The college sports-wide vibe shift that led leaders to the brink of a historic settlement

The exhaustion, but also the relief, was clear in the voice of a longtime college sports administrator late last week. This power broker is neither a hard-liner nor a revolutionary. But when granted anonymity to discuss negotiations surrounding a high-profile lawsuit, they had this to say on the subject of a possible settlement in House v. NCAA: “Hopefully, we’re finally about to get a new model for college athletics.”

That sums up the feelings of plenty of people in college sports these days.

A vibe shift within the industry is coming to a head this spring. After so much time complaining about and fighting the changes wrought by name, image and likeness freedoms and the transfer portal, it appears … emphasis on appears … that college leaders have reached a new stage: accepting their new normal and seeking actual, realistic solutions.

The evidence for this comes from the movement toward a settlement in the House case, in which plaintiffs are seeking damages for past athletes for lost earnings from the years before NIL reform, along with changes to the system to benefit current and future athletes. The two sides are discussing the details of a deal, first reported by ESPN and confirmed by The Athletic, which would cost the NCAA and its schools billions of dollars and would set a new framework through which athletes can directly receive a cut of their schools’ revenue.

That cut could total around $20 million per year for all of a school’s athletes — football, basketball, non-revenue sports, men’s and women’s teams — according to those briefed on the talks. Schools would participate in revenue sharing on an opt-in basis, so some could choose to pay less than the proposed maximum, half of it or none of it.

This does not solve the problems (assuming they are problems) with the transfer portal, NIL and pay-for-play. But in the eyes of administrators, it’s a key step, as revenue sharing would have a domino effect on NIL and perhaps the portal: Schools directly paying athletes can alleviate donor fatigue. There could be ways to use revenue sharing to convince players not to transfer. And the willingness to even turn to revenue sharing could be a step toward actually getting help from the government.

GO DEEPER

‘My gripe is with the system’: Why some fans are resisting giving money to NIL collectives

Until now, the NCAA has been seen in some quarters as trying to roll back the clock on athletes’ rights. Now, as one administrator put it, the organization could go to Congress and say, Look what we’ve done here, we’ve fixed some of these wrongs. Now can you work with us? 

Just to be clear: The House settlement is not a done deal. Other details could emerge if and when it is settled. Jeffrey Kessler, the attorney for the plaintiffs, has not commented publicly since the buzz of a looming settlement intensified, nor have college leaders, none of whom would speak on the record for this story. But conversations with people in the industry have shed light on how things got to this point and what remains to be done.

GO DEEPER

College football has a transfer portal problem. Here’s how to fix it.

For many, it’s a foregone conclusion that there will be a settlement in the House case. There was too much risk in going to court with Kessler, who knows how to beat the NCAA. Losing court cases was how the NCAA lost control in the first place, and at long last, the power brokers have decided to be more pragmatic.

NCAA president Charlie Baker is regarded as a positive force in these moves, and there is buzz among coaches and staffers that a specific change Baker has advocated for could be coming soon: the option for schools to bring their NIL affiliates in-house, directly paying players for their exclusive rights. That change would allow schools to supplement what athletes get through revenue sharing — paying them a certain amount for appearing on the cover of a season ticket, for example.

When Baker was hired two years ago, the former Massachusetts governor was seen as a glorified lobbyist to Congress, and that seemed a fool’s errand. Indeed, no bill has even come close to fruition. But Baker has brought a fresh voice to the organization, bringing forward reform proposals and nudging longtime college administrators into accepting that the old days are not coming back.

Power-conference commissioners have been willing to engage, and not just the most powerful two, per multiple sources within the industry: The Big Ten and SEC may be the two richest conferences, but they haven’t been the sole driving force toward a settlement. College presidents generally were the most reluctant, but during the past year there has been, as one official put it, “an evolution in thinking.”

The overall chaos was a driving factor, but recent events have built toward a tipping point:

• The transfer portal, which got as wild as it has ever been during this college football offseason, with key players jumping and splashy reports of the money involved in those decisions.

• A West Virginia court injunction that threw out the NCAA’s rule restricting athletes to a one-time free transfer, allowing players to leave after any year and not sit out any seasons.

• The NCAA’s investigation of Tennessee football about quarterback Nico Iamaleava’s recruitment, which was countered by the Tennessee attorney general’s successful pursuit of a temporary restraining order preventing the NCAA from enforcing its own recruiting rules.

This last blow to the status quo in particular helped mobilize a lot of people, according to another official.

Again, to be clear, not everyone is there yet. The House case could still go to court in December. Negotiations could still break down over details. There remains concern about the problems a settlement may not entirely solve, from how a new system would fit within Title IX to whether placing a cap on revenue sharing leaves it open for antitrust challenges.

But the momentum is now on the side of a settlement. As one official put it, some people want to solve everything at once, while others say officials need to get what they can get done and go from there. And that’s where things appear to be heading in the next few weeks.

Whether it means going to the drastic step of calling athletes employees, a step that may be necessary to regain control of transfers and other rules, remains a big debate. But the ground has moved enough that many are speaking about employment, or at least a collective bargaining agreement, in more than just hushed tones.

GO DEEPER

What happens if college athletes win their fight to become employees?

A proposal this week by Jason Stahl of the self-titled College Football Players Association envisioned athletes participating in collective bargaining as non-employees without having their financial rights limited. If the House case is settled, creating that new financial model, the college power brokers can move on to the next step.

“We want this proposal to jump-start the debate over how college athletes can collectively bargain in the future,” Stahl said.

Stahl is leery of going too far in the new structure, such as getting rid of collectives or anything that would seem to limit the financial rights of athletes. But he’s open to dialogue.

“We’re willing to work on a sustainable model for college athletics,” Stahl said. “We’re willing to tame the chaos.”

Almost exactly three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its unanimous ruling against the NCAA in the Alston case. Ten days later, the NIL market opened up to athletes around the country. Three years later, the NCAA and college power brokers are tired of losing in court and tired of the impact of those losses. Those on the other side — lawyers, union organizers, reform-minded critics — largely seem ready to engage on solutions.

Is it all a done deal? No. But things are moving, tentatively, in that direction.

(Photo: Adam Cairns / Columbus Dispatch / USA Today)