Speaker 5 (57:51):
Some natural things that will pop up. I love that.

Speaker 4 (57:55):
I think this is how I know I really like
it is because I think what will meetia we happened
is then the NFL will get involved. So you know
you're on the right level because they'll go, what do
you mean you're guaranteeing money? True, because we don't want
to do that. Yeah, and so Goat says in there
definitely a pro but if someone brings more money, they'll

(58:17):
probably dip out, and that is another wrinkled to have
to think of it.

Speaker 5 (58:20):
I love that Goat because.

Speaker 3 (58:22):
But that's what I'm saying. They'll dip out after two years.
But the two year deal is the two year deal,
is what I'm saying, And.

Speaker 4 (58:29):
It's the transfer portal. They wouldn't be able to transfer
during that contract, which they need anyway. Separate to this,
they need limits on transferring.

Speaker 2 (58:39):
Yes, this is a partially side thought yes, because.

Speaker 4 (58:43):
Yeah, I would also be curious if Goat has any
insight on as someone who's a former athlete in all
of this, do you care at all what happens next?
Not in like the like insincerely because it's like, I'm
a little it makes me think slightly and sorry to
bring this into folks don't think it's the same thing,

(59:04):
but it made me think of the argument of like
college student loan forgiveness, which is they basically did several
separate polls where it's like forgiving future college stone loan
forgiveness was a whole lot less popular than forgiving stuff
that's already happened, because everyone who had already paid for
it was like, what the fuck?

Speaker 5 (59:23):
What about me?

Speaker 4 (59:24):
So I didn't know if there were any thoughts there
of like that feels like these should be two separate cases,
like pay folks like going everyone else what they made,
and like, let's also set up a future thing for this.

Speaker 3 (59:40):
Just go I'm sharing in the chat if you do
want to share any more about like what you're going
through or like other things or anyone else as well
former teammates are going through. Yeah, I just dropped my
email there. If you ever want to connect, you know,
I could either write a story about it on my site,
or if you just want to talk about it, I
won't share anything as well. That's fine as well, but

(01:00:01):
that's my email and then fantasy flurry on Twitter. Let
me know if you ever want to connect and talk
about this and share anything. Can be anonymous, can be public,
does not matter. But I think that would be very
interesting from somebody from your point of view.

Speaker 2 (01:00:16):
And he also says he was.

Speaker 3 (01:00:18):
Pre NIL, so I think two to three years after
nil was added, so not really.

Speaker 2 (01:00:23):
But yeah, if you have anything, yeah, fair enough. If
you have anything you want to share, go for it.

Speaker 5 (01:00:29):
I appreciate all the input today. It's been awesome.

Speaker 2 (01:00:32):
Yeah, for sure.

Speaker 3 (01:00:34):
Possible impediment to the judge's final approval, another objector group's lawyer,
Andrew Ellis, started making a presentation. The judge immediately redirected
him towards the issues of the legality of the settlements
that pertains the future of athletes, since it was a
proposed settlement that would be for ten years. The judge says,
can you have a class of future people who aren't

(01:00:57):
known yet? Can you release claims for things that haven't
occurred yet. The judge says that, in his view, the
only way to achieve less and bees for there to
be a separate set of lawyers working to represent those interests,
rather than the current situation in which the plaintiff's lawyers
are representing current athletes, former athletes, and future athletes.

Speaker 4 (01:01:19):
Yes, separating the time scales of this, which it sounds
like the judge would be in favor of too.

Speaker 2 (01:01:24):
Maybe ye judge accepts this view.

Speaker 3 (01:01:27):
It would be a major impediment of her dranting final approval.
And then they break for lunch. Isn't that great?

Speaker 5 (01:01:34):
Title nine? She's skeptical.

Speaker 2 (01:01:36):
Here we go, me too. The judge is skeptical of
Title nine.

Speaker 3 (01:01:43):
Objectors lawyer is representing four female athletes, including lacrosse star
Charlotte North. She argues against how little the damages would
go to women. The judge says, we can't solve all
these problems retrospectively.

