June 9, 2025 • 14 mins
Justin Williams from The Athletic joined us to discuss the new House Settlement and what it means for the future of college athletics.
Podcasts of The Mo Egger Radio Show are a service of Longnecks Sports Grill.
Listen to the show live weekday afternoons 3:00 - 6:00 on ESPN1530.
Listen Live: ESPN1530.com/listen
Get more: https://linktr.ee/MoEgger
Follow on X: @MoEgger
Instagram too: @MoEgger
Podcasts of The Mo Egger Radio Show are a service of Longnecks Sports Grill.
Listen to the show live weekday afternoons 3:00 - 6:00 on ESPN1530.
Listen Live: ESPN1530.com/listen
Get more: https://linktr.ee/MoEgger
Follow on X: @MoEgger
Instagram too: @MoEgger
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Lock.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
The big topic in college sports is the House settlement.
We're now universities can pay athletes directly, and so if
you love college basketball, college football, if you love college sports,
there's a very good, very good change from wondering.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
What does all this mean? What does it mean? Is
it going to be the end of college football as
we know?
Speaker 2 (00:19):
It's here to provide answers to questions like that covering
college football and more on the intercollegiate level, for the
athletics in the Athletic dot Com is our old friend
Justin Williams that has been forever since you have been
on this show. So it's nice to hear your voice.
Let's hear it.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Good to hear from you both.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Nice to be heard from I see people in the
in the aftermath of this who have kind of declared
this doomsday. This is it fold up to ten? College
sports are over? Or do you look at this from
as diar a point of view?
Speaker 3 (00:55):
I actually think this is, you know, either a half
measure or a stop gap forwards, like the inevitable reset
that college sports is going to have to go through
at some point. And now that's going to look a
lot different than maybe college sports did for you know,
the past fifty years or so. So if people want
to say, like this is the death of college sports, maybe,
(01:16):
but we've been talking for a long time about the
money coming into college sports, and you know, for a
long time, athletes didn't see any of that. That changed
a little bit with NIL. Now it's changing even more
with the House Settlement. I think we're going towards some
kind of future where we're going to have to figure out,
you know, our athletes, employees, how much do they get paid,
How is all this sorted out? And I think that
(01:36):
the House Settlement is like kind of a waystation on
the way to that. So really, mileage varies on whether
it's the death of college sports or just kind of
a movement towards what should be the next phase of
college sports.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
The divide in college sports between the haves and have
nots has widened my entire life.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
This is apparently going to widen it further. Is that
the case?
Speaker 3 (01:56):
I think though, because you know the big thing about
this settlement is schools are going to be able to
start paying you know, twenty million a year directly to athletes.
For some schools, that's going to be a lot easier
than others. Right, Like, if you're Texas or Oregon or
Ohio State, you know that these schools that i've historically
had the highest budgets, the most resources, it's that's not
(02:17):
going to be necessarily easy to just cobble together twenty million,
but it's going to be a lot easier for places
like you know, Cincinnati or Purdue or Iowa State, or
definitely for you know, Ohio University or the Dayton Flyers
and and things like that. So to me, I actually
think you could make the argument that the past couple
of years nil and the transfer portal has maybe kind
(02:38):
of like not completely leveled the playing field, but spread
out some of that talent and created some parody in
different ways. I actually think the house settlement and the
immediate aftermath, you're it's going to go back to what
you said, which is the has and the have nots,
that the richest programs are going to have a lot
easier time in this this new world. Then you know,
those that aren't the top programs on ESPN, or that
(03:01):
aren't spending two hundred million dollars a year on their.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Athletics budget you mentioned, you see, you know that athletic department.
You know that school, well, the school itself, the athletic
department is going to say, we're good, We're ready for this.
I read a statement from John Cunningham over the weekend.
They say they're good. Based on your perspective, if you're
a Bearcat fan, should you be worried about what this
is going to mean for UC sports?
