Major League Baseball publicly released a trove of bat-tracking data today that offers fascinating insights into what makes the best hitters good — and the worst bad. With everything from bat speed to swing length to sweet spot contact measured, it will have a similarly profound effect on hitters that ball-tracking data had on pitchers.

Using the Hawk-Eye tracking system that positions 12 cameras around every major league stadium — including five running at 300 frames per second — MLB has spent more than two years refining the bat-tracking model before releasing it on its Statcast platform. In measuring using the sweet spot about 6 inches below the head of the bat, every swing of every hitter is documented through objective data and ready for analysis.

Here are the basics. The average major league swing is 71.5 mph. The average length of the bat’s path on a swing, start to finish, is 7.3 feet. Hitters square up the ball on one-third of batted balls. The fastest swings typically belong to the most productive players — but not always. The average bat speed for the best hitter in the major leagues this season, Shohei Ohtani: 75.4 mph. The average bat speed for the worst hitter in the major leagues this season, Javier Baez: 75.4 mph.

Just as the advent of the pitch-tracking era prompted changes in training methods to juice velocity and spin, the ability to measure bat speed and paths will likewise change the approaches of hitters in future years. For now, though, in this nascent stage, the data is pure and unadulterated. And it tells us that when it comes to bat speed, there is one man, and then there is everyone else.

The king of bat speed

When Statcast debuted in 2015 and exit velocity jumped to the fore of baseball lexicon, Giancarlo Stanton, then with the Miami Marlins, topped almost every leaderboard. That season, there were 12 balls hit at least 117 mph. One from Mike Trout, one from Nelson Cruz, one from Carlos Gonzalez and nine from Stanton.

The now-New York Yankees slugger’s bat-speed numbers are similarly gaudy. Stanton’s swing, on average, comes in around 80.6 mph — nearly 3 mph higher than the second-fastest swinger, Pittsburgh Pirates shortstop Oneil Cruz. It’s also consistently fast. Statcast is characterizing all swings over 75 mph as “fast.” Just over 22% of swings reach the 75 mph threshold. Stanton is at 98.0%, nearly 25% ahead of the next best, the Philadelphia Phillies’ Kyle Schwarber, who swings 75-plus mph 73.9% of the time.

Stanton is also near the top of another category: swing length, where he’s second behind Baez. Height often influences swing length, and at 6-foot-6, it’s no surprise to see Stanton’s swing covering 8.4 feet.

Of course, as Stanton’s struggles in recent years have taught, exit velocity — and now, bat speed — do not by themselves make for a great hitter. Stanton has the single hardest-hit ball in MLB this season at 119.9 mph and the highest average exit velocity on his hardest-hit balls, but he has been only a slightly-above-league-average hitter, batting .230/.283/.452.

The lesson: You can have the fastest swing around, but by no means does it guarantee success.

The anti-Stanton

On the other end of the spectrum is San Diego Padres craftsman Luis Arraez, who can add a new title to his two batting crowns: the slowest bat in baseball. Arráez’s bat speed of 62.4 mph lags 2 mph behind the second-most languid, Cleveland Guardians outfielder Steven Kwan, and the two are perhaps the best examples of what players without elite bat speed can do to continue thriving in the big leagues.

Arráez and Kwan are part of the cohort of controlled, short swings that get squared up with a phenomenal amount of regularity. Arráez’s swing is just 5.9 feet and Kwan’s 6.4. In the group of sub-68-mph bat speed and sub-6.4-foot swing length are Milwaukee Brewers second baseman Brice Turang (128 OPS+), Yankees outfielder Alex Verdugo (107) and Toronto Blue Jays DH Justin Turner (111), all of whom are productive offensive players.

One might suggest it’s in spite of their swings, but perhaps it’s better to start treating it like it’s because of them. Arráez leads MLB by squaring up the ball on 43.9% of his swings. To determine whether a pitch has been squared up, the system takes two variables — bat speed and pitch speed — and determines the maximum exit velocity. Then it takes the actual EV on a batted ball and compares it to the peak. If it’s at least 80% of the top-end number, it is deemed to be squared up, because only balls that hit the bat’s sweet spot can produce 80%-plus velocities.