Speaker 2 (01:01:58):
It's too bad. Dot that's there. The argument from objectors
here is that the schools have been allowed to pay
nil payments to athletes absent from the restrictions. Those payments
would have been subject to Title nine gender equity requirements,
but Yeah, she's just saying, you know, it's focused on

(01:02:21):
football and basketball. It is what it is. Those are
the big money makers.

Speaker 3 (01:02:24):
Those the people who are missing out of money, and
the female athletes, you know, of course, or just being like, hey,
what about us it would have been under Title nine.

Speaker 2 (01:02:34):
They're saying, eh, and.

Speaker 4 (01:02:36):
I'd like it to be a little kind to her.
She's basically like, I can't do that today.

Speaker 2 (01:02:42):
Not a miracle worker.

Speaker 4 (01:02:43):
Yeah, I'm a little sympathetic too, but I do think
it kind of also cuts to the heart of this,
which is listen, Title nine is a piece of it.
But along with that also is the reality of how
much of this is specifically tied to how much money
that sport made. Because if that's the case, then I

(01:03:07):
don't think it makes us look a certain way to
say the male sports make more money. It just does
so as a generality talking that broadly, obviously there's exceptions
like Libby Dunn or specific schools like you know, like
Nebraska volleyball makes a shit ton of money and probably
outperforms you know, Nebraska baseball. But like, as a rule,

(01:03:30):
Title nine's not gonna come in and be like you
have to pay everyone the same based on gender, based
on income.

Speaker 5 (01:03:38):
That's not what's happening. It's it's income revenue based, or
at least I think I think that's part of the formula.
I guess we don't know, you know.

Speaker 3 (01:03:47):
Yeah, interestingly here we got some corruption on their side.
Now the plaintide so Washington football player that we talked
to before, and Less You've done, are both saying that
the plaintiff's lawyers want to get their fees and move on.

Speaker 2 (01:04:03):
They just want to go back to work.

Speaker 3 (01:04:05):
Levey done again, talks about that the damages the number
that was given to her doesn't come close to recognizing
the value that she'd lost. Not a personal detail, but
a warning sign. I knew the numbers were wrong, and
I had proved, she said. The plaintiffs lawyers that are
overseeing the damage distributions are receiving hundreds of millions and
fees as much as seven hundred and seventy five million

(01:04:26):
dollars over ten years based on their filings in court.
They don't know the data being received, so they're just
there to collect nearly a billion dollars. And yeah, that
is that that's not really a no, no surprising.

Speaker 4 (01:04:41):
Also, just to highlight this question again from go. We
did not join the zoom call today, but this article
that folks can find from the USA today is a
breakdown of live updates I think mainly from that zoom call.
So if you want to follow this, this is what
this article is pertaining to.

Speaker 2 (01:04:58):
Yes, and now, my girl, Gracelynd lautermilch sick name. She says,
no one can explain why.

Speaker 3 (01:05:07):
Honestly, no one can explain why roster limits are good bingo,
thank you very much. She's a high school runner from Pennsylvania,
appearing today without an attorney. Badass because there's no one
representing her interest in the settlement. I understand, let me
do it. I'll help you out. As she wrote in
her filed objection, she made a decision amongst several colleges,

(01:05:30):
and then the coach then told her that there would
not be a spot for her. She did not identify
the school. No one can explain to me why roster
limits are good for anyone. And addressing the judge, she says,
our futures in your heads. I'll love a good guilt trip,
Thank you very much. Another athlete speaks gutas swimmer Utah

(01:05:53):
swimmer Gannon Flynn, speaking about roster limits as well, says
that because the proposed roster limits, athletes are already being
told to transfer or quit. He calls the proposed limits
cruel and I'm sure the judge would then just talk
about the grandfathered in rule, but still I don't think
it's a good thing. Citing participation data collected by the

(01:06:14):
US Department of Education, Flynn says that more than fifty
three hundred athletes will lose their roster spots.

Speaker 2 (01:06:21):
Under the proposed limits.

