Connect with us

Published

on

The most important thing to know about the burgeoning cooperation of the Big Ten and the SEC, announced late last week, is to not call it an alliance. Let alone The Alliance.

The ill-fated — and roundly mocked — conference alliance of August 2021 was a ham-handed move. But most notably, it was the ACC, Pac-12 and Big Ten acting defensively in response to the SEC’s acquisition of Oklahoma and Texas.

This “joint advisory group” announced last week between the Big Ten and the SEC should be viewed more as a bellwether for where college sports are going, and the desire of SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti to be proactive. It will be a consultant for the two leagues but won’t have the authority to implement changes.

While further details remain unclear, the Big Ten and SEC are sharing ideas to carve a path forward for college sports, something NCAA leadership has failed to do for a generation, capped by the recent flop of the transformation committee.

This isn’t a breakaway, a point Sankey and Petitti have done great gymnastics to point out. It’s rather an arrow pointing toward progress, ranging from micro issues such as squabbles in the College Football Playoff (governance, access and monetary distribution) to larger-scale issues all the way up to Congress.

Here’s what’s definitive about this new linking: These leagues don’t want Eastern Michigan having a say in what happens at Michigan or Florida International affecting Florida. They don’t, for example, want the Dartmouth basketball team’s unionization effort to impact the Auburn and Iowa football teams’ futures.

The SEC and Big Ten are cool on new NCAA president Charlie Baker’s proposal that calls for a new tier of Division I, which includes $30,000 payments to at least half of a school’s athletes and allows schools to make name, image and likeness deals directly with athletes.

One of the reasons the SEC and Big Ten breaking away isn’t rooted in reality comes from the Supreme Court ruling in 2021 in the NCAA v. Alston case. That ruling stresses time and again that conferences are free to forge individual paths forward.

So where could this SEC-Big Ten partnership show up to forge the future of college sports? The simple answers are lawsuit settlement and revenue share.

Multiple sources told ESPN there’s a lot of chatter that this SEC-Big Ten arm-linking could manifest itself amid the thicket of lawsuits facing the NCAA. Some of the wealthiest conferences want to find a way to settle those suits — particularly the billions in potential exposure of House v. NCAA — and use the settlement structure to create a path forward.

This is not simple, nor is it inevitable, as it’s a complicated play that likely would involve Congress. But as one industry source told ESPN on the building settlement chatter: “Congress doesn’t want to save us. They want to help us. There’s a big difference.”

Sources pointed to the House vs. NCAA case, a class-action lawsuit that has the NCAA facing a multibillion-dollar payout in damages to former athletes if a federal judge decides the association’s old prohibition on NIL deals violated federal antitrust laws. That case is scheduled to go to trial in January 2025, but it could be settled before then.

All of the so-called Power 5 conferences — SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12 — are listed as defendants in the House case, which is part of the reason they could be motivated to settle.

This spring appears to be the optimal window for settling.

The NCAA is also facing two other open antitrust complaints and a federal lawsuit that argues that all college athletes should be considered employees of their schools.

There’s no clean path to a settlement, and the circles around those talks are typically tight. But could the Big Ten and SEC spearheading some type of settlement — perhaps in multiple looming cases — mean they agree to pay some of the past damages and figure out an approved structure to revenue share with athletes going forward?

Other leagues could and will follow along. With revenue sharing with athletes seemingly inevitable at some point, would this be a way to instill it?

Gabe Feldman, director of the Tulane sports law program, warned of myriad complications but acknowledged a potential path through settlement that could create a framework going forward.

“It’s certainly plausible,” he said. “The realistic part is about the will of the parties. Are the parties willing and able to find a dollar amount to make these cases go away and able to find a structure that they would continue under? It’s certainly plausible.”

Some protection would likely be needed to slow or prevent future lawsuits from coming and challenging the structure. There are various opinions on how and whether that could be achieved, but that’s likely something that would need some type of government intervention. A settlement and some sort of revenue share could help encourage action from federal lawmakers, who have thus far made little tangible progress toward voting on the type of bill the NCAA and its members say they need.