When hitters square up a ball, they bat .372 and slug .659. When they don’t, they hit .127 and slug .144. In other words, even if neither possesses much power, appreciate Arráez, Kwan and others for what they are: masters of the art of hitting.

The perfect marriage of bat speed and precision

Take Stanton, put him into one of those mash-up machines with Arráez, and what do you get?

Juan Soto. Just consider:

• At 76.1 mph, the Yankees right fielder has the 10^th-highest bat speed among the 221 qualified players.

• He swings 75-plus mph 66% of the time, ranking seventh.

• He has squared up 83 balls, the fourth most in MLB, and does so at a 48.3% rate, which is second.

• He is second in blasts, a metric that adds an element of bat speed to a player’s squared-up rate, with 49. The top 10 players in blasts are a “who’s who” of great hitters: Jose Ramirez, Julio Rodriguez, Aaron Judge, Yandy Diaz, Gunnar Henderson, Salvador Perez, Bobby Witt Jr., Ohtani, Soto and a surprising No. 1 whom we’ll introduce next.

A swing length of 7.3 feet is the only place where Soto is average. He’s not like Corey Seager, Freddie Freeman and Wyatt Langford, who generate excellent bat speed with short swings. Nor is he like the majority of players who join him near the top of the bat-speed list and generate it using long swings.

No, Soto is just spectacular at what he does. And his outlier status in bat-tracking data validates his place there with production, too.

The best hitter in baseball nobody knows

He has more blasts than Soto and Ohtani.

Only four players have squared up more balls than him, and each is a multitime All-Star.

He doesn’t even swing, on average, as hard as his brother. But that doesn’t matter, because William Contreras — the Brewers’ catcher, younger sibling of St. Louis Cardinals catcher Willson Contreras — does plenty of damage with a 74.2 mph effort. Not only is the 26-year-old Contreras atop the list of blasts, it’s not particularly close: His 58 are ahead of Soto’s 50 and Ohtani’s 46, and his big league-best blast rate of 34.5% is 2½ times the major league average of 13.7%.

The reason for Contreras’ success is clear: He swings hard, hits the ball very hard and doesn’t strike out much (sub-20% punchout rate on the season). It’s an exceptional combination of skills, and to have maintained this offensive output playing every Brewers game, not to mention 33 of 40 at catcher, is MVP-caliber work.

Others this season whose bat skills deserve credit:

Whose profiles are alarming?

While MLB attempted to start tracking swings using Statcast in a limited number of stadiums during the 2022 season, the league only felt confident enough this year to release the full set of numbers. Thus, it’s impossible to know for certain whose swing has gotten faster or slower in recent years.

Here are five players whose swing metrics over the season’s first seven weeks are cause for concern.

Javier Báez, SS, Detroit Tigers: Never has bat speed been a question for Báez, and this season reinforced that. The issue — or one of the issues — is that he lugs his bat through the zone longer than anyone, Stanton included. Baez’s 8.7-foot-long bat path simply doesn’t generate the hard contact it once did, and his .172/.208/.233 line reflects that.

Nolan Arenado, 3B, St. Louis Cardinals: Right behind Baez and Stanton in swing length is the 33-year-old Arenado. Long swings can be a good thing — Michael Harris II, Aaron Judge, Willy Adames, Rhys Hoskins and Adolis Garcia all rank in the top 10 — but they’re tough on a pull-heavy hitter with well-below-average bat speed. Arenado has clocked in at 69.5 mph this season, and while he’s been an average hitter in a down offensive environment, only a few others (Isaac Paredes, Jose Altuve) have found success with long swings and slower bats. All three have low blast rates, which is worth keeping an eye on.

