NCAA Settlement Filed to Expand Scholarships and Pay Players

Some big changes coming in NCAA sports.

Formal settlement documents were filed with the Northern District Court of California Friday to advance the settlement approval process to resolve class-action lawsuits involving the NCAA and the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-12 Conference and Southeastern Conference (Autonomy 5 conferences).

The settlement documents address three cases – House v. NCAAHubbard v. NCAA and Carter v. NCAA – involving back damages and future benefits for Division I student-athletes.

“This is another important step in the ongoing effort to provide increased benefits to student-athletes while creating a stable and sustainable model for the future of college sports,” said the commissioners of the five conferences and the NCAA president. “While there is still much work to be done in the settlement approval process, this is a significant step toward establishing clarity for the future of all of Division I athletics while maintaining a lasting education-based model for college sports, ensuring the opportunity for student-athletes to earn a degree and the tools necessary to be successful in life after sports.”

The Settlement

The settlement addresses three primary issues: payment of back damages for claims relating to name, image and likeness (NIL), academic-related awards and other benefits; increased benefits from institutions to student-athletes going forward, including additional NIL opportunities for student-athletes directly with the institution; and eliminating scholarships limits in favor of roster limits.

  • The settlement calls for total back damages of approximately $2.78 billion, to be paid over 10 years, equating to approximately $280 million annually with distribution of back damages as determined by plaintiffs.
  • Going forward, the settlement allows the A5 conference member institutions (and other DI schools that choose to participate in the new structure) to provide increased benefits to student-athletes, including for NIL. If approved by the court, this model will allow schools to provide up to 22% of the average Autonomy 5 athletic media, ticket, and sponsorship revenue to student-athletes, starting in the 2025-26 academic year.  The future model could result in student-athletes receiving $1.5 billion to $2 billion in new benefits annually.
    • The new benefits that may be made available to student-athletes would be in addition to the myriad benefits currently provided to student-athletes, including free tuition, room & board, educational grants, academic support and tutoring, medical and mental health resources & support, nutrition resources & support, life skills development, superior coaching and training and extended medical coverage after they stop competing. Adding these existing benefits together with the benefits to be available under the new model, many A5 schools would be providing nearly 50 percent of athletics revenue to their student-athletes.
    • Under the new model, institutions may pay student-athletes directly for their NIL rights. Any institutional NIL payments would apply toward the 22% cap. Third parties may continue to enter into NIL agreements with student-athletes. Such agreements will be subject to review to ensure they are legitimate, fair market value agreements and not used for pay-for-play.  NIL payments by third parties would not apply toward the 22% cap but must be disclosed to a clearinghouse for review.
    • The new model allows for the establishment of a robust and effective enforcement and oversight program to ensure the new NIL model achieves its objectives. The establishment of a clearinghouse for NIL payments over $600 would give institutions access to information about external NIL activities, providing a level of transparency that does not currently exist to allow for better management of third-party influence and better assurance of legitimate NIL activity.
  • Lastly, scholarship limits will be eliminated in all sports, and roster limits will be established. Institutions have the discretion to offer partial or full scholarships provided they do not exceed the roster limits. This change will allow institutions to provide additional scholarships to student-athletes in the future.

Next Steps

The settlement must be approved by the court before it becomes final, a process expected to take several months.  If the court preliminarily approves the settlement, the class members will be provided notice of the settlement. Class members with claims for monetary damages based on prior conduct will have an opportunity to opt out of the settlement if they choose.  Class members—including incoming student-athletes—will also receive notice and be allowed to present objections to the future relief/model to the court.

Unresolved Issues

While approval of the settlement would be a significant step forward, there would still be pending issues to be addressed that highlight the continuing need for federal legislation. These issues include:

  • The settlement does not resolve the patchwork of state laws, many of which may conflict with the settlement. These laws will need to be preempted by federal legislation in order for the settlement to be effective.
  • The settlement does not address ongoing efforts to designate student-athletes as employees under state and federal labor and employment laws.  These efforts by the NLRB and plaintiffs’ attorneys pose a direct threat to both the sustainability of sports programs (especially for non-revenue generating ones) and to the baseline of support provided to all athletes.

“This settlement is an important step forward for student-athletes and college sports, but it does not address every challenge,” said the A5 conference commissioners and NCAA president. “The need for Federal legislation to provide solutions remains. If Congress does not act, the progress reached through the settlement could be significantly mitigated by state laws and continued litigation.”

