- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
House Settlement - the elephant in the room?
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:46 pm
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:46 pm
So here we are at the end of the regular season and we are facing the most boring firing cycle in as long as anyone can remember.
It seems clear that ADs are keeping their powder dry until they can figure out how to budget for a player payroll that likely makes $20-25 million evaporate compared to current AD obligations.
The real question is: is this cycle a weird one-off because of the uncertainty, or will the House Settlement make being a college football coach a permanently more stable job going forward?
It seems clear that ADs are keeping their powder dry until they can figure out how to budget for a player payroll that likely makes $20-25 million evaporate compared to current AD obligations.
The real question is: is this cycle a weird one-off because of the uncertainty, or will the House Settlement make being a college football coach a permanently more stable job going forward?
5
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:55 pm to cardboardboxer
What needs to happen is for the P4 programs to shoulder 90% of this burden.
Posted on 12/2/24 at 4:57 pm to cardboardboxer
The settlement may be part of it, but for Power 4 teams that need to raise money for NIL to keep rosters together or improving, the appetite to also pay a big buyout isn't there.
We'll see a slow regression on buyouts. And we'll see a stagnation on NIL. I don't think we'll see a full correction there.
We'll see a slow regression on buyouts. And we'll see a stagnation on NIL. I don't think we'll see a full correction there.
Posted on 12/2/24 at 5:02 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
What needs to happen is for the P4 programs to shoulder 90% of this burden.
They'd just cut the rest out then and we'd have 1-a and 1-aa of the FBS.
Posted on 12/2/24 at 5:42 pm to ProjectP2294
quote:
We'll see a slow regression on buyouts.
How? A guy who can navigate this era isn’t going to get less valuable. The buyouts we see now are just reflective of the base salary over longer and longer terms. I’d love to see contracts get more performance based instead of guaranteed but when your roster can be bought from underneath you every year coaches are going to value job security more than ever.
Posted on 12/2/24 at 6:50 pm to cardboardboxer
Wait until after ESD. I don't think that we'll see alot of movement because NLIs can be undone now, players have all of the leverage, but it still doesn't make sense to fire a coach before ESD unless it's obvious a change needs to be made.
Posted on 12/2/24 at 7:02 pm to LSUSkip
The one area where I think you will see stagnant or even declining investment is not NIL funds nor coaches' salaries and buyouts. It's going to be in facility upgrades.
Posted on 12/2/24 at 7:47 pm to cardboardboxer
Thought this thread was about how much money LSU still owes to Matt House. 
Posted on 12/2/24 at 10:14 pm to shutterspeed
Me too
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:58 am to cardboardboxer
quote:
House Settlement
This is a great (and significant) topic.
Context for anyone reading this, JIC:
quote:
If the House v. NCAA settlement receives final approval in April, all Division I schools will be allowed to share revenue with players for the first time in history. Beginning in 2025, schools can pay up to about $22 million total to all of the athletes in their departments, and all power conference schools, as well as some others, are expected to participate.
But with revenue-sharing just a year away, schools are scrambling to figure out how to fund these payments. Many have begun soliciting donations from fans and alumni.
The most popular idea appears to be adding fees to football game-day expenses — in September, the University of Tennessee’s athletic department announced it will begin implementing a 10% “talent fee” on all football tickets. Student tickets will get more expensive, too.
Arkansas has already begun charging a 3% fee on all football home-game concessions.
In November, North Carolina’s athletic department began selling alcoholic beverages, including beer and wine, at men’s and women’s basketball games.
Ohio State is considering corporate sponsorships, including naming rights and jersey patch sponsors.
Posted on 12/5/24 at 12:23 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
What needs to happen is for the P4 programs to shoulder 90% of this burden.
That is a complete misunderstanding about what is happening.
We don't know the final settlement yet, but non-P5 programs are not being given a bill for what happened in the past. The "bill" so to speak will be given to P5 Programs (so Oregon St. and Wash St. might get fricked) and the NCAA as an organization.
To pay its part of the bill, the NCAA is going to reduce payments to ALL programs it distributes funds to including programs below the P4 G5 level.
But this is about future revenues being cut, not a bill to be paid (like P5 programs have to deal with).
The reality is that almost all programs below a G5 level generate nearly zero percent of that total revenue. They never have. The P4 G5 was simply sharing those revenues with those programs because of the egalitarian setup the NCAA started with. The top programs basically were willing to tolerate some wealth distribution to make it seem like the whole sport was amateurs because all of those programs ARE amateurs compared to P4 G5 and that association benefitted P4 G5. Heck if we are honest probably 90% of NCAA revenues comes from the P4 level alone. Those conferences have the brands that make the NCAA tournament (the main money maker) so valuable.
Because those lower programs have been basically getting this money for free, as part of the House settlement they are being asked to get less free money to help share the burden. The logic is if the P4 programs would have had to have paid this money back when they didn't pay players (the lawsuit goes back to 2016 for damages), they would have broken away from the NCAA back then and from that point forward the lower programs would have made NOTHING.
But now those lower programs are given a choice: take less money or the P4 G5 breaks away and they get no money going forward (or so little money compared to current payouts its basically nothing).
College administrators are acting like this money is an entitlement for them, a benefit given by the creator or some shite, when in reality it was just the big programs playing nice so the whole college athletics thing could have a veneer of amateurism.
The House settlement rips off that veneer, players are now like pros going forward. That means playing nice with lesser programs gives no benefit to the P4. If the lesser programs protest too much they will lose their meal ticket completely.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News