• Guest, do want an ad free experience on WyoNation.com among other benefits? Upgrade your account today!

    Simply click your profile name > account upgrades > Wyo Club > choose between the year long subscription (two free months) or month to month

    Thanks for the continued support. Cheers!
  • Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!

Off-season: collective bargaining

doreno5 said:
Basically the only Wyoming player who might be entitled to real money in damages for lost NIL revenues is Josh Allen. No one else-Hill, Wilson, Muma etc, would get much in the way of damages. Compare that to someone like Joe Burrow, Zion Williamson, Trevor Lawrence, Baker Mayfield etc. from P4 conferences with lots of NIL opportunities.

Any way you cut it, Wyoming would owe pennies on the dollar compare to the P4 schools.

In theory, but the correct answer to my question is nobody knows. The funding formula hasn't been worked out.

Of the total 2.77 billion, 60% comes from revenue reduction. Of that, 60% is paid by 300 schools. That's probably around 500-800k/school?

The alternative here is decline everything and the ncaa, which we're a part of, gets hit with 20 billion due now.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
doreno5 said:
Basically the only Wyoming player who might be entitled to real money in damages for lost NIL revenues is Josh Allen. No one else-Hill, Wilson, Muma etc, would get much in the way of damages. Compare that to someone like Joe Burrow, Zion Williamson, Trevor Lawrence, Baker Mayfield etc. from P4 conferences with lots of NIL opportunities.

Any way you cut it, Wyoming would owe pennies on the dollar compare to the P4 schools.

In theory, but the correct answer to my question is nobody knows. The funding formula hasn't been worked out.

Of the total 2.77 billion, 60% comes from revenue reduction. Of that, 60% is paid by 300 schools. That's probably around 500-800k/school?

The alternative here is decline everything and the ncaa, which we're a part of, gets hit with 20 billion due now.
Not all the 300 schools you reference are even Division 1. Compared to most of them Wyoming is a big time athletic programs. Do you think someone like Farmingdale State or Wisconsin- Lutheran or even Chadron State will be able to pay that kind of money?
 
doreno5 said:
ragtimejoe1 said:
In theory, but the correct answer to my question is nobody knows. The funding formula hasn't been worked out.

Of the total 2.77 billion, 60% comes from revenue reduction. Of that, 60% is paid by 300 schools. That's probably around 500-800k/school?

The alternative here is decline everything and the ncaa, which we're a part of, gets hit with 20 billion due now.
Not all the 300 schools you reference are even Division 1. Compared to most of them Wyoming is a big time athletic programs. Do you think someone like Farmingdale State or Wisconsin- Lutheran or even Chadron State will be able to pay that kind of money?
Any way I look at it it is bad deal for schools like Wyoming especially since the $20M spending allowance is far more than Wyoming could dream of paying. It limits the exposure of those like Texas, Florida, OSU, USC but virtually guarantees that smaller schools will have to pay up more than currently to recruit.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
OrediggerPoke said:
I am suggesting that P5 players are entitled to more damages yes. Even the class plaintiffs admit that very fact. And it is ultimately the Plaintiff class that needs to obtain a court approved damages distribution model. Undoubtedly former Wyoming players will get peanuts in the settlement as compared to former Ohio State players.

Do you honestly believe that the QB at Eastern Michigan lost the same amount in NIL opportunities from 2016-forward as the QB at Alabama due to prior restrictions?

If I am Wyoming/MWC, I decline the settlement and let the plaintiff class prove how much actual damages Wyoming players suffered. It will be in the 100s of thousands per year at most as compared to the millions per year we are being asked to shoulder.

PS - the settlement is between the plaintiff class players and the defendant NCAA and conferences. Class damages distribution is a wholly separate issue which happens just on plaintiffs end and subject to court approval.

It's 14,000 athletes since 2016. What percentage are p5 vs g5 and is the payment structure different depending on the athlete's sport or conference he/she participated in?

Yes - I can almost guarantee the plaintiff class members will require a structure based on conference affiliation and sport. No way would a structure that pays a water polo player the same amount as a football player will pass any scrutiny required by a court.

The class member distribution model has to be supported by actual expert analysis which provides a relatively accurate method for distribution of damages to the class members (the rules require it). In fact, we often see additional litigation in class cases following settlement that’s purely related to the allocation formula for the pot of money (but the class lawyers hardly care because they already got their cut and the defendants hardly care at that point because their liability remains the same however the money is ultimately distributed).

The simple solution for the MWC is decline to be a party to this.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
doreno5 said:
Basically the only Wyoming player who might be entitled to real money in damages for lost NIL revenues is Josh Allen. No one else-Hill, Wilson, Muma etc, would get much in the way of damages. Compare that to someone like Joe Burrow, Zion Williamson, Trevor Lawrence, Baker Mayfield etc. from P4 conferences with lots of NIL opportunities.

Any way you cut it, Wyoming would owe pennies on the dollar compare to the P4 schools.

In theory, but the correct answer to my question is nobody knows. The funding formula hasn't been worked out.

Of the total 2.77 billion, 60% comes from revenue reduction. Of that, 60% is paid by 300 schools. That's probably around 500-800k/school?

The alternative here is decline everything and the ncaa, which we're a part of, gets hit with 20 billion due now.

That would be a terrific result. The NCAA can declare bankruptcy, pay out what it has and wind up. We can then easily go on our merry way free from whatever the P4 professional model they want to adopt.
 
doreno5 said:
doreno5 said:
Not all the 300 schools you reference are even Division 1. Compared to most of them Wyoming is a big time athletic programs. Do you think someone like Farmingdale State or Wisconsin- Lutheran or even Chadron State will be able to pay that kind of money?
Any way I look at it it is bad deal for schools like Wyoming especially since the $20M spending allowance is far more than Wyoming could dream of paying. It limits the exposure of those like Texas, Florida, OSU, USC but virtually guarantees that smaller schools will have to pay up more than currently to recruit.

Do you have 2 accounts?

I'm not speaking on my beliefs just the way things stand.
1) there are 14k athletes since 2016 from d1.
2) funding formula isn't clear.
3) funding will need to be in place prior to figuring out what the funding formula will be.
4) if settlement isn't reached, there's a better than average chance that ncaa and p5 conferences lose and have 20 bill due immediately.
5) all d1 schools are part of ncaa so would technically be liable.

Can all non-p5 d1 schools say we won't pay anything and the ncaa is simply bankrupt with no further implications to non-p5 schools (since they weren't specifically named in lawsuit other than ncaa)? I have no idea.
 
OrediggerPoke said:
ragtimejoe1 said:
It's 14,000 athletes since 2016. What percentage are p5 vs g5 and is the payment structure different depending on the athlete's sport or conference he/she participated in?

Yes - I can almost guarantee the plaintiff class members will require a structure based on conference affiliation and sport. No way would a structure that pays a water polo player the same amount as a football player will pass any scrutiny required by a court.

The class member distribution model has to be supported by actual expert analysis which provides a relatively accurate method for distribution of damages to the class members (the rules require it). In fact, we often see additional litigation in class cases following settlement that’s purely related to the allocation formula for the pot of money (but the class lawyers hardly care because they already got their cut and the defendants hardly care at that point because their liability remains the same however the money is ultimately distributed).

The simple solution for the MWC is decline to be a party to this.

Likely, but nobody knows how big those differences will be especially with title ix considerations.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
OrediggerPoke said:
Yes - I can almost guarantee the plaintiff class members will require a structure based on conference affiliation and sport. No way would a structure that pays a water polo player the same amount as a football player will pass any scrutiny required by a court.

The class member distribution model has to be supported by actual expert analysis which provides a relatively accurate method for distribution of damages to the class members (the rules require it). In fact, we often see additional litigation in class cases following settlement that’s purely related to the allocation formula for the pot of money (but the class lawyers hardly care because they already got their cut and the defendants hardly care at that point because their liability remains the same however the money is ultimately distributed).

The simple solution for the MWC is decline to be a party to this.

Likely, but nobody knows how big those differences will be especially with title ix considerations.

It doesn’t take much of an expert to recognize that the differences are much larger than the 40/60 the P4 is trying to force down the throat of the little guy. Do you believe it is a coincidence that every P5 has agreed (including PAC) but not a single conference outside of them has? Maybe you think that the CUSA finds it to be a fair deal but their signature was just lost in the mail?
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
Can all non-p5 d1 schools say we won't pay anything and the ncaa is simply bankrupt with no further implications to non-p5 schools (since they weren't specifically named in lawsuit other than ncaa)? I have no idea.

Fundamental bankruptcy law. 11 USC 547.

A bankruptcy court can claw back NCAA distributions to conferences for a period of 1 year prior to the filing of the case.
 
OrediggerPoke said:
ragtimejoe1 said:
Likely, but nobody knows how big those differences will be especially with title ix considerations.

It doesn’t take much of an expert to recognize that the differences are much larger than the 40/60 the P4 is trying to force down the throat of the little guy. Do you believe it is a coincidence that every P5 has agreed (including PAC) but not a single conference outside of them has? Maybe you think that the CUSA finds it to be a fair deal but their signature was just lost in the mail?

Who said I'm taking sides? Maybe they can supeona current nil collectives and base %s off of that? I'm surprised they didn't name espn, fox, etc. Why aren't they paying?
All I'm saying is 68 schools are paying 40% of 60% and 300 schools are paying 60% of 60%.

I'm not sure how you divvy up a liability based on a funding formula that is speculative.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
OrediggerPoke said:
It doesn’t take much of an expert to recognize that the differences are much larger than the 40/60 the P4 is trying to force down the throat of the little guy. Do you believe it is a coincidence that every P5 has agreed (including PAC) but not a single conference outside of them has? Maybe you think that the CUSA finds it to be a fair deal but their signature was just lost in the mail?



Who said I'm taking sides? Maybe they can supeona current nil collectives and base %s off of that? I'm surprised they didn't name espn, fox, etc. Why aren't they paying?
All I'm saying is 68 schools are paying 40% of 60% and 300 schools are paying 60% of 60%.

I'm not sure how you divvy up a liability based on a funding formula that is speculative.

Damages are always relatively speculative. That’s the role of and requirement of experts. They can model this to some degree of plausibility.
 
OrediggerPoke said:
ragtimejoe1 said:
Can all non-p5 d1 schools say we won't pay anything and the ncaa is simply bankrupt with no further implications to non-p5 schools (since they weren't specifically named in lawsuit other than ncaa)? I have no idea.

Fundamental bankruptcy law. 11 USC 547.

A bankruptcy court can claw back NCAA distributions to conferences for a period of 1 year prior to the filing of the case.

The 60% you are upset about is coming from reduced payments from the ncaa to the schools which is somewhere between 1 and what 30% of the revenue distributed to the school? If the ncaa is bankrupt, it would be 100% reduction in revenue distribution. I don't understand how that's better?
 
OrediggerPoke said:
ragtimejoe1 said:
Who said I'm taking sides? Maybe they can supeona current nil collectives and base %s off of that? I'm surprised they didn't name espn, fox, etc. Why aren't they paying?
All I'm saying is 68 schools are paying 40% of 60% and 300 schools are paying 60% of 60%.

I'm not sure how you divvy up a liability based on a funding formula that is speculative.

Damages are always relatively speculative. That’s the role of and requirement of experts. They can model this to some degree of plausibility.

The non-p5 need to do that and propose it. Simply saying it's unfair may not be incorrect but it's insufficient.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
I'm surprised they didn't name espn, fox, etc. Why aren't they paying?

That’s about as easy as a question as it gets. The players have no claims against those parties. There are no allegations that ESPN colluded with the NCAA to craft rules that prevented the players from receiving endorsement dollars for their name, image and likeness. ESPN was merely a party that contracted with the NCAA to purchase media rights.
 