Speaker 3 (03:24):
I think the Bearcats are as well positioned, or is
not well positioned as most of the Power Conference programs. Honestly,
so so better than everyone else, not as good, like
we said, as as your top programs Ohio State, Oregon, Texas,
those types of schools. But for a lot of these programs,
even in the Power Conference, it's you know, they're trying
(03:46):
to find out, all right, how can we get this
twenty million dollars, how can we you know, put money
to football in basketball, but also kind of find a
way to fund the non revenue sports. I think everyone
is in in that bucket, and so I don't know that,
you know, especially like in a conferen is like the
Big Twelve, I don't know that there are many schools
that are way better off or way worse off than Cincinnati.
(04:06):
But it's what we just talked about. You know, this
is the program that a couple of years ago kind
of punched above its weight and went to the College
Football Playoff. The way it is now, you know, Cincinnati
could still make the College Footble play They can definitely
make the NCAA tournament, but it's gonna be really, really
tough to compete with those top programs in terms of
national championships and things like that.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
Many have sort of hailed this as a great development
for the Big East, which obviously doesn't have football. So
if if I'm a Xavier University fan or alum do,
I view this as something that could be a major
asset for my program and others in the Big East
since we don't have to divide the money and include football.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
Yeah, the problem with that is most of these schools
you know, in the SEC and Big Ten that are
bringing in piles of cash every year, they're bringing it
in because of football. And so sure, you know, the
Big East schools don't have to pay out football or
worry about that, but they also don't have the money
coming in that ball provide. So I think it will
be interesting from a basketball perspective because if you're you know,
(05:06):
Yukon or Xavier or whoever in the Big East, and
you want to try and put all of your effort
into to paying money to basketball players, then maybe you
can pay more than most of the other power conferences
because they're having to distribute among football. But I don't
think it's going to be this huge gap, you know.
I think the ones that do it might might have
a little bit of an advantage. But to me, it's
not going to be a completely disjointed playing field because
(05:30):
of this.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
Justin Williams, some of the athletic with us.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
Is there a legitimate movement to kind of cap the
spending per sport. We're basically, you know, every school can
spend a certain amount of money on football, a certain
amount of money on men's basketball, and a certain amount
of money on all the other non revenue sports in
an effort to level the football playing field.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
So the commissioners, the Power comms commissioners talk about this
today that there isn't right now any kind of a
mandate from a conference level of all of our football
teams are going to spend this amount of of revshare.
Same for basketball. It's really going to be up to
the school to decide that.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
Now.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
Part of that, if you know you won't really want
to go into the into the weeds, is this might
have Title nine implications of you know, giving out equitable
amounts to men's and women's athletes, and so by kind
of washing their hands of it at the conference level,
if if someone wants to sue a school on grounds
of Title nine, then the conferences can say like, well,
that's the school's problem. You know, we're not telling them
(06:25):
what to do. But I think you're gonna have some
differentiation in there. Like you know, a school like Kentucky,
most of the schools in the SEC are going to
put as much as they can towards football. I bet
Kentucky puts a little bit more towards basketball. I think
you're going to see that within a conference of all, right,
you know Kansas does does Kansas give more to basketball
than most other schools because it's historically been a bigger
(06:46):
basketball school. How does their football team feel about that?
I kind of wrote about this over the weekend that
track's going to have some maybe like infighting among coaches
at a school because they're all going to be jockeying
for how much they get. So not only is it
going to cause a mess, you know, between schools and
a competition level. Now you actually have coaches within a
school kind of like sniping at each other over who
(07:06):
gets more rev share. They're just the exact kind of
stuff that you and I fell in love with about
college sports.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Yeah, no question about it.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
There are a lot of like tennis and golf programs
though that might be in peril because of this.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
Right absolutely, I think you're you know, you can't with
twenty million dollars and you know, having to pay football
and basketball and the kind of the top level sports,
you can't fund every single single sport. So I think
what's going to happen is there might be some sports
that at schools that completely get eliminated. I think more
likely you're going to have them just kind of lose
(07:36):
their resources and school start to specialize. And so if
a school feels like they have a chance to be
competitive and win conference championships in tennis and softball, then
maybe they get a little bit less money to rowing
and a little bit less resources to track and field
and things like that. So I do think you could
see some of these non revenue programs get hurt in
(07:57):
terms of the resources they get. But I also think
you could see schools start to specialize and say, like, hey,
we actually think, you know, we can you know, maybe
make some noise or be competitive in this sport. So
we're going to put a little bit more attention than
we were before into these non revenue sports that we
think we could be good at.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
Explain to me the roster limitations and why this is
apparently the end of walk ons.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
So it's basically now there's a total number that every
roster can have, and in football, you could have eighty
five scholarship because you could basically have as many walk
ons as you wanted to be on that, which is
why some rosters have like one hundred and thirty players.
