Connect with us

Published

on

The NCAA board of governors and several power conferences have scheduled meetings for next week to vote on a proposed settlement of antitrust lawsuits that would reset the framework for the business of major college sports.

While sources indicate broad support for moving forward with the industry-shifting settlement, athletic department and university administrators are also worried about how effective the negotiated terms will be in creating a stable system. With formal decisions just days away, the chief concern of an industry on the precipice of a historic step is a simple one: Will these settlements actually settle the college sports landscape?

To settle the looming House v. NCAA lawsuit as well as at least two other major federal antitrust claims, multiple sources say the NCAA would pay more than $2.7 billion in damages to past athletes over the next decade. Power conferences would agree to a future system for schools directly sharing revenue with athletes, a permissive choice that’s projected to be in the neighborhood of $20 million per year for each school.

The settlement looms as a quintessential conflicted college sports moment — a bold step with an undercurrent of uncertainty and the new backbone of a multibillion-dollar industry that will forge ahead without key details determined.

Sources told ESPN it would take a minimum of six months, and likely longer, to hash out the unsettled details. Revenue sharing with players is not expected to begin until fall 2025 at the earliest.

“It’s not uncommon that in order to get something across the finish line, you have to agree to leave a whole lot of things unresolved,” an industry source said. “I think the settlement is a good thing, but there are implementation issues that are really significant.”

The list of lingering uncertainties is a long one, including Title IX ambiguity, lack of direction on revenue sharing, the future role of booster collectives and the potential for rosters to be radically reshaped.

At the top of the list of those significant question marks is a concern that the terms of the settlement won’t be sufficient to fend off future legal claims that the NCAA and its schools are violating the law by placing any caps on the way schools can compensate players.

Steve Berman, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the House case, said he believes he has devised a mechanism to solve this issue. Berman has proposed that future athletes — not part of the current class-action lawsuit — would be added to the class on an annual basis. They’d receive an opportunity to opt out of the class or object to the terms of the settlement.

This plan would not give the NCAA legal protection from future antitrust lawsuits, but it would make it much harder to create a large class of athletes suing the NCAA or its schools in the future. The potential financial damages for a case with one or few athletes as plaintiffs would be much smaller, and it would be much less appealing for a future lawyer to dedicate the time and resources to fighting a case that could take years to reach a conclusion.

“What plaintiff lawyer would take that case on behalf of one student?” Berman told ESPN. “It’s unlikely [a future student would sue] because these students are going to get a lot of money, and that lawyer would have to challenge an approved settlement agreement.”

Administrators are right to be cautious about Berman’s proposal, says Marc Edelman, a sports antitrust expert and law professor at Baruch College’s Zicklin School of Business.

Both Edelman and Berman compared the proposed solution to how the NFL handled a labor dispute in the early 1990s in a case called White v. NFL. Edelman, however, said a key difference in that case is that the NFL players agreed to recertify a previously existing players’ union as part of the settlement. Negotiating revenue-share terms with a players’ union — which does not currently exist in college sports — provided the NFL with protection from antitrust claims.

Edelman said it’s possible a judge would not approve a settlement that intentionally creates high barriers for future athletes to file lawsuits.

“If I were a judge, there are aspects of this settlement the way that it’s been reported that would be very concerning,” Edelman said. “…It may make a judge feel that this case moving forward does little if anything to obviate concerns about collusive behavior.”

Berman disagreed, saying the terms are fair to athletes because they can opt out of the settlement.

In addition to lawsuits brought by plaintiff attorneys, the NCAA is also currently being sued by multiple state-elected attorneys general. Settling the House case would not eliminate those threats, which are less dependent on providing lawyers with a financial incentive to pursue action against the NCAA.

Some college sports leaders say they are hoping a settlement that includes significant revenue-sharing money in the future will be enough of a show of good faith that Congress will provide them with an extra layer of antitrust protection to preserve parts of the college sports system. The NCAA and its conferences have been lobbying on Capitol Hill for a bill that would eliminate the threat of future lawsuits — including those that come from state attorneys general — for several years without making much progress.

Multiple sources — in the House and Senate and on either side of the political aisle — have told ESPN in the past week that a settlement this year is unlikely to spur any immediate action from Congress.

“We have to see what those details are,” said Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), who has introduced multiple bills related to college sports in the past two years. “I’m skeptical, particularly in an election year; it’s just not the highest priority right now.”

Trahan — a former college volleyball player — said she is also skeptical of the motives of college sports officials who have told her they want an antitrust exemption to protect opportunities for women’s sports. She said after receiving those visits, she and her staff often check to see whether the school is currently compliant with Title IX laws that require equal opportunities in sports for men and women. She said she finds they are not complying with the law “a lot, more than I care to admit.”

College sports leaders are also uncertain about how Title IX rules could apply to the future revenue-sharing dollars. The terms of the House settlement do not include any detail about how schools would be required to divide that money, according to multiple sources. The NCAA and its leaders will not have clear answers on their Title IX obligations before voting on the proposed terms of a settlement next week.

And even once the settlement is approved, it appears to set up a landscape that remains unsettled.

Continue Reading

Sports

Wetzel: Never mind the girlfriend kerfuffle. Belichick will always be fine.

Published

on

By

Wetzel: Never mind the girlfriend kerfuffle. Belichick will always be fine.

It once seemed improbable that the most compelling figure of the college football offseason would be Bill Belichick’s 24-year-old girlfriend, but somehow, here we are.

Jordon Hudson’s spot in Belichick’s life has always been a public talking point. After all, they started dating two years ago, when Belichick was 71. Of late, though, she’s become an obsession.

Belichick is arguably the greatest coach in the history of the sport, winner of six Super Bowls leading the New England Patriots. His jump to the college ranks and the University of North Carolina is, for purely football reasons, of great intrigue.

Would this work? Could this work?

Currently though, the focus is on Hudson, who takes an active role in managing Belichick’s affairs, including running point on publicity for his new book, “The Art of Winning: Lessons from My Life in Football.”

That includes a viral clip from a “CBS Sunday Morning” interview when Hudson shut down a question about how the two met and was deemed a “constant presence.” That led to all sorts of attention on the relationship, not to mention Belichick’s acuity and Hudson’s recent real estate holdings. Former Patriots great Ted Johnson even told WEEI radio in Boston that “the Tar Heels should consider firing Bill Belichick.”

A few days into this modern controversy, where a social media clip redefines someone with decades in the public eye, can we all settle down for a moment?

As with any relationship, only Belichick and Hudson are privy to what is transpