NCAA Conditionally Approves NIL Settlement & New Rules

[Buffnik]

DI Board of Directors conditionally approves House settlement-related rules changes​

The Division I Board of Directors on Monday adopted changes to NCAA rules that would take effect if the House settlement is ultimately approved by the court. More than 150 rules will be eliminated to allow for schools to provide additional benefits to student-athletes under the settlement, as a first step toward further implementation.

Moving forward, if final approval of the settlement is granted, NCAA rules will permit schools to provide direct financial payments to student-athletes, including for use of a student-athlete's name, image and likeness. Schools have until June 15 to decide whether to opt to provide benefits that would be permissible under the settlement for the coming academic year.

The board's actions included approving a number of proposals contingent on final federal court approval:

• Permitting schools to provide full scholarships to all student-athletes on a declared roster and eliminating sport-by-sport scholarship maximums, giving schools much greater flexibility in providing athletics aid and doubling the scholarships available in women's sports.
• Modifying rules to allow autonomy conference schools and others who opt to offer settlement-related benefits to provide up to $20.5 million in direct financial benefits to student-athletes.
• Introducing rules intended to bring clarity and stability to the NIL environment for all Division I schools, including allowing for additional independent review of third-party NIL agreements between student-athletes and entities that are associated with a particular school.

The board also approved new rules that would establish new policies consistent with the terms of the settlement, including:

• The creation of technology platforms for schools to monitor their payments to student-athletes and for student-athletes to report their third-party NIL agreements.
• Rules that address steps student-athletes can take if an NIL agreement is considered outside of the range of compensation developed by the external, independent clearinghouse.
• The creation of an enforcement group — created and operated by the defendant conferences — that would provide oversight for rules relating to the terms of the settlement, including third-party NIL and the annual benefits cap.
• A requirement that for student-athletes to receive the new benefits, they must be enrolled full-time, meet Division I progress-toward-degree requirements and receive such benefits during their period of eligibility (e.g., five-year clock).

Future of Division I governance​

The board received an update from the Decision-Making Working Group, which provided concepts for a possible new committee structure in Division I.

While the final proposal for the structure of Division I is still a work in progress, the working group's recommended format would reduce the number of committees, removing several layers to the governance structure and enabling the Association to be nimbler and more responsive to the needs of college sports.

The board did not take a position on the suggested format and is not expected to vote on a proposal to restructure the decision-making process for Division I until June, but it directed NCAA staff to begin seeking broader membership feedback on the concepts.

Conference membership requirements​

The board also discussed conference membership requirements, including possible options that would provide greater temporary flexibility for schools to move between conferences as the Association proceeds with changes related to the proposed settlement. The board did not take any action during the meeting, but the discussion emphasized the need for the division to be adaptable to major changes in college sports and higher education while also maintaining some level of stability within Division I in terms of conference alignment.

DI Board of Directors conditionally approves House settlement-related rules changes - NCAA.org

The Division I Board of Directors on Monday adopted changes to NCAA rules that would take effect if the House settlement is ultimately approved by the court. More

www.ncaa.org

 

[Bread]

Is there any negative (from a punishment or reduction of x) to opting out of providing these benefits as a school? Obviously recruiting would most likely take a hit but there's no default negative by opting out correct?

 

[skibum]

DI Board of Directors conditionally approves House settlement-related rules changes​

The Division I Board of Directors on Monday adopted changes to NCAA rules that would take effect if the House settlement is ultimately approved by the court. More than 150 rules will be eliminated to allow for schools to provide additional benefits to student-athletes under the settlement, as a first step toward further implementation.

Moving forward, if final approval of the settlement is granted, NCAA rules will permit schools to provide direct financial payments to student-athletes, including for use of a student-athlete's name, image and likeness. Schools have until June 15 to decide whether to opt to provide benefits that would be permissible under the settlement for the coming academic year.