Now you can just have one hundred and five. You
could put all of them on scholarship if you want,
but you can't go above that. Most schools are probably
(08:40):
still going to be in that eighty five range, and
so they're still going to have twenty walk ons. But
you're talking about, you know, these schools are going to
have to basically have twenty to thirty less walk ons
than they did the year before. And so that's where
I think you see some people freaking out about the
death of the walk Ons or walk ons going away.
I'd certainly sympathize with that. I think anyone though that
watches college football like this team, for I don't need
(09:02):
one hundred and thirty players. Most of them aren't getting
into the game. So I do think there's a little
bit of kind of over inflating the importance of that.
But look, I understand if you know, if you're a
walk on and you go to school, or you're a
player on a non revenue sport and you had a
roster spot, now you don't, that's pretty disappointing. But from
a general fan day to day perspective, I actually don't
know that that's going to have much of them.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Just to Williams, some of the athletic you're answering all
my questions, which I appreciate. How NIL is still going
to be a thing, but now it's going to go
through a clearinghouse.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
How will NIL work?
Speaker 3 (09:33):
So this, I think is the big question about will
the settlement work, what will the impact be? You know,
part of this is schools saying players directly, But the
other big reason why they did this settlement is they're
trying to rein in the NIL and kind of what
they feel like is been the wild wild West, where
these NIL collectives are getting involved and basically going into
the transfer portal and saying, hey, we'll give you X
(09:54):
amount of dollars to come play for our school. The
settlement's trying to get rid of that. So if it's
a deal, it's over six hundred dollars. The way it's
supposed to work is that a player would put it
into the system and then this new system would take
a look and say, actually, no this you know, this
isn't a fair market or a valid business purpose. This
is just some rich guy trying to get a player
(10:15):
to come to his favorite school, and we're not gonna
let that happen. Now, a lot of people think, either
that's not going to hold up in court. You know,
if the first time this clearing house tries to nix
a deal that a player signs, you're gonna have more
lawsuits and it's gonna be a whole big or deal,
or a lot of people are saying, what's going to
make these athletes put their deals into a system and
(10:35):
declare it And maybe we're going back to, you know,
the days of the bag man where players are getting
paid with envelopes of cash in there locker or under
the table or things like that. So I think the
biggest unknown about the settlement is what we're talking about
right now, is what does the future of NIL look like?
Does it really fix kind of the unregulated pay for
play era or does it actually just send it into
(10:56):
the shadows and things are working the way they used to.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Are you insinuate that there was a time in which
student athletes would find envelopes of cash at their locker?
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Was that a thing?
Speaker 3 (11:07):
I think? I think there was a time where players
were maybe getting paid even though they weren't allowed to.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Interesting, is this going to be the end of a.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Documentary called Blue Chips?
Speaker 1 (11:18):
About that documentary? So, is this the end of collectives?
Speaker 3 (11:26):
That's that's part of that same question. You know, I
think a lot of these schools that are trying to
find how do we get the twenty million dollars? You know,
maybe those collectives are aren't what they were doing before,
but the programs at the top of the sport they
want to keep these collectives to try and find a
way to get extra money on top of the revenue
sharing cap. So I don't think it's the end of collectives,
(11:47):
but I think it's going to look a lot different.