Speaker 3 (01:06:22):
He says this is not taking into accounts that teams
that could get dropped bingo, and he cites that recent
decisions by cal Poly to drop swimming in Virginia to
drop diving. So, yes, fifty three hundred athletes probably won't
lose their jobs right because of the grandfathered in rule.
There will be programs that drop out right away that
will cause those cuts. But we're talking about fifty three

(01:06:45):
hundred future athletes that won't have those spots.

Speaker 2 (01:06:48):
Then, yes, spot, I think it exist.

Speaker 3 (01:06:50):
Yah, Yeah, it's just as important what's at stake today,
And we kind of already went through this. So the
two point eight billion in damages those favorite football and
basketball men's obviously not Caitlin Clark.

Speaker 2 (01:07:06):
She got that money. Other things titled nine Big Deal.

Speaker 3 (01:07:14):
But bu sports by sports scholarship limits, replacing him with
roster limits. We talked about no ruling today, what will
be your dress today? Lengthy stuff.

Speaker 4 (01:07:30):
Oh, that's interesting that eighty eight thousand who have accepted
settlements or claims is only about those eligible.

Speaker 3 (01:07:39):
That is yeah, stuff, that is telling. Ted Cruz has
emerged from the darkness and is prepared to introduce a
bill that will provide immunity of her cruise has not
gone beyond discussion of the draft provide limited protection skills.
He's kind of heading up this whole thing, which is

(01:07:59):
kind of interesting.

Speaker 2 (01:08:00):
Yeah, yeah, it's still kind of the same stuff here.

Speaker 4 (01:08:06):
It also painted in a perspective like it's important to
remember that again, the big incentive here is is the
NCAA wants this past.

Speaker 5 (01:08:17):
Now. They've already agreed to this settlement.

Speaker 4 (01:08:20):
They have acknowledged they have to pay something, they have
to pay something, They've already lost that particular case. They
are trying to get out of this with of course,
which I mean this anyone would do. They're trying to
get out of this basically as unscaped as possible. That's
why I think it's kind of bullshit that the rosterpiece
has to be in there, because they're basically saying, well,

(01:08:41):
if you're gonna make us pay people, at least let
us pay less people. It's like, well, isn't that the
whole deal is that you have to pay the same amount.

Speaker 5 (01:08:49):
But I I will be.

Speaker 4 (01:08:53):
Interested since the judges opened this up so much, if
she's gonna toss it to another court now that everyone's
ready to do this by July.

Speaker 3 (01:09:01):
Yeah, yeah, so yeah, a lot of this is about
roster limits here right now. The judge has questions about
the future, saying the ten year old playing kickball in
the asphalt would not be aware of this settlement. Just
talking about the roster limits. Yeah yeah, same here. She
thought about that one during lunch. The NCAA lawyer rakesh.

Speaker 4 (01:09:26):
Kickball the asphalt. There's not a whole lot of kickball
scholarships out there. You could figure any of the sports
you were representing today.

Speaker 2 (01:09:34):
That's what I'm saying. She doesn't know what's going on.

Speaker 4 (01:09:38):
She goes through, she goes she answered the closet says
every school's got to have a kickball team.

Speaker 5 (01:09:44):
That's kind of what I want.

Speaker 3 (01:09:46):
For some reason, I pictured not her saying that quote,
but the detective from Knife's Out as thought, you know,
fog Horn, Leghorn or whatever his name is.

Speaker 5 (01:09:55):
Love this. She gives rock Cash a piece of her mind.

Speaker 3 (01:09:59):
Okay, so so the Rockkesh is arguing in favor of
the settlement, extols the virtues of scholarship limits being eliminated
in favor of roster limits. The judge cuts them off.
Love that says that's small. Uh, that's small comfort to
the ones who don't get the roster spot or the scholarship.
She expresses particular concern for the athletes who have made

(01:10:19):
school choices based on having roster spots available and then
being told unceremoniously that they wouldn't have one. Kilari, who
says it's the settlement as a whole, that's that issue.
He says, you wouldn't have the revenue sharing through school
and il deals with athletes without roster limits. Judge asks
about fav in phase in for roster limits. Claria continues

(01:10:43):
talking about the merits of no scholarship limits versus roster limits.
The judge asked whether there could be uh, you know,
you know, a grandfathered in period a period essentially. Again,
the attorney response, that's not part of the settlement deal.
That's required not only negotiations with plaintiffs, but to get
the schools to agree to it.