Vladimir Guerrero Jr., 1B, Toronto Blue Jays: The 25-year-old has the makings of a good hitter. An average bat speed of 75.6 mph (14th in MLB) and 34 blasts (22nd) portend well. The issue? Guerrero is squaring up the ball at an anemic rate: just 21% of swings and 26.9% of the time on contact. The blasts show that when Vlad does hit the sweet spot, he does significant damage. He just hits the weak part of the bat far too often.

Jorge Soler, DH, San Francisco Giants: As bad as Guerrero has been at squaring up the ball, Soler is markedly worse. His bad speed is the same as Vlad’s at 75.6 mph, but he has the third-lowest squared-up rate on contact. The blasts are even worse: Soler has been the only player in baseball who swings harder than 73.2 mph and can’t muster even a 10% blast rate. Perhaps the right shoulder strain that forced him to the IL a week ago was the culprit? No longer is that a question left to speculation. The data upon Soler’s return will answer it.

Brett Baty, 3B, New York Mets: At the bottom of the list is Baty, the clearest example of the anomaly that is high bat speed, weak contact. While Baty doesn’t swing as hard as Soler or Guerrero, his 73.2-mph swing is certainly above average. His MLB-worst 18.0% squared-up rate on contact, on the other hand, is not. Getting out-blasted by Arráez when swinging 11 mph harder than him is a difficult thing to do.

AMELIA ISLAND, Fla. — When the annual ACC spring meetings begin Monday, there will be no way to avoid what has become the story overshadowing the conference: Its long-term future.

The ACC, Clemson and Florida State are embroiled in lawsuits over the grant of rights agreement that ostensibly keeps ACC schools in a TV contract through 2036 — an agreement those two schools argue is no longer financially competitive and that has their fans, according to a FOIA request made by ESPN, demanding they leave the league.

Clemson and Florida State will be at the meetings, participating in the league agenda. That agenda is expected to include discussions about the expanded College Football Playoff and resulting revenue distribution, a pending $2.7 billion settlement in antitrust cases involving the NCAA and ways to enhance revenue streams for the ACC.

The agenda is not expected to include discussions about the lawsuits. After all, Clemson and Florida State remain ACC members and consistently have been on league calls and Zooms since their lawsuits were filed. They have all tried to operate as if it is business as usual, but nothing has been normal over the past 18 months.

During spring meetings last year it was revealed seven schools — including Clemson and Florida State — had studied the grant of rights to determine a path forward and discussed potential exit strategies. That put the league on notice. Seven months later, the ACC and Florida State sued each other. This past March, Clemson and the ACC went to court.

Ahead of this year’s meetings, let’s look at how we got here and what comes next.

The lawsuits

ESPN filed a public records request to Florida State seeking emails and texts between Dec. 3 and Dec. 22 to determine how and when school officials decided to move forward with legal action. What came back were emails from angry fans, begging Florida State athletic director Michael Alford and university president Richard McCullough to do something.

The first emails started coming in Dec. 3, the same day the Seminoles became the first undefeated Power 5 school left out of the four-team College Football Playoff that began in 2014. For months, Florida State had expressed its dissatisfaction with the ACC over an impending revenue gap with the SEC and Big Ten, a gap Alford estimated would reach $30 million annually.

The previous August, the Florida State board of trustees met to discuss its long-term future. Trustee Justin Roth asked for an exit plan to leave the ACC by August 2024. Florida State lawyers then began coming up with a legal strategy to challenge the grant of rights, which transfers ownership of media rights from the school to the ACC and runs through 2036.

The playoff snub seemed to crystallize what had to be done. Less than an hour after the playoff announcement, a Florida State fan wrote in an email to Alford, “We must get out of the ACC or we are officially dead as a college football program … The time is now. We must do whatever it takes to get out. We beg of you to end this charade.”

Another email came in at roughly the same time, subject line “LEAVE THE ACC NOW”:

“We get no respect in this conference

We get no money in this conference

WHY ARE WE STILL HERE?”

On Dec. 4, one Seminole booster, whose name was redacted, wrote to Alford in response to a distribution list email in which he asked fans to redirect their “passion and support” and attend the Orange Bowl against Georgia.