And part of that is, do some of these collectives
try to go to court and ensue over this new clearinghouse?
Or do some of these collectives, like we just talked about,
maybe they're still operating the same way they were before,
maybe they just doing it a little less publicly.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
I expect I expect there to be some really creative
ways that schools use to generate revenue, the least of
which is going to be just raising their ticket prices.
Is your expectation the same?
Speaker 3 (12:15):
Yeah. My fear here is that the people that get
hurt by this are the students and the fans. So
we've already had some schools talk about they're going to
raise student fees. I think Virginia Tech was a good
example of, you know that, they just put it out there, Hey,
we need to raise some money for revenue sharing, so
your student fees are going to go up. Or we've
seen I think Tennessee up to ticket prices, Arkansas up
(12:35):
concession prices. I think you're going to see that at
a lot of places. Yes, there's going to be some
budget cuts or some fundraising, But unfortunately, I think a
lot of the this is going to get passed on
to the fan who's mind tickets and the students who's
going to school there.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
I did some checking this morning. You had last appeared
on this show from Big twelve media days. I believe
that was in July. That can't be the case moving forward, Okay, I.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Mean, I just I know how much the listeners want
to hear about the legal ease that we're talking, so
anytime we can do that, but also may be some
more boring topics.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
Whenever you could use the word clearing house in a
discussion about sports, it's really really good.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Read that. Just the cue buster, as we say in
the business.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
I've avoided using codify, but that's the other word you're
hearing a lot deep days. You know what I'm gonna
try and get out of this interview of them.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
You checked the right box. You use the term wild
wild west.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
You are not allowed to talk about nil in the
current state of college sports without using the term wild
wild west, and you did that.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
So congratulations, I appreciate it. You're the best. Thanks man,
Thank him.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
You should read Justin Williams his work The athletic dot
com and follow him on Twitter at Williams Underscore. Justin
we are late, three minutes away from four o'clock. My
producer today is just losing his mind in the studio
because we broke late. My apologies. Hopefully he can figure
you're out a way to get us back on time.
U five point three seven four nine fifteen thirty is
(14:04):
our phone run. I spent a few minutes on that
because I think the UH. I think that last part
is important, and I think you're going to see more
if you're a UC fan, in particularly, you're going to
see more of what you didn't like what they just did.
I'll make that make sense next. ESPN fifteen thirty
Speaker 1 (14:19):
United Heartland Insurance and Parts
Lock.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
The big topic in college sports is the House settlement.
We're now universities can pay athletes directly, and so if
you love college basketball, college football, if you love college sports,
there's a very good, very good change from wondering.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
What does all this mean? What does it mean? Is
it going to be the end of college football as
we know?
Speaker 2 (00:19):
It's here to provide answers to questions like that covering
college football and more on the intercollegiate level, for the
athletics in the Athletic dot Com is our old friend
Justin Williams that has been forever since you have been
on this show. So it's nice to hear your voice.
Let's hear it.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Good to hear from you both.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Nice to be heard from I see people in the
in the aftermath of this who have kind of declared
this doomsday. This is it fold up to ten? College
sports are over? Or do you look at this from
as diar a point of view?
Speaker 3 (00:55):
I actually think this is, you know, either a half
measure or a stop gap forwards, like the inevitable reset
that college sports is going to have to go through
at some point. And now that's going to look a
lot different than maybe college sports did for you know,
the past fifty years or so. So if people want
to say, like this is the death of college sports, maybe,
(01:16):
but we've been talking for a long time about the
money coming into college sports, and you know, for a
long time, athletes didn't see any of that. That changed
a little bit with NIL. Now it's changing even more
with the House Settlement. I think we're going towards some
kind of future where we're going to have to figure out,
you know, our athletes, employees, how much do they get paid,
How is all this sorted out? And I think that
(01:36):
the House Settlement is like kind of a waystation on
the way to that. So really, mileage varies on whether
it's the death of college sports or just kind of
a movement towards what should be the next phase of
college sports.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
The divide in college sports between the haves and have
nots has widened my entire life.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
This is apparently going to widen it further. Is that
the case?