Speaker 2 (01:11:04):
Blah blah, blah blah blah.

Speaker 3 (01:11:07):
Steve Molo, a lawyer for a group of objectors, says
that he is not here to blow up the settlement,
but it needs to be fair. He argues, it isn't
with regard to the start of roster limits. In a
free market, he says, schools can have as many as
they want. The judge says, why isn't there a competitive
advantage program problem? He says nah. She says, do you

(01:11:29):
want scholarships or roster limits? He said neither, so that's
not going anywhere.

Speaker 4 (01:11:38):
Yeah, and then some of those other pieces aren't getting traction,
which is also why I think the roster limits are there. Yeah,
and just to keep shouting out, the chat said something
funny was just thirty percent my payout is going up.
That will also be The question is just whoever claims
gets a bigger piece of the pie because they've already

(01:12:00):
pablished how much money I don't think so.

Speaker 3 (01:12:01):
But they got a formula to determine how much you're worth.
They got it already figured out, and then.

Speaker 4 (01:12:07):
From the sounds of it, it's fucked. But hopefully they
the formula has got to be fixed. I've been waiting
for them to come up. But listen, no one likes
the roster limits. Neither do we. I mean, that's that's
coming across in all these pieces here. I hope she
sees that and goes that has to be separate from
this case. And I know the enda is trying to

(01:12:31):
keep it desperately part of that. But that seems to
be where we're at right now on this case. Is
that's the most recent update. But I guess Zach, as
we get to the end of that update article there,
what are your thoughts and folks in the check and
jump into like, what are your thoughts on is our

(01:12:52):
hope here that this passes? Is our hope here that
this is altered before it passes, or somewhere in between
or something else.

Speaker 3 (01:13:00):
At the moment, it sounds like she can't the judge
can't do part of it, like it's either all or nothing.
So my hope is it does not pass at the
current moment, like it has to be tweaked.

Speaker 2 (01:13:11):
There's so many.

Speaker 3 (01:13:14):
As with anything, like, there's little things that get snuck
in under the big issue, and the roster limits thing
was kind of snuck in and everyone's like, wait a minute, no, absolutely,
no one's in favor of that. As we can see
at the end here there's another objector in roster limits.
There's somebody before that who also objected. He just didn't
explain himself well, and the judge said she wasn't following

(01:13:35):
what he was saying. But obviously the school needs to
share revenue that they're making with the players. I think
that makes sense. Then after that gets agreed upon, and
I think the number it seems like is already agreed upon,
then it's that's step one of like many. At that point,
then they have to figure out what does that look like,

(01:13:56):
and how are these contracts constructed? Who's created these contracts.
We have so many schools now in individual programs hiring
an athletic director or non athletic director, a general manager
rather like a lot of that's falling under them.

Speaker 2 (01:14:10):
But there's going to have to be one person.

Speaker 3 (01:14:12):
Working with the athletic director who's just the you know,
not money manager, but they're kind of just the finance
manager who's constructing these deals, signing these deals, and they
have to be very transparent for these athletes. That's going
to be the next big step after that. So hopefully
that number can at least get agreed upon before before summer,

(01:14:37):
you know what I mean, or before the next fall,
and then that process can start. But at that point,
I think revenue share needs to happen. It needs to
be set roster limits doesn't make sense. Just have it
be a specific set number that we already have, and
then schools can determine what they want to do with it.
But then there needs to be security in place for

(01:14:57):
the athletes in terms of how these contracts are made.
And then finally we can finally have some sort of
NIL that makes sense. But it sounds like we're going
to jump into this next new chapter of NIL with
even less restraints and even less I mean I read
this earlier. There's already two schools that have announced once

(01:15:21):
this I think it's Colorado, which made no sense, and
then another one once this gets past where the school
has the revenue share the twenty and a half million
dollars they're going to get rid of the collectives that
they created, which is the thing that is the nil
for their school, so they're replacing it with the twenty

(01:15:41):
and a half million. So theoretically that's worse off for
the player, and it's less money for the player. That
makes no sense too, So yes, and that's what.