“What they need from Congress, to be clear, is clarity,” said Mark S. Levinstein, senior counsel for Williams & Connolly, who has decades of experience in the sports space. “They need a lot of answers. For example, with respect to labor law, can the athletes unionize? If they unionize and choose the labor laws, is everything the universities did now protected from being challenged under the antitrust laws?”

Levinstein added: “The universities would also need some help with Title IX — if the football players receive a percentage of the university’s revenues, what do they have to do for the women’s rowing athletes? And they will need some clarity on any restrictions they impose on NIL. Can they prevent boosters from paying athletes to come to the university? Do you allow the quarterback to receive millions in NIL deals if they’re actually NIL deals and not payments to get him to enroll at a particular university?”

That’s a lengthy way to say there’s nothing linear here. But the settlement as a bridge to federal help is an idea being discussed, and it’s one the SEC and Big Ten appear set to dig in on once they determine which members — presidents, chancellors and athletic directors — will make up the advisory group.

We’ve seen plenty of committees, commissions and expert panels in college athletics over the years that have led to nothing more than additional committees, commissions and expert panels. What makes this partnership different is that the SEC and Big Ten have the financial muscle, alignment and leadership. But that doesn’t diminish the challenges.

Since Sankey took over at the SEC in 2015, we’ve learned that he’s calculating, the type of leader who measures many times before cutting. Sankey is, in general, a believer in the NCAA and the need for rules and a governing body. But there’s also a boiling point when Georgia State has the same juice as Georgia.

Sankey served as the co-chair of the transformation committee, a group that met for more than a year. It was formed in an effort to reshape Division I rules in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, and there were few tangible results. The time Sankey dedicated to it showed that he believed in some type of healthy NCAA for the future of college sports. But the reality is the transformation committee couldn’t transform anything. So here we are.

Petitti got hired in April of last year, and as he has gotten acclimated to all the issues in college sports, he has made the strategic decision to link with Sankey. Former Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren and Sankey had a poor relationship, summed up upon Warren’s departure by Sankey saying, “We saw the world differently.”

Alignment among leadership doesn’t mean they can change anything. The most gobsmacking thing about college sports is that, for as popular and profitable as they are at the highest levels, there has long been no one in charge. And those who do qualify as leaders can’t tell you with any confidence what the basic structure surrounding their business will be in five years. Truly, no one has any idea. Everyone is guessing.

With cohesion in the landscape’s two most powerful leagues, they will plow forward. The task is daunting, but luckily the last alliance for power conferences set the bar pretty low.

Continue Reading

Sports

‘Vibrant’ Sanders says Buffs will ‘win differently’

Published

on

By

'Vibrant' Sanders says Buffs will 'win differently'

BOULDER, Colo. — Colorado coach Deion Sanders said he feels “healthy and vibrant” after returning to the field for preseason practices after undergoing surgery to remove his bladder after a cancerous tumor was found.

Sanders, 57, said he has been walking at least a mile around campus following Colorado’s practices, which began last week. He was away from the team for the late spring and early summer following the surgery in May. Dr. Janet Kukreja, director of urological oncology at University of Colorado Cancer Center, said July 30 that Sanders, who lost about 25 pounds during his recovery, is “cured of cancer.”

“I’m healthy, I’m vibrant, I’m my old self,” Sanders said. “I’m loving life right now. I’m trying my best to live to the fullest, considering what transpired.”

Sanders credited Colorado’s assistant coaches and support staff for overseeing the program during his absence. The Pro Football Hall of Famer enters his third season as Buffaloes coach this fall.

“They’ve given me tremendous comfort,” Sanders said. “I never had to call 100 times and check on the house, because I felt like the house is going to be OK. That’s why you try your best to hire correct, so you don’t have to check on the house night and day. They did a good job, especially strength and conditioning.”

Colorado improved from four to nine wins in Sanders’ second season, but the team loses Heisman Trophy winner Travis Hunter, the No. 2 pick in April’s NFL draft, as well as record-setting quarterback Shedeur Sanders, the son of Deion Sanders. The Buffaloes have an influx of new players, including quarterbacks Kaidon Salter and Julian “Ju Ju” Lewis, who are competing for the starting job, as well as new staff members such as Pro Football Hall of Fame running back Marshall Faulk, who is coaching the Buffaloes’ running backs.