–News release courtesy of NCAA (NCAA.org)

Tommy Bowden says Nick Saban, Charles Barkley should be college sports ‘co-commissioners’

The former Tigers coach said that Saban and Sir Charles could get things ‘squared away’ in college sports.

Like most retired coaches, Tommy Bowden isn’t short on opinions when he talks about the current landscape of college sports.

The former Clemson coach, who led the Tigers from 1999-2008, last week appeared on a podcast with veteran Birmingham-based sportscaster Doug Bell. When asked about the state of college sports, Bowden offered a suggestion for who could “fix” the college game.

“One quick solution, I think, you’ve got to have co-commissioners that’ll get this thing squared away in one year. Let Nick Saban and Charles Barkley be co-commissioners,” Bowden said. “They both bring perspective, unique angles to college football, and that’s what’s needed (with) the professional aspect and NIL. So let Charles Barkley and Nick Saban be co-commissioners, and they’ll have it cleared up in two years.”

Bowden said that Barkley in particular brought a “common sense approach.” “He’d bring a unique perspective, no doubt. And he’d have some colorful comments,” Bowden quipped.

Bowden, whose father Bobby won two national championships at Florida State and built the Seminoles into a national powerhouse with their own unique brand and swagger in the 90s and early 2000s, recently made news for saying that Clemson fans shouldn’t be too critical of Tigers coach Dabo Swinney.

Swinney replaced Bowden midway through the 2008 season after a 3-3 start. Bowden, who turned 70 on July 10, hasn’t set foot on a sideline since then and was asked if he missed coaching.

“I really don’t. I coached 32 years so I was very fortunate,” Bowden said. “Born in Birmingham, heaven would be to coach at Alabama or to coach at Auburn. You usually pick one of the two. I got to coach at both of them and had great experiences at both of them. I was a head coach (at Clemson and Tulane), had some success, and had always had in the back of my mind my mid-50s to get out and do TV for eight or nine years.

“I might have stayed in (coaching) a few more years if that athletic director (Terry Don Phillips) hadn’t come and made the decision for me at six in the morning,” Bowden added with a chuckle.

The full interview with Bowden can be seen below.

Follow us @Clemson_Wire on X and on Facebook for ongoing coverage of Clemson Tigers news, notes and commentary. 

NBA draft: Where have the top prospects worked out?

Over the past few weeks, we’ve been gathering information on where each of the top draft prospects has been working out. Keep in mind there have surely been many more workouts than the ones we’ve listed, but below you can find the known ones via …

Over the past few weeks, we’ve been gathering information on where each of the top draft prospects has been working out. Keep in mind there have surely been many more workouts than the ones we’ve listed, but below you can find the known ones via media reports or our own intel for each player.

Jesse Edwards: NBA draft scouting report

2000 | 6’11.5 | 7’5 WS | 236 LBS Team: West Virginia Agency: Joe Smith Best aggregate mock draft rank : NR / Worst rank: NR 2023-24 stats: In 2023-24, Edwards averaged 15.0 points, 8.2 rebounds, 1.2 assists, 0.6 blocks, and 1.7 steals per game. He …

2000 | 6’11.5 | 7’5 WS | 236 LBS

Team: West Virginia

Agency: Joe Smith

Best aggregate mock draft rank: NR / Worst rank: NR

2023-24 stats:

In 2023-24, Edwards averaged 15.0 points, 8.2 rebounds, 1.2 assists, 0.6 blocks, and 1.7 steals per game. He shot 60.3 percent from the field, did not attempt any three-pointers, and shot 52.7 percent from the foul line.

Malique Lewis: NBA draft scouting report

2004 | 6’7 | 7’1 WS | 209 LBS Team: Mexico City Capitanes Agents: Todd Ramasar, Alexis Liatsos Best aggregate mock draft rank : 53 / Worst rank: NR 2023-24 stats: In 2023-24, Lewis averaged 9.3 points, 6.0 rebounds, 1.5 assists, 1.2 blocks, and 1.0 …

2004 | 6’7 | 7’1 WS | 209 LBS

Team: Mexico City Capitanes

Agents: Todd Ramasar, Alexis Liatsos

Best aggregate mock draft rank: 53 / Worst rank: NR

2023-24 stats:

In 2023-24, Lewis averaged 9.3 points, 6.0 rebounds, 1.5 assists, 1.2 blocks, and 1.0 steals per game. He shot 50.6 percent from the field, 37.7 percent from three, and 69.2 percent from the foul line.