Speaker 4 (01:15:51):
Out of this is that piece of it I hope.
I guess My hope is that this can pass with
the common sense pieces added to it. And I don't
know if that's possible, but it seems like everyone involved
should want the formula to be fixed. Yeah, And I
say fixed in the sense of you're still gonna have

(01:16:12):
outliers like Livydn. I believe will probably remain an outlier,
but it has to better incorporate brand value for lack
of a better term, and it has to better incorporate
like their actual generated revenue. Like from the sounds of it,
it's so random, well least you know on school and
different pieces that because otherwise, and I guess this is

(01:16:35):
the least they could do. I'm also imagining your contract
suggestion of can we start on the path too. At
the very least, folks could separately sue if they weren't
given the right amount. Could we set up what is
the arbitration process for this? I feel like that has
to be established when this passes. I can't just if

(01:16:57):
we set this up with another court date in ten years,
it's not helpful either. And also my last piece on
it with your contract piece is these folks are employees.
They should they should have employee rights at this stage,
like we're still dancing around. It started at the very
beginning of the first article we read. The NCAA is

(01:17:18):
desperately trying to get antitrust rights in different pieces because
they want to beat the athletes to the punch of
oh shit, you're you have legal rights as employees now.

Speaker 2 (01:17:30):
Well, the biggest issue with this whole thing is that
it's three lawsuits.

Speaker 5 (01:17:34):
In one correct.

Speaker 2 (01:17:35):
So yeah, Like.

Speaker 3 (01:17:37):
I think what they kind of figured out the twenty
and a half million the revenue share thing, I think
that's good. Great, if we could pass that today and
that's it great. I think the determining the value and
paying out nil damages essentially to the former players of
the past decade or so, that needs to get tweaked
because there needs to be more clarity and it needs

(01:17:58):
to be represented upper value better, and then just going
forward in terms of how they spend the money in
roster limits and all of that that needs to get better.
So there's like three huge chunks of this thing, and
obviously the nc double A is like, you gotta pass
it all at once. If you want this one huge thing,
which is common sense and everybody's saying yes to, then

(01:18:18):
you got to sign these other two things to bail
us out. And hopefully somehow there's some solution, like you said,
to get to this end passing where we don't have
to give into the NCAA for these other bullshit things,
but and not have a ten year deal. By the way,
that's stupid. I just don't know if that's going to happen.

(01:18:39):
If if that somehow happens, then this is gonna get
drawn out for over a week for sure.

Speaker 4 (01:18:45):
Yeah, and maybe that's where we're at with it. I
don't who knows, Because what I don't know is if
the judge is also surprised at oh not, well this
is currently set up, I don't know, you.

Speaker 2 (01:18:56):
Know, surprised to all of us really, So it's interesting.

Speaker 4 (01:19:01):
I appreciate all the discourse on this today, but obviously
from us. Always a good combo, but I appreciate all
the input on chat.

Speaker 5 (01:19:09):
I think my last thot with it too is like, yeah,
past the shared revenue.

Speaker 4 (01:19:13):
Also, I think, like, not every athlete's gonna love this,
but yes, pass bringing in a clearinghouse to freaking evaluate
that has to be edited and shouldn't be christ none
of this, even the twenty point five million, I hate
that that is even stamped, can't be altered, can't be changed,
Like all of this should have more flexibility than it

(01:19:36):
seems it has. But I do understand. I'm hoping that
that is a pathway into NIL needs more structure. Yeah,
if that's a starting point for it, then I'm on
board for that.

Speaker 2 (01:19:49):
But yeah, I don't love.