The board's actions included approving a number of proposals contingent on final federal court approval:

• Permitting schools to provide full scholarships to all student-athletes on a declared roster and eliminating sport-by-sport scholarship maximums, giving schools much greater flexibility in providing athletics aid and doubling the scholarships available in women's sports.
• Modifying rules to allow autonomy conference schools and others who opt to offer settlement-related benefits to provide up to $20.5 million in direct financial benefits to student-athletes.
• Introducing rules intended to bring clarity and stability to the NIL environment for all Division I schools, including allowing for additional independent review of third-party NIL agreements between student-athletes and entities that are associated with a particular school.

The board also approved new rules that would establish new policies consistent with the terms of the settlement, including:

• The creation of technology platforms for schools to monitor their payments to student-athletes and for student-athletes to report their third-party NIL agreements.
• Rules that address steps student-athletes can take if an NIL agreement is considered outside of the range of compensation developed by the external, independent clearinghouse.
• The creation of an enforcement group — created and operated by the defendant conferences — that would provide oversight for rules relating to the terms of the settlement, including third-party NIL and the annual benefits cap.
• A requirement that for student-athletes to receive the new benefits, they must be enrolled full-time, meet Division I progress-toward-degree requirements and receive such benefits during their period of eligibility (e.g., five-year clock).

Future of Division I governance​

The board received an update from the Decision-Making Working Group, which provided concepts for a possible new committee structure in Division I.

While the final proposal for the structure of Division I is still a work in progress, the working group's recommended format would reduce the number of committees, removing several layers to the governance structure and enabling the Association to be nimbler and more responsive to the needs of college sports.

The board did not take a position on the suggested format and is not expected to vote on a proposal to restructure the decision-making process for Division I until June, but it directed NCAA staff to begin seeking broader membership feedback on the concepts.

Conference membership requirements​

The board also discussed conference membership requirements, including possible options that would provide greater temporary flexibility for schools to move between conferences as the Association proceeds with changes related to the proposed settlement. The board did not take any action during the meeting, but the discussion emphasized the need for the division to be adaptable to major changes in college sports and higher education while also maintaining some level of stability within Division I in terms of conference alignment.

DI Board of Directors conditionally approves House settlement-related rules changes - NCAA.org

The Division I Board of Directors on Monday adopted changes to NCAA rules that would take effect if the House settlement is ultimately approved by the court. More

www.ncaa.org

Trying to figure out what "eliminating sport-by-sport scholarship maximums" means.

I can't shake the feeling that it's a road map back to 150man football rosters.

OTOH, it makes balancing mens and womens scholarships easier, which is how they phrase it.

It could also pave the way for schools to be able to effectively compete in both sprints and distance running events, as the scholarship count was a severe limiting factor in terms of fielding highly competitive teams in both.

Also, just realized that there will likely still be a "roster" limit, which means that the roster limit is now the effective scholarship limit.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Trying to figure out what "eliminating sport-by-sport scholarship maximums" means.

I can't shake the feeling that it's a road map back to 150man football rosters.

OTOH, it makes balancing mens and womens scholarships easier, which is how they phrase it.

It could also pave the way for schools to be able to effectively compete in both sprints and distance running events, as the scholarship count was a severe limiting factor in terms of fielding highly competitive teams in both.

Also, just realized that there will likely still be a "roster" limit, which means that the roster limit is now the effective scholarship limit.

105 roster limit for football where all 105 can be on scholarship, but are not obligated to be, and scholarships can be done as a full ride or partial of some percentage.

 

[Buffnik]

Is there any negative (from a punishment or reduction of x) to opting out of providing these benefits as a school? Obviously recruiting would most likely take a hit but there's no default negative by opting out correct?

The conferences are named and involved by the settlement agreement. I think you'd have to drop out like U of Chicago did with the B1G back in the day.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Is there any negative (from a punishment or reduction of x) to opting out of providing these benefits as a school? Obviously recruiting would most likely take a hit but there's no default negative by opting out correct?

Recruiting wouldn’t take a hit, it would become non existent and those programs would become D2 level competitiveness

 

[Bread]

Recruiting wouldn’t take a hit, it would become non existent and those programs would become D2 level competitiveness

Agreed I forgot that part of this was the enforcement group so you couldn't opt out but then just continue to fund insane amounts of "NIL" through boosters. Opting out would be the death of the program.