https://ncaad2rules.blogspot.com/
"Experience is what you get, when you don't get what you wanted"
Randy Pausch CMU Last Lecture
A federal judge has ruled that South Dakota's lawsuit against the NCAA should proceed in state court, after the association previously sought to have the case moved to federal jurisdiction.
South Dakota's attorney general Marty Jackley originally filed suit in September on behalf of the state's two Division I schools—the University of South Dakota and South Dakota State—accusing the NCAA of breaching its constitution, bylaws and fiduciary duties to its members by agreeing without membership's vote to a $2.8 billion settlement to resolve the House v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA and Carter v. NCAA antitrust cases.
South Dakota's suit argues that non-Power 4 Division I schools, such as USD and SDSU, who were not named defendants in those antitrust cases, are being inequitably burdened by their settlement's damage allocation model. A fairness hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken, for final approval of the settlement, is scheduled next week.
If approved, approximately 60% of the back-pay damages outlined in the settlement agreement would be funded by reducing annual revenue distributions to schools. The extent of these reductions for individual schools would depend on the NCAA distributions their conferences received between 2016 and 2024.
According to the NCAA, non-Power 4 members would experience about a 1% to 2% reduction their total athletics revenue.
In a 12-page order issued late last week, U.S. District Court Judge Karen E. Schreier remanded South Dakota's case back to the state circuit court, where it had originally been filed. In turn, Jackley filed a motion Monday for a preliminary injunction in Brookings County, seeking to block the NCAA from withholding funds from the state's two Division I schools to cover the settlement costs.
"Having profited handsomely from their student athletes for decades, the Power 4 schools can better afford their proportionate share of the damages than publicly funded state universities like the University of South Dakota, South Dakota State University and hundreds of other state schools," the motion stated, echoing the arguments made in the original lawsuit.
An NCAA spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
"We intend to stop the NCAA from forcing South Dakota's Universities and students to be responsible for $8 million in the NCAA's mistake," Jackley said in a statement.
South Dakota's D-I schools compete in the Football Championship Subdivision, where they have enjoyed competitive success. Both schools' football teams advanced to NCAA FCS semifinals last season and SDSU's women's basketball team pulled off an impressive first-round NCAA tournament upset this month against Oklahoma State.
The NCAA sought to move South Dakota's case to federal court, arguing that some of its state law counts raised significant federal issues including one, in particular, addressing Title IX. South Dakota, in turn, removed the gender-equity count in an amended complaint and motioned to have the case returned to state court, where it is more likely to survive dismissal.
In arguing for state jurisdiction, the plaintiffs referenced the failed attempt by Houston Christian University to directly intervene in House, while raising similar issues over the settlement. Judge Wilken denied the school's motion, ruling that the university had not demonstrated the court's jurisdiction over the matter
Judge Schreier's ruling last week noted that Wilken's decision against Houston Christian University "bolstered" her own determination to allow the South Dakota case to proceed in state court. Concluding that a dispute over a settlement agreement "is a dispute under state contract law," she rejected the NCAA's argument that the original class actions' federal nature should dictate the venue for South Dakota's suit.
South Dakota's legal challenge is just one of several battles that will continue to plague the NCAA even if it successfully resolves House. Just last week, attorneys representing the prospective class in Fontenot v. NCAA, an antitrust case closely mirroring House, filed an amended complaint, adding 292 plaintiffs.
Meanwhile, lawyers advocating for current and former female college athletes—some of whom have formally objected to the settlement—have publicly signaled their intent to launch Title IX litigation if the agreement moves forward. Adding to the NCAA's legal woes is the ongoing Johnson v. NCAA class action suit, originally filed in 2019, which argues that college athletes should be considered employees of their universities.
(This has been updated with a statement from Jackley and in the third and fourth paragraphs with additional context about how the House v. NCAA settlement.)
https://ncaad2rules.blogspot.com/
"Experience is what you get, when you don't get what you wanted"
Randy Pausch CMU Last Lecture
https://ncaad2rules.blogspot.com/
"Experience is what you get, when you don't get what you wanted"
Randy Pausch CMU Last Lecture
The Hotline mailbag publishes weekly. Send questions to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com and include 'mailbag' in the subject line. Or hit me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline
Some questions have been edited for clarity and brevity.