Speaker 3 (01:56):
I think though, because you know the big thing about
this settlement is schools are going to be able to
start paying you know, twenty million a year directly to athletes.
For some schools, that's going to be a lot easier
than others. Right, Like, if you're Texas or Oregon or
Ohio State, you know that these schools that i've historically
had the highest budgets, the most resources, it's that's not
(02:17):
going to be necessarily easy to just cobble together twenty million,
but it's going to be a lot easier for places
like you know, Cincinnati or Purdue or Iowa State, or
definitely for you know, Ohio University or the Dayton Flyers
and and things like that. So to me, I actually
think you could make the argument that the past couple
of years nil and the transfer portal has maybe kind
(02:38):
of like not completely leveled the playing field, but spread
out some of that talent and created some parody in
different ways. I actually think the house settlement and the
immediate aftermath, you're it's going to go back to what
you said, which is the has and the have nots,
that the richest programs are going to have a lot
easier time in this this new world. Then you know,
those that aren't the top programs on ESPN, or that
(03:01):
aren't spending two hundred million dollars a year on their.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Athletics budget you mentioned, you see, you know that athletic department.
You know that school, well, the school itself, the athletic
department is going to say, we're good, We're ready for this.
I read a statement from John Cunningham over the weekend.
They say they're good. Based on your perspective, if you're
a Bearcat fan, should you be worried about what this
is going to mean for UC sports?
Speaker 3 (03:24):
I think the Bearcats are as well positioned, or is
not well positioned as most of the Power Conference programs. Honestly,
so so better than everyone else, not as good, like
we said, as as your top programs Ohio State, Oregon, Texas,
those types of schools. But for a lot of these programs,
even in the Power Conference, it's you know, they're trying
(03:46):
to find out, all right, how can we get this
twenty million dollars, how can we you know, put money
to football in basketball, but also kind of find a
way to fund the non revenue sports. I think everyone
is in in that bucket, and so I don't know that,
you know, especially like in a conferen is like the
Big Twelve, I don't know that there are many schools
that are way better off or way worse off than Cincinnati.
(04:06):
But it's what we just talked about. You know, this
is the program that a couple of years ago kind
of punched above its weight and went to the College
Football Playoff. The way it is now, you know, Cincinnati
could still make the College Footble play They can definitely
make the NCAA tournament, but it's gonna be really, really
tough to compete with those top programs in terms of
national championships and things like that.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
Many have sort of hailed this as a great development
for the Big East, which obviously doesn't have football. So
if if I'm a Xavier University fan or alum do,
I view this as something that could be a major
asset for my program and others in the Big East
since we don't have to divide the money and include football.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
Yeah, the problem with that is most of these schools
you know, in the SEC and Big Ten that are
bringing in piles of cash every year, they're bringing it
in because of football. And so sure, you know, the
Big East schools don't have to pay out football or
worry about that, but they also don't have the money
coming in that ball provide. So I think it will
be interesting from a basketball perspective because if you're you know,
(05:06):
Yukon or Xavier or whoever in the Big East, and
you want to try and put all of your effort
into to paying money to basketball players, then maybe you
can pay more than most of the other power conferences
because they're having to distribute among football. But I don't
think it's going to be this huge gap, you know.
I think the ones that do it might might have
a little bit of an advantage. But to me, it's
not going to be a completely disjointed playing field because
(05:30):
of this.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
Justin Williams, some of the athletic with us.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
Is there a legitimate movement to kind of cap the
spending per sport. We're basically, you know, every school can
spend a certain amount of money on football, a certain
amount of money on men's basketball, and a certain amount
of money on all the other non revenue sports in
an effort to level the football playing field.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
So the commissioners, the Power comms commissioners talk about this
today that there isn't right now any kind of a
mandate from a conference level of all of our football
teams are going to spend this amount of of revshare.