“Really? Just move on like nothing just happened. Just spend thousands more dollars after getting slapped in the face … by an incompetent, low football IQ committee? No thanks. … We stuck with FSU through the 2015-2020 debacle only to have our players, coaches, Boosters, Administration and fans humiliated in front of the whole country. You and the FSU President need to stand up more publicly and find a way to start moving us out of the ACC. Maybe ask fans to divert Stadium renovation dollars to conference realignment costs as a small help. I know the cost of moving is monumental but the long term cost of not moving ASAP, may be more, and even permanent.”

Through the FOIA request, the only email that came back between Alford, McCullough and board of trustees chair Peter Collins regarding the school’s future plans was dated Dec. 21. Earlier that day, Florida State had announced it would hold a special board meeting Dec. 22 to discuss legal matters related to the athletic department.

In two emails Dec. 21, Alford sent Collins a list of questions he could be asked at the board meeting. Alford wrote:

How confident should we be about this when there has been no known legal challenge to a grant of rights.

Why should we be confident in the correct outcome?

Have we TRULY exhausted EVERY possible avenue for discussion of a tenable solution short of legal action?

On Dec. 22, the Florida State board voted to sue the ACC in Leon County, Florida, seeking to void the grant of rights and withdrawal fee as “unreasonable restraints of trade in the state of Florida and not enforceable in their entirety against Florida State.”

In his comments to the board, Collins and McCullough told the board they felt they had, indeed, exhausted every possible option and had no choice but to file a lawsuit. “These things are timely and you can’t wish and hope that somehow they’ll get fixed in the next year two, three, four, five. By that time, I don’t think that we’ll be competitive,” McCullough said.

The same day, it became publicly known the ACC decided to file a lawsuit in North Carolina first to defend the grant of rights and league members on Dec. 21.

At the time, there was rampant speculation that Clemson would be next to file. Both schools had been described as being in “lockstep” with each other, sharing similar concerns about their long-term futures in a conference that could not keep up financially. The key difference between the two, as one person close to the situation described it, was the playoff snub.

Clemson ultimately filed its lawsuit three months later in March, in South Carolina. As a result, the ACC sued Clemson in North Carolina, and argued in its suit that Clemson indicated a “desire to work with the conference” regarding its own membership and “requested confidentiality and protections that the ACC would not file a lawsuit against it.”

Since then, Clemson has filed an amended complaint seeking damages, as the school accused the league of “slander of title,” arguing the ACC was able to strengthen its position through the grant of rights, while diminishing Clemson’s.

Two other schools, Miami and North Carolina, had been proactively looking at the grant of rights with the same urgency as Clemson and Florida State at this time last year. But at this point, Miami has no plans to pursue the same legal strategy. Athletic director Dan Radakovich told a local radio station several months ago, “Here at the University of Miami we are incredibly solid with the ACC.”

North Carolina is in a trickier situation. UNC board chair John Preyer has expressed a desire to weigh all options, but no action has been taken. It should be noted UNC has an interim chancellor, Lee H. Roberts, that makes it more challenging to take action. Further complicating matters, the UNC system board of governors in February passed a policy that requires its public schools to gain approval to move conferences from the board and the UNC system president.

Where do all the lawsuits stand?

There are five total lawsuits ongoing: the ACC vs. Clemson; the ACC vs. Florida State; Clemson vs. the ACC; Florida State vs. the ACC, plus a lawsuit Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody filed against the ACC in April, seeking to make public the ESPN-ACC television contract as part of Florida State’s case.

The judge in Clemson’s case in South Carolina ruled this month that the ACC must provide an unredacted copy of the ESPN contract to Clemson, though it will remain confidential and can be used only as part of the case.

In North Carolina, the next court hearing in the ACC’s case against Clemson is scheduled for July 2. Clemson recently filed a motion to dismiss the case. In the ACC’s case against Florida State, Judge Louis Bledsoe denied its motion to dismiss. Florida State has said it will appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court, and no court date has been set.

In South Carolina, the ACC filed a motion to dismiss the case on May 7. In Florida, Cooper referred the ACC and Florida State to mediation. The two sides have been unable to agree on a mediator, so Cooper granted an extension until May 31 to choose one.

The bottom line is all parties expected a protracted legal battle to play itself out, and there is no incentive — at least at the moment — to negotiate a settlement or resolution.

So what about this year’s meetings?

At last year’s spring meetings there were fireworks on the first day after it was revealed publicly that seven schools had conducted discussions about the future of the conference. Those not involved in the discussions felt blindsided. So did ACC commissioner Jim Phillips. One AD described the tenor as an “airing of grievances.”

Once they cleared the air, they were able to come to an agreement on “success initiatives” to reward on-field and on-court success — pushed forward largely by Alford, as a way to acknowledge Florida State’s concerns over the widening revenue gap. Phillips presented a unified front when the meetings wrapped, saying he believed, “We’re all in this together.”

Now, a year later, Clemson, Florida State and the ACC are in a fight for their own long-term futures. Nobody knows how their legal battles will play out, but they still have to find a way to work together. Phillips has pledged to continue to fully support Clemson and Florida State athletes for as long as they remain conference members.

With the impending antitrust case settlements and a potential framework for a new collegiate model that would share revenue with student-athletes, it’s more imperative than ever to find more revenue streams for the ACC. This is especially true following the recent news that payouts from the newly expanded CFP will not be distributed evenly, leaving the ACC behind the SEC and Big Ten once again — further proving that a “Power 2” exists.

Adding to the dynamic will be the presence of new members Stanford, Cal and SMU — three schools added last fall to help shore up the ACC long term. The league will continue to move forward discussing league business and will celebrate the success stories and team championships won this athletic season during a reception Tuesday night — all while uncertainty hangs in the background.

The NCAA and its schools are considering a proposed solution to one of the largest looming obstacles remaining for a landmark settlement of the association’s antitrust cases, which could shape the future of major collegiate sports in America.

With the college sports industry aiming to avoid future antitrust lawsuits, the terms of a settlement would establish an annual process giving new players a chance to opt in or object to revenue-sharing terms currently being negotiated as part of the emerging framework for the future business model of the NCAA’s top schools.

The NCAA and its most powerful conferences are in the thick of working toward settling the House v. NCAA case this month, with sources saying leagues are planning to vote on a proposed deal by May 23. ESPN spoke to more than a dozen legal and industry experts in college sports this week to better understand the ongoing negotiations.

The tentative terms of the settlement include the NCAA paying more than $2.7 billion in past damages as well as setting up a system for its most powerful conferences to share a portion of their revenue with athletes moving forward. One major obstacle to reaching a settlement has been finding a way for the NCAA and its schools to protect themselves from future lawsuits, including potential claims they would be colluding to cap player compensation without using a collective bargaining agreement.

Steve Berman, the co-lead counsel representing athletes in the House case, told ESPN he and his team have proposed a solution that would extend the class-action settlement on an annual basis. In this scenario, athletes would receive a notice each year providing them with the opportunity to object to the terms of the revenue-share agreement. Berman said those athletes would then have the chance to attend a hearing and persuade the judge that the revenue-share arrangement was unfair in order to push for a change.

“Each year we would have a hearing where any new athlete who wasn’t previously bound [by the settlement] can come and object,” Berman said. “They would have to come and say, ‘I don’t think this is fair.’ That would be a hard burden to prove.”

An NCAA spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. Some athlete organizers say they are skeptical a rolling annual opt-in mechanism would be enough to dissuade future players from filing lawsuits to push for a bigger share of money in future years.

Sources say revenue sharing with athletes would begin, at the earliest, in the summer of 2025. The settlement would also serve to resolve three other active antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA.

The details of a settlement and their implications on how schools spend their money remain in flux. But with leagues expected to vote within the next two weeks, details are growing more clear as leaders in the industry weigh their options and sort through several remaining questions about how a future business model will work.