Isaiah Crawford: NBA draft scouting report

2001 | 6’5 | 7’0 WS | 216 LBS Team: Louisiana Tech Best aggregate mock draft rank : NR / Worst rank: NR 2023-24 stats: In 2023-24, Crawford averaged 16.5 points, 6.0 rebounds, 4.2 assists, 2.1 blocks, and 2.4 steals per game. He shot 49.7 percent …

2001 | 6’5 | 7’0 WS | 216 LBS

Team: Louisiana Tech

Best aggregate mock draft rank: NR / Worst rank: NR

2023-24 stats:

In 2023-24, Crawford averaged 16.5 points, 6.0 rebounds, 4.2 assists, 2.1 blocks, and 2.4 steals per game. He shot 49.7 percent from the field, 41.1 percent from three, and 72.5 percent from the foul line.

Nae’Qwan Tomlin: NBA draft scouting report

2000 | 6’8 | 7’2 WS | 205 LBS Team: Memphis Agent: Aaron Turner Best aggregate mock draft rank : NR / Worst rank: NR 2023-24 stats: In 2023-24, Tomlin averaged 13.9 points, 5.7 rebounds, 2.3 assists, 0.8 blocks, and 0.7 steals per game. He shot 60.3 …

2000 | 6’8 | 7’2 WS | 205 LBS

Team: Memphis

Agent: Aaron Turner

Best aggregate mock draft rank: NR / Worst rank: NR

2023-24 stats:

In 2023-24, Tomlin averaged 13.9 points, 5.7 rebounds, 2.3 assists, 0.8 blocks, and 0.7 steals per game. He shot 60.3 percent from the field, 40.4 percent from three, and 77.4 percent from the foul line.

Antonio Reeves: NBA draft scouting report

2000 | 6’4.5 | 6’8 WS | 186 LBS Team: Kentucky Agency: Sam Rise (CAA) Best aggregate mock draft rank : 44 / Worst rank: NR 2023-24 stats: In 2023-24, Reeves averaged 20.2 points, 4.3 rebounds, 4.3 assists, 0.7 blocks, and 1.7 steals per game. He …

2000 | 6’4.5 | 6’8 WS | 186 LBS

Team: Kentucky

Agency: Sam Rise (CAA)

Best aggregate mock draft rank: 44 / Worst rank: NR

2023-24 stats:

In 2023-24, Reeves averaged 20.2 points, 4.3 rebounds, 4.3 assists, 0.7 blocks, and 1.7 steals per game. He shot 50.7 percent from the field, 44.0 percent from three, and 88.0 percent from the foul line.

AJ Johnson: NBA draft scouting report

2004 | 6’4 | 6’8.5 WS | 187 LBS Team: Illawara (Australia) Agent: Bill Duffy Best aggregate mock draft rank : 27 / Worst rank: NR 2023-24 stats: In 2023-24, Johnson averaged 2.9 points, 1.2 rebounds, 0.8 assists, 0.1 blocka, and 0.2 steals per game. …

2004 | 6’4 | 6’8.5 WS | 187 LBS

Team: Illawara (Australia)

Agent: Bill Duffy

Best aggregate mock draft rank: 27 / Worst rank: NR

2023-24 stats:

In 2023-24, Johnson averaged 2.9 points, 1.2 rebounds, 0.8 assists, 0.1 blocka, and 0.2 steals per game. He shot 35.5 percent from the field, 27.8 percent from three, and 53.8 percent from the foul line.

Boogie Ellis: NBA draft scouting report

2000 | 6’1 | 6’7 WS | 185 LBS Team: USC Agency: Derek Malloy, Dan Frank, Mike Miller Best aggregate mock draft rank : 58 / Worst rank: NR 2023-24 stats: In 2023-24, Ellis averaged 16.6 points, 3.5 rebounds, 3.0 assists, 0.1 blocks, and 1.4 steals …

2000 | 6’1 | 6’7 WS | 185 LBS

Team: USC

Agency: Derek Malloy, Dan Frank, Mike Miller

Best aggregate mock draft rank: 58 / Worst rank: NR

2023-24 stats:

In 2023-24, Ellis averaged 16.6 points, 3.5 rebounds, 3.0 assists, 0.1 blocks, and 1.4 steals per game. He shot 42.8 percent from the field, 41.9 percent from three, and 73.0 percent from the foul line.