Same for basketball. It's really going to be up to
the school to decide that.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
Now.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
Part of that, if you know you won't really want
to go into the into the weeds, is this might
have Title nine implications of you know, giving out equitable
amounts to men's and women's athletes, and so by kind
of washing their hands of it at the conference level,
if if someone wants to sue a school on grounds
of Title nine, then the conferences can say like, well,
that's the school's problem. You know, we're not telling them
(06:25):
what to do. But I think you're gonna have some
differentiation in there. Like you know, a school like Kentucky,
most of the schools in the SEC are going to
put as much as they can towards football. I bet
Kentucky puts a little bit more towards basketball. I think
you're going to see that within a conference of all, right,
you know Kansas does does Kansas give more to basketball
than most other schools because it's historically been a bigger
(06:46):
basketball school. How does their football team feel about that?
I kind of wrote about this over the weekend that
track's going to have some maybe like infighting among coaches
at a school because they're all going to be jockeying
for how much they get. So not only is it
going to cause a mess, you know, between schools and
a competition level. Now you actually have coaches within a
school kind of like sniping at each other over who
(07:06):
gets more rev share. They're just the exact kind of
stuff that you and I fell in love with about
college sports.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Yeah, no question about it.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
There are a lot of like tennis and golf programs
though that might be in peril because of this.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
Right absolutely, I think you're you know, you can't with
twenty million dollars and you know, having to pay football
and basketball and the kind of the top level sports,
you can't fund every single single sport. So I think
what's going to happen is there might be some sports
that at schools that completely get eliminated. I think more
likely you're going to have them just kind of lose
(07:36):
their resources and school start to specialize. And so if
a school feels like they have a chance to be
competitive and win conference championships in tennis and softball, then
maybe they get a little bit less money to rowing
and a little bit less resources to track and field
and things like that. So I do think you could
see some of these non revenue programs get hurt in
(07:57):
terms of the resources they get. But I also think
you could see schools start to specialize and say, like, hey,
we actually think, you know, we can you know, maybe
make some noise or be competitive in this sport. So
we're going to put a little bit more attention than
we were before into these non revenue sports that we
think we could be good at.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
Explain to me the roster limitations and why this is
apparently the end of walk ons.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
So it's basically now there's a total number that every
roster can have, and in football, you could have eighty
five scholarship because you could basically have as many walk
ons as you wanted to be on that, which is
why some rosters have like one hundred and thirty players.
Now you can just have one hundred and five. You
could put all of them on scholarship if you want,
but you can't go above that. Most schools are probably
(08:40):
still going to be in that eighty five range, and
so they're still going to have twenty walk ons. But
you're talking about, you know, these schools are going to
have to basically have twenty to thirty less walk ons
than they did the year before. And so that's where
I think you see some people freaking out about the
death of the walk Ons or walk ons going away.
I'd certainly sympathize with that. I think anyone though that
watches college football like this team, for I don't need
(09:02):
one hundred and thirty players. Most of them aren't getting
into the game. So I do think there's a little
bit of kind of over inflating the importance of that.
But look, I understand if you know, if you're a
walk on and you go to school, or you're a
player on a non revenue sport and you had a
roster spot, now you don't, that's pretty disappointing. But from
a general fan day to day perspective, I actually don't
know that that's going to have much of them.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Just to Williams, some of the athletic you're answering all
my questions, which I appreciate. How NIL is still going
to be a thing, but now it's going to go
through a clearinghouse.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
How will NIL work?