The Pac-12 is telling us that none of the available schools will move the media rights needle, so what's the reason for waiting to add a team to become compliant with NCAA regulations? Will the dollars impact the teams they add? The Mountain West expanded first, so there's precedent for doing it that way. — @brycetacoma
The Mountain West was operating from a position of weakness, having been raided and fighting for survival, while the Pac-12 is operating from a position of (relative) strength with its core intact for the next media rights cycle. Those differing dynamics account for the contrasting strategies since September.
In terms of the Pac-12's broad strategy, it's critical to recognize that the media rights negotiations and the membership question are, to a large extent, unfolding together.
The conference has a list of schools under consideration. It's a matter of wrapping up expansion once the media rights deal is secure, not starting from scratch.
Another key point: There are some expansion scenarios that would increase the media value more than others.
For instance, adding Memphis, Tulane and South Florida would generate more media dollars than only adding Texas State. But none of the scenarios will change the valuation in a meaningful way. The delta is a few hundred thousand dollars annually, not a few million.
Yes, the Pac-12 is following the same misguided strategy that led to its demise a few years ago. Had the conference added San Diego State and SMU immediately after USC and UCLA departed, it could very well be intact today.
But the circumstances are wildly different this time, and prioritizing the media deal over membership makes sense.
Why? Because the most important piece to the survive-and-thrive equation isn't the TV dollars; it's the TV exposure.
The rebuilt Pac-12 must partner with a linear TV network for its football product. Whether that's The CW or ESPN or Fox or Turner, exposure is everything over the second half of the decade as conferences compete for College Football Playoff access and schools audition for the sport's Great Restructuring in the 2030s.
Also, the media valuation could impact which schools are pursued. Some targets would demand full-share status; others would not. If the media deal lands on the low end of projections, the conference might opt to offer partial shares, thereby creating more dollars for the core eight.
Some basic math illustrates the point:
Let's imagine the Pac-12 agrees to a media deal with multiple partners for $75 million annually, which is on the low end of the target range, according to sources.
Split equally for nine schools, that's $8.3 million per campus per year. (Gonzaga receives a full share even though it does not compete in football.)
But if Texas State enters the conference as a quarter-share member, the Bobcats would receive $2.1 million and the remaining schools would split the rest. That's an additional $775,000 per year — not insignificant.
Again, the media valuation is one component. In addition to linear exposure, the conference must view everything through the lens of the College Football Playoff. Which school, or combination of schools, best positions the Pac-12 to earn the automatic bid reserved for the top team outside the Power Four?
At a certain level, all the issues addressed here (and more) are interconnected.
Regarding Pac-12 expansion: Is there a "3" with an eye toward other non-football schools? For example, Saint Mary's has plenty of basketball success and the Bay Area market. Another option would be Seattle, which is also in a major market not represented in the conference. — Josh F
Speaking of issues the Pac-12 must address, here's yet another: The degree to which it should focus on basketball, both with media rights and membership.
Here's where we enter the realm of cognitive dissonance:
The rebuilt Pac-12 should be a very good basketball conference — better on the court, perhaps, than on the field (thanks largely to Gonzaga's presence). What's more, there are more quality basketball schools than football schools potentially available in expansion scenarios.
With that framing, focusing on basketball makes sense. Why not add one school in all sports, to meet the requirements, and three non-football schools for a total of 12 basketball programs?
There's one hurdle, and it's significant. Basketball is responsible for just 20 cents of every media rights dollar, and an industry source noted recently that the figure could, in fact, be closer to 15 cents.
The only non-football school that pays for itself is already committed (Gonzaga). We aren't convinced the basketball-centric schools (Saint Mary's, Seattle and even Grand Canyon) are worthwhile at reduced revenue shares.
The discrepancy in valuation between football and basketball is enormous.
What is the latest on the Pac-12/Mountain West lawsuit? — @Jimmy0726
That depends on how closely you have been following the situation.
The Pac-12 and Mountain West filed a joint motion in the Northern District of California to stay the case March 14, approximately two weeks before U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen was to hear the Mountain West's motion to dismiss. (Our sources believe she would have allowed the case to continue.)
There have been no filings since then as the sides discuss mediation.
The Pac-12 issued the following statement at the time of the motion to stay:
"To safeguard the well-being and interests of our student-athletes, on September 24, 2024, the Pac-12 Conference initiated legal action against the Mountain West Conference for imposing unlawful 'Poaching Penalties' on the conference.