OrediggerPoke said:
ragtimejoe1 said:
I'm surprised they didn't name espn, fox, etc. Why aren't they paying?

That’s about as easy as a question as it gets. The players have no claims against those parties. There are no allegations that ESPN colluded with the NCAA to craft rules that prevented the players from receiving endorsement dollars for their name, image and likeness. ESPN was merely a party that contracted with the NCAA to purchase media rights.

Perhaps but they helped create the platform and situation which created the value in NIL. Lukely similar arguments as suing manufacturers even though individuals used product in unlawful or dangerous manner.

The only reason it surprises me is because I hold that low of opinion of lawyers.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
OrediggerPoke said:
That’s about as easy as a question as it gets. The players have no claims against those parties. There are no allegations that ESPN colluded with the NCAA to craft rules that prevented the players from receiving endorsement dollars for their name, image and likeness. ESPN was merely a party that contracted with the NCAA to purchase media rights.

Perhaps but they helped create the platform and situation which created the value in NIL. Lukely similar arguments as suing manufacturers even though individuals used product in unlawful or dangerous manner.

The only reason it surprises me is because I hold that low of opinion of lawyers.

What does products liability tort common law have to do with the federally enacted statutory Sherman Antitrust Act?

There’s only liability here because Congress passed the Sherman Act declaring monopolies and certain anti-competitive conduct to be illegal.
 
OrediggerPoke said:
ragtimejoe1 said:
Perhaps but they helped create the platform and situation which created the value in NIL. Lukely similar arguments as suing manufacturers even though individuals used product in unlawful or dangerous manner.

The only reason it surprises me is because I hold that low of opinion of lawyers.

What does products liability tort common law have to do with the federally enacted statutory Sherman Antitrust Act?

There’s only liability here because Congress passed the Sherman Act declaring monopolies and certain anti-competitive conduct to be illegal.

Like I said, the only reason it surprises me is that is where the money trail leads. Usually lawyers chase the money trails. I suppose one would need a law degree and experience in that arena to say anything too conclusively. As certain as you seem, I'm assuming you are a legal expert, so I'll defer to you on that.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
OrediggerPoke said:
Fundamental bankruptcy law. 11 USC 547.

A bankruptcy court can claw back NCAA distributions to conferences for a period of 1 year prior to the filing of the case.

The 60% you are upset about is coming from reduced payments from the ncaa to the schools which is somewhere between 1 and what 30% of the revenue distributed to the school? If the ncaa is bankrupt, it would be 100% reduction in revenue distribution. I don't understand how that's better?

How is bankrupting the ncaa better financially for the 300?
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
OrediggerPoke said:
What does products liability tort common law have to do with the federally enacted statutory Sherman Antitrust Act?

There’s only liability here because Congress passed the Sherman Act declaring monopolies and certain anti-competitive conduct to be illegal.

Like I said, the only reason it surprises me is that is where the money trail leads. Usually lawyers chase the money trails. I suppose one would need a law degree and experience in that arena to say anything too conclusively. As certain as you seem, I'm assuming you are a legal expert, so I'll defer to you on that.

It violates the rules of professional conduct for lawyers to bring claims that are not supported by the law or for a lawyer to assert facts in a complaint which a lawyer knows or should reasonably know to be untrue.

These lawyers representing the players are good. They are anti-trust experts to the highest degree. They aren’t going to bring frivolous claims that won’t survive a motion to dismiss and which would dilute their credibility in the case.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
ragtimejoe1 said:
The 60% you are upset about is coming from reduced payments from the ncaa to the schools which is somewhere between 1 and what 30% of the revenue distributed to the school? If the ncaa is bankrupt, it would be 100% reduction in revenue distribution. I don't understand how that's better?

How is bankrupting the ncaa better financially for the 300?
It’s a fresh start. The 300 can form or become part of their own associations and create their own tournaments. The split will happen regardless. This is just a way to speed up that process and get back to relatively amateur athletics.
 
Back
Top