Why would an annual hearing be necessary?

In professional sports, the amount of revenue a league shares with its players is typically negotiated through a collective bargaining agreement between the league and a players’ union. Collective bargaining agreements completed with a certified union are exempt from antitrust challenges in court. That legal protection would not apply, however, in college sports if athletes are not deemed to be employees when schools start sharing their revenue.

The NCAA and its schools have been firmly opposed to a model where athletes are viewed as employees.

There are multiple pending cases in front of the National Labor Relations Board where athletes and their advocates are arguing that players should be employees and have the right to unionize, but those cases could take years to reach a conclusion. Others such as the College Football Players Association — one of several groups seeking to organize college athletes — have proposed asking Congress to create a special status for college athletes that would allow them to collectively bargain without being employees. But again, Congress has been slow to reach consensus on any federal legislation that could help chart a course forward for college sports despite several years of requested help from the NCAA.

The current House case is a class-action lawsuit that applies to all current Division I college athletes. That means future college athletes would not be bound by the terms of a settlement reached this year. Berman and his colleagues are hoping that giving each incoming group of new players an option to join the class will provide the schools with enough confidence that their agreement will be hard to challenge with future litigation.

What are the chances of a settlement happening?

There are so many moving parts that nothing is definitive, but sources from both sides of the case appear to be optimistic they are making substantial progress toward a settlement.

The NCAA has worked furiously toward settling, including agreeing to pick up the more than $2.7 billion in past damages over the next 10 years. If the case goes to trial and a judge rules against the NCAA, the association and its schools could be on the hook for more than $4 billion in damages.

Sources told ESPN that NCAA president Charlie Baker was in Washington, D.C., on Thursday meeting with more than a half-dozen Senators, a previously scheduled trip where he’s staying engaged with current Senate leaders about potential future legislation.

The belief in the industry is that all the power conferences have the majority votes to settle, which will be up to their schools’ top administrators. There are a few individual schools that are skeptical of settling — some of those overlap with the schools that supported the idea of forming a new “super league” that would radically reshape the entire structure of college athletics. While some believe a more complete overhaul is needed, sources told ESPN there’s essentially zero chance of a super league emerging in the near future.

To the majority, the idea of a league deciding to battle Berman and fellow lead attorney Jeffrey Kessler in court and face billions in damages isn’t too appetizing — especially with the NCAA paying the back damages.

Here’s the breakdown of the landscape, according to multiple industry sources: The Big Ten is generally on board with settling. The SEC has some detractors of settling but is trending to a majority. The Big 12 is expected to follow along. There’s some dissension in the ACC, which has amplified why Florida State and Clemson are suing to leave the league, but sources say it’s unlikely the ACC will end up voting against it.

It’s also important to note here that a vote for settling doesn’t mean all of the key details will have been ironed out. The notion of capping the size of a team’s roster as part of this new business model, for example, has generated buzz in athletic director and coaching circles. But details like what a football roster would be capped at — and the fate of walk-ons — are not expected to be decided until after the vote, per sources.

“It’s so early in that conversation, it’s hard to speculate,” a source said. “There’s a lot more work there. You want to build consensus across multiple conferences.”

Also, any potential help from Congress that Baker is courting wouldn’t come until well after the settlement.

“It gives us a better hand to play with Congress,” an industry source said. “They were looking for something from us. This injects a lot in that conversation. This is a good start.”

How much money will schools be spending on future payments to athletes?

Sources told ESPN that while terms could change, the current proposal would create a spending cap for each power-conference school based on 22% of the average media rights, ticket sales and sponsorship revenue of each power-conference school. Sources say they expect that cap number to be nearly $20 million per school. Schools would not be required to spend that much money on their athletes but would have the option to share up to that $20 million figure with them.

The cap number could change every few years to reflect changes in the overall revenue of schools. It’s not clear whether some money the schools already provide to their athletes — such as an academic reward of roughly $6,000 commonly referred to as Alston payments — would count toward that cap. Multiple sources did tell ESPN that donations from boosters are not included in the revenue formula.