Despite the changes and his own health challenges, Deion Sanders expects Colorado to continue ascending. The Buffaloes open the season Aug. 29 when they host Georgia Tech.

“The next phase is we’re going to win differently, but we’re going to win,” Sanders said. “I don’t know if it’s going to be the Hail Mary’s at the end of the game, but it’s going to be hell during the game, because we want to be physical and we want to run the heck out of the football.”

Sanders said it will feel “a little weird, a little strange” to not be coaching Shedeur when the quarterback starts his first NFL preseason game for the Cleveland Browns on Friday night at Carolina. Deion Sanders said he and Shedeur had spoken several times Friday morning. Despite being projected as a top quarterback in the draft, Shedeur Sanders fell to the fifth round.

“A lot of people are approaching it like a preseason game, he’s approaching like a game, and that’s how he’s always approached everything, to prepare and approach it like this is it,” Deion Sanders said. “He’s thankful and appreciative of the opportunity. He don’t get covered in, you know, all the rhetoric in the media.

“Some of the stuff is just ignorant. Some of it is really adolescent, he far surpasses that, and I can’t wait to see him play.”

Continue Reading

Sports

LSU QB Nussmeier dealing with patellar tendinitis

Published

on

By

LSU QB Nussmeier dealing with patellar tendinitis

LSU starting quarterback Garrett Nussmeier aggravated the patellar tendinitis he has been dealing with in his knee but will not miss any significant time, coach Brian Kelly said Friday.

Kelly dropped in ahead of a news conference Friday with offensive coordinator Joe Sloan to tell reporters that Nussmeier did not suffer a severe knee injury or even a new one. According to Kelly, Nussmeier has chronic tendinitis in his knee and “probably just planted the wrong way” during Wednesday’s practice.

Nussmeier ranked fifth nationally in passing yards (4,052) last season, his first as LSU’s starter, and projects as an NFL first-round draft pick in 2026.

“It’s not torn, there’s no fraying, there’s none of that,” Kelly said. “This is preexisting. … There’s nothing to really see on film with it, but it pissed it off. He aggravated it a little bit, but he’s good to go.”

Kelly said Nussmeier’s injury ranks 1.5 out of 10 in terms of severity. Asked whether it’s the right or left knee, Kelly said he didn’t know, adding, “It’s not a serious injury. Guys are dealing with tendinitis virtually every day in life.”

LSU opens the season Aug. 30 at Clemson.

Continue Reading

Sports

3 departing members file updated suit vs. MWC

Published

on

By

3 departing members file updated suit vs. MWC

Three departing members of the Mountain West Conference are suing the league, alleging it improperly withheld millions of dollars and misled them about a plan to accelerate Grand Canyon’s membership.

Boise State, Colorado State and Utah State filed an updated lawsuit in the District Court of Denver arguing the conference and Commissioner Gloria Nevarez willfully disregarded the league’s bylaws by “intentionally and fraudulently” depriving the schools of their membership rights.

The three schools, which are all headed to the Pac-12 after the 2025-26 school year, are seeking damages for millions of dollars of alleged harm caused by the Mountain West, including the withholding of money earned by Boise State for playing in last year’s College Football Playoff.

“We are disappointed that the Mountain West continues to improperly retaliate against the departing members and their student athletes,” Steve Olson, partner and litigation department co-chair for the O’Melveny law firm, said in a statement. “We will seek all appropriate relief from the court to protect our clients’ rights and interests.”

The Mountain West declined further comment outside of a statement released last week. The conference has said the departing schools were involved in adopting the exit fees and sought to enforce those against San Diego State when it tried to leave the conference two years ago.

“We remain confident in our legal position, which we will vigorously defend,” the statement said.

The three outgoing schools argue the Mountain West’s exit fees, which could range from $19 million to $38 million, are unlawful and not enforceable. The lawsuit also claims the Mountain West concealed a plan to move up Grand Canyon University’s membership a year to 2025-26 without informing the departing schools.

The Mountain West is also seeking $55 million in “poaching fees” from the Pac-12 for the loss of five schools, including San Diego State and Fresno State starting in 2026. The two sides are headed back to court after mediation that expired last month failed to reach a resolution.

Continue Reading

Trending