The NCAA’s House settlement era opened Tuesday, with athletic programs across the country free to start paying millions to their athletes in the biggest change in the history of college athletics.
The end of the NCAA’s longstanding amateur model is certain to cause headaches and disputes among powerhouse schools and smaller colleges alike. Scattered among them, however, is a handful of schools that have decided to wait it out at least a year to see how things develop, including legal risks and Title IX concerns.
Call them the opt-outs.
The Ivy League removed itself from the conversation early, saying in January that its eight schools — which do not award athletic scholarships — will not participate. Military rules bar Navy, Air Force, and Army from compensating athletes through name, image and likeness deals. But alongside the academies are others choosing to watch the settlement unfold from the sidelines during year one.
The deadline for schools to opt out was Monday. There were very few announcements. Among them: Nebraska-Omaha and Montana.
“Although we welcome the approval and intent of the settlement, our mission remains to protect the interests of our current student-athletes while honoring UNO’s core values as we transition to a new era,” the university wrote in a statement. “Opting in at this stage … would simply introduce new and unresolved variables at a time when clarity is critical.”
Omaha cited Title IX compliance as a reason, which according to attorney Mit Winter, a college sports legal expert, should be a legitimate concern for any university opting in and deciding to share up to $20.5 million with its athletes over the next year alone.
“A lot of people think Title IX doesn’t mandate that the rev-share dollars be paid out the same way that athletic scholarships have to be paid out, which is proportional to the male-female student population,” Winter said. “Most (Power Four) schools, 90- to 95% of their $20.5 million are going to go to male athletes — football and basketball in most cases.”
Another noteworthy opt-out is Montana, whose football team consistently competes at a high level. Athletic director Kent Haslam informed multiple outlets of the university’s decision, which comes as archrival Montana State opts in.
“It’s not like we’ve been sitting on this extra pot of revenue that now, magically, we’ll be able to share,” Haslam told the Montana Kaimin in April.
Winter said even a year on the sideline could hurt.
“It makes it much harder to compete in recruiting if schools you’re competing against are able to pay their athletes up to $20.5 million and you’re not able to pay them anything,” Winter said. “In my view, Montana State just gave themselves a huge advantage in recruiting over Montana.”
For schools opting in – and that’s the vast majority across Division I — there is a host of questions. Some are logistical: Many donor-backed collectives are disbanding or being brought in-house, a key change in fundraising. Schools are getting familiar with reporting and enforcement details for NIL deals over $600, and both school and athlete are getting crash courses on contracts that read more like the are from the NFL and other pro sports leagues.
Plenty of opt-ins won’t reach the $20.5 million cap that will rise over the next decade. But regardless of finances, most schools have chosen to partake in the settlement to stay competitive in an evolving college sports landscape.
“There are a lot of schools that feel the obligation to opt in to remain competitive,” said Michael Rueda, an attorney leads the sports and entertainment division at the Withers law firm. “I do think it offers a bit more structure for some of those larger schools that have been spending a lot of time trying to build a collective and raise money so that they could keep their best athletes. And then there are other schools that just aren’t in the same category. From a dollars and cents perspective, it just doesn’t make sense across the board.”
With limited resources and difficulties adapting to NIL ventures, Rueda said smaller schools face significant challenges against deep-pocketed universities.
“I would envision that a lot of those schools can’t even fathom how to make this jump yet,” Rueda said. “They were struggling even before this trying to understand how institutional NIL worked. They probably were just coming to terms with how some of that stuff might have been feasible for them, and now you’re completely changing the game. And so they have to get up to speed and figure out what this looks like for a school of that size with limited resources, budget staff and all that.”
Comments