How will they divide that money among their athletes?

There are no specific provisions in the proposed settlement that spell out how schools should distribute money to athletes, according to sources. Each individual school would be responsible for deciding which athletes to pay and sorting through the uncertainty around how that money would apply to Title IX regulations, per multiple sources.

Title IX requires colleges to provide equal opportunities for men and women to compete in varsity sports and provide equitable benefits to those athletes. The law, written long before athletes were earning money beyond their scholarships, does not clearly state how the federal government views direct payments to athletes. Does equitable treatment require a school to give the same dollar amount to men and women athletes in the new revenue-share model? Or would the payments be viewed more as a benefit that could be proportional to the money generated by each sport? Would scholarship dollars and additional revenue-share dollars be considered in the same financial category when balancing the Title IX ledgers?

“The truth is, no one knows,” a source told ESPN on Friday.

While the Department of Education or Congress could provide answers proactively, neither has demonstrated any urgency to do so at this point. Specific interpretations of Title IX often come through litigation, and in this instance, a group of athletes might need to file a lawsuit about how their school is handling these direct payments to establish clarity.

Until then, the most conservative approach for schools to ensure Title IX compliance would mean evenly splitting the new revenue-share dollars between men and women athletes. Sources say some schools might try to balance the overall spending by increasing scholarship opportunities on their women’s teams, but it remains unclear whether that would satisfy Title IX regulations. Others might seek a competitive advantage in football recruiting, for example, by arguing that equitable treatment for athletes in the case of revenue sharing should be based on the revenue their sports generate.

Sources also said the settlement won’t require schools to share money with all athletes or share it evenly among athletes — leaving those decisions up to individual athletic departments as well.

What happens to collectives and NIL payments?

According to a source, the settlement does not include any provision that would put an end to the booster collectives that currently serve as the main vehicle for paying athletes. School officials hope a settlement will create a way to strengthen the NCAA’s ability to enforce its rules, including its rule that requires NIL payments to be for a player’s market value as opposed to the current system, which frequently serves as a workaround for “pay-for-play” arrangements. However, drawing a distinction between those two types of payments would remain a difficult, nebulous task. Any attempt to completely eliminate the NIL collective market would take a substantial change in federal law provided by Congress.

The NCAA has created new rules this spring that allow schools to be more directly involved in finding NIL deals for their athletes. New state laws are also opening doors for the schools to use their own money to pay for an athlete’s NIL rights as opposed to those funds coming from a third party. The extent to which each school continues to be involved in finding NIL opportunities for its athletes in a future with revenue sharing could vary significantly.

“The feeling in the industry is that collectives are going to be forced to stay outside the universities, and it will become more of a discrepancy of the haves and have-nots,” said an industry source. “If you bring collectives in, any money raised would count toward the cap. But schools can hit the cap and still have collectives as third parties. That’s the fear, and why there needs to be regulation.”

What does this mean for major college basketball and leagues outside power conferences?

It’s still relatively uncertain how this would impact major college basketball schools outside of the power conferences.

Schools in the Big East, which is the most prominent basketball-forward league in the country, haven’t been given any formal guidance on how a settlement would trickle down to their level.

The prevailing sentiment is that leagues outside the power conferences named in the lawsuit, including basketball-forward leagues, will have the opportunity to opt into the same 22% revenue-share formula, which would be applied to their specific revenue.

The most expensive men’s college basketball rosters heading into next season are commanding $5 million to $7 million in NIL payments, per sources. It’s too early to determine whether leagues outside the power football conferences will be able to pay that much through revenue sharing.

The uncertainty about how the power conferences will settle the antitrust claims is leaving many administrators outside those leagues in what they describe as a difficult situation.

“All of the Group of 5 is in a wait-and-see mode, which is a precarious situation,” one source told ESPN. “It is extremely tough to lead athletic departments, universities and conferences and plan for the future — whether that be facilities, NIL, etc. — when you have no seat at the table to make the rules that will impact you.”