Speaker 3 (09:33):
So this, I think is the big question about will
the settlement work, what will the impact be? You know,
part of this is schools saying players directly, But the
other big reason why they did this settlement is they're
trying to rein in the NIL and kind of what
they feel like is been the wild wild West, where
these NIL collectives are getting involved and basically going into
the transfer portal and saying, hey, we'll give you X
(09:54):
amount of dollars to come play for our school. The
settlement's trying to get rid of that. So if it's
a deal, it's over six hundred dollars. The way it's
supposed to work is that a player would put it
into the system and then this new system would take
a look and say, actually, no this you know, this
isn't a fair market or a valid business purpose. This
is just some rich guy trying to get a player
(10:15):
to come to his favorite school, and we're not gonna
let that happen. Now, a lot of people think, either
that's not going to hold up in court. You know,
if the first time this clearing house tries to nix
a deal that a player signs, you're gonna have more
lawsuits and it's gonna be a whole big or deal,
or a lot of people are saying, what's going to
make these athletes put their deals into a system and
(10:35):
declare it And maybe we're going back to, you know,
the days of the bag man where players are getting
paid with envelopes of cash in there locker or under
the table or things like that. So I think the
biggest unknown about the settlement is what we're talking about
right now, is what does the future of NIL look like?
Does it really fix kind of the unregulated pay for
play era or does it actually just send it into
(10:56):
the shadows and things are working the way they used to.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Are you insinuate that there was a time in which
student athletes would find envelopes of cash at their locker?
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Was that a thing?
Speaker 3 (11:07):
I think? I think there was a time where players
were maybe getting paid even though they weren't allowed to.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Interesting, is this going to be the end of a.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Documentary called Blue Chips?
Speaker 1 (11:18):
About that documentary? So, is this the end of collectives?
Speaker 3 (11:26):
That's that's part of that same question. You know, I
think a lot of these schools that are trying to
find how do we get the twenty million dollars? You know,
maybe those collectives are aren't what they were doing before,
but the programs at the top of the sport they
want to keep these collectives to try and find a
way to get extra money on top of the revenue
sharing cap. So I don't think it's the end of collectives,
(11:47):
but I think it's going to look a lot different.
And part of that is, do some of these collectives
try to go to court and ensue over this new clearinghouse?
Or do some of these collectives, like we just talked about,
maybe they're still operating the same way they were before,
maybe they just doing it a little less publicly.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
I expect I expect there to be some really creative
ways that schools use to generate revenue, the least of
which is going to be just raising their ticket prices.
Is your expectation the same?
Speaker 3 (12:15):
Yeah. My fear here is that the people that get
hurt by this are the students and the fans. So
we've already had some schools talk about they're going to
raise student fees. I think Virginia Tech was a good
example of, you know that, they just put it out there, Hey,
we need to raise some money for revenue sharing, so
your student fees are going to go up. Or we've
seen I think Tennessee up to ticket prices, Arkansas up
(12:35):
concession prices. I think you're going to see that at
a lot of places. Yes, there's going to be some
budget cuts or some fundraising, But unfortunately, I think a
lot of the this is going to get passed on
to the fan who's mind tickets and the students who's
going to school there.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
I did some checking this morning. You had last appeared
on this show from Big twelve media days. I believe
that was in July. That can't be the case moving forward, Okay, I.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Mean, I just I know how much the listeners want
to hear about the legal ease that we're talking, so
anytime we can do that, but also may be some
more boring topics.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
Whenever you could use the word clearing house in a
discussion about sports, it's really really good.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Read that. Just the cue buster, as we say in
the business.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
I've avoided using codify, but that's the other word you're
hearing a lot deep days. You know what I'm gonna
try and get out of this interview of them.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
You checked the right box. You use the term wild
wild west.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
You are not allowed to talk about nil in the
current state of college sports without using the term wild
wild west, and you did that.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
So congratulations, I appreciate it. You're the best. Thanks man,
Thank him.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
You should read Justin Williams his work The athletic dot
com and follow him on Twitter at Williams Underscore. Justin
we are late, three minutes away from four o'clock. My
producer today is just losing his mind in the studio
because we broke late. My apologies. Hopefully he can figure
you're out a way to get us back on time.
U five point three seven four nine fifteen thirty is
(14:04):
our phone run. I spent a few minutes on that
because I think the UH. I think that last part
is important, and I think you're going to see more
if you're a UC fan, in particularly, you're going to
see more of what you didn't like what they just did.
I'll make that make sense next. ESPN fifteen thirty
Speaker 1 (14:19):
United Heartland Insurance and Parts
Mo Egger News
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.