"Today, at the request of the Mountain West Conference, the Pac-12 has agreed to file a mutual 60-day order to stay in the case to discuss mediation options. It is important to state that we are in the early stages; no mediation dates have been set, and mediation is still uncertain.
"The Pac-12 remains confident in our position that the Poaching Penalty will be declared invalid and is committed to defending our stance."
And remember, there are two cases unfolding simultaneously, with the Mountain West as the defendant in both: The Pac-12's poaching penalty lawsuit and the exit fee case filed by Utah State, Colorado State and Boise State.
They will be addressed in totality by mediation, if all sides commit to solving the disputes outside the courtrooms.
In mailbag questions about the impact of non-football travel on Pac-12 legacy schools in the Big Ten, why do you constantly ignore the success of the women's basketball teams from USC and UCLA? —John
Fair question, and we can offer a two-part response:
— The vast majority of questions about travel are focused on football and men's basketball.
— The UCLA and USC women's basketball teams are outliers.
They have overwhelming talent and, as a result, are poor reflections of the competitive challenges we foresee over time in Los Angeles and along the West Coast.
Perhaps Lincoln Riley (USC football) and Mick Cronin (UCLA basketball) will reach that point in the near future. Their programs have the requisite tradition and recruiting prowess. But we'll believe it, and address it, when we see it.
Andrew Luck seemed to support Troy Taylor during Stanford's Pro Day last week. Do we presume he had prior knowledge of the two investigations into Taylor? If so, should we question his judgment after the about-face when the ESPN story broke? — @Brian_Wood45
Stanford's handling of the situation absolutely deserves scrutiny, and that includes Luck's role, but let's start broadly.
Luck was hired in late November. We don't know what he knew about the two investigations into Taylor's conduct during discussions with president Jonathan Levin and what he learned after taking the role.
His session with the media occurred March 20, hours before ESPN's report broke. Did he know, while answering questions, that the story was about to be published?
It's also possible Luck wanted to make a change before ESPN's article but was overruled by Levin and/or university attorneys. We simply don't know.
But it's clear he and the university were swayed more by optics than substance. Frankly, Stanford's handling of the matter is embarrassing.
Let's also remember that Luck is a retired football player, not an experienced manager of people and departments. Also, the Cardinal currently lacks an athletic director.
It's a giant, stinkin' mess of Stanford's own making.
The makeup of the Sweet 16, with so many teams from the SEC, Big Ten and Big 12, is more evidence that the NCAA is broken. The western teams should split and form a new conference with new rules, money and a tournament. Something like the NFL/AFL model. — @BonitaVista1971
The central problem with your premise is that it would not be comparable to the NFL and AFL co-existence in the pre-merger era.
It would be more like the NFL and the CFL.
The western half of the country doesn't have nearly as many schools or championships as the eastern.
It has precious few major brands in football and men's basketball.
It lacks the resources and media dollars.
It would instantly be relegated to a secondary existence.
After all, the breakup of the Pac-12 began with USC and UCLA departing for the Big Ten — and all the revenue and media exposure the conference had to offer.
Where will Kyle Whittingham rank on the list of all-time college football coaches? — @utahfootballgm
It's difficult, if not impossible, to make the case Whittingham belongs on a short (or mid-sized) list of the best coaches in history. Not without a national title or a major bowl win — much less without multiple major bowl wins.
Is he one of the top 50? Maybe. We would have to take a deep dive. The sport is 150-something years old and, for the bulk of that time, has featured hundreds of teams. The candidate pool is hundreds of coaches deep.
But Whittingham has been one of the elite coaches for the past decade if judgement is based on maximizing a program's resources, winning consistently and exceeding the historical standard for success.
He built on Urban Meyer's foundation and won on the big stage, which helped the Utes gain admission to the Pac-12.
He then elevated the program to an unprecedented tier with back-to-back conference titles and Rose Bowl bids and regular finishes in the top 25.
In addition to the quantifiable standards, Whittingham's teams just look extremely well-coached. The Utes have been a model for numerous programs over the years.
In our estimation, only Chris Petersen has commanded the level of respect given to Whittingham over the years (among coaches in the western half of the country).
And eventually, Whittingham, like Petersen, will be elected into the Hall of Fame.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline
Originally Published:
|
|
|
|
|
|