Speaker 4 (01:19:50):
It as is, but I wish those two pieces could
happen right now. Also, no one and everyone's coming out
of the woodworks. We gotta swimmer from the Utah. We
got a football playing from Washington. No one likes the
roster sized cuts. We got a random runner from high school.

Speaker 2 (01:20:04):
Yeah she's a badass too. I liked her.

Speaker 4 (01:20:07):
Yeah me too. So it's like no one likes these
except rock Cash.

Speaker 2 (01:20:13):
Yeah that's son of a bitch.

Speaker 3 (01:20:16):
He's back at his home hanging from the sea leg
right now with his arms crossed.

Speaker 2 (01:20:20):
I hate that guy.

Speaker 3 (01:20:22):
But your point with the clearinghouse, I think the general
purpose of what you know, giving him a lot of credit,
the general purpose that what they're trying to accomplish with
it is good. And what that is is just there's
some general overseeing body that is making sure the players
don't get fucked over with a deal. And if that's

(01:20:42):
all it is, that's great. But they're already proving they
can't determine what proper value is. So yeah, the issue
the issues they're not determining proper value with their own
money that they're paying out. I think they're going to
be better at determining proper value with these independent things
if they're not paying the money. And hopefully this is

(01:21:05):
the next issue. Hopefully the clearing house doesn't take a
percentage where it's like every nil deal that the player
brings in, Hey, obviously we're making sure we're covering your
back and because of that, one percent does go to
the NC DOUBLEA because we protected you.

Speaker 4 (01:21:23):
We can't have that, no, and like can it be
brought in on a case by case basis, Like that
has to be established too.

Speaker 5 (01:21:32):
I also think again, is.

Speaker 4 (01:21:36):
Anything that gets the NCUBLEA less involved I'm in favor of.
But I do think big overhanging thing in all of this,
because it will be how they decide to pass this
buck is. The judge also has a really hard job
in trying to pass something that probably encapsulates all of
college including conferences, not just NC DOUBLEA, because otherwise it's

(01:22:00):
mentioned in there very briefly college football playoff already separate,
but you have to stop the conferences from just going.
Oh so if we split up, then no one can
police us either, because that's that's not the goal on
getting rid of the NC double A.

Speaker 5 (01:22:15):
It's not to have five NC double as it's correct.

Speaker 4 (01:22:18):
Yeah, it's to get more common sense in there.

Speaker 5 (01:22:21):
But that said Zach go Koog's, I think i'll leave
that here.

Speaker 2 (01:22:28):
Walter Clayton Junior is too good. He's he's so good man.

Speaker 3 (01:22:33):
We just need him to shoot the ball every time
and not give it to his tall white guys who
can't hit free throws.

Speaker 2 (01:22:39):
Don't let them screw you over.

Speaker 3 (01:22:42):
Just have them set picks, throw some elbows, cray some
space to jack up three pointers. It's all we're looking
for tonight. We need a good game. We need a
physical game. We need some flashy plays, and Florida's the
flashy team.

Speaker 4 (01:22:56):
And speaking of white guys, you can get it done.
Cooper flag washed were his n I own money? Does
he have to return it now?

Speaker 2 (01:23:03):
No kidding?

Speaker 3 (01:23:04):
You promised us a national championship, Coop like you, not
only did you let a nipple down, Not only did
you let us down, let yourself done, you let your
country down. And hey, once a loser, always a loser.
Might as well stay at Duke because boy you fit in.
Don't even go to the league.

Speaker 2 (01:23:27):
Eight plumb leaves.

Speaker 5 (01:23:31):
Great.

Speaker 4 (01:23:32):
All right, let's end there. We got a plumbly reference.
I think that's about as good as it gets.

Speaker 2 (01:23:37):
Yeah, we'll be back next week and just we'll talk
about the aftermath of us destroying the n C double
A here and and really and.

Speaker 3 (01:23:45):
Really calling them out. We'll be back next week, same time,
same place.

Speaker 2 (01:23:49):
You then.

Speaker 1 (01:24:00):
All safe day the outside sports inside thy.

Speaker 5 (01:24:11):
Fuck.

Speaker 2 (01:24:12):
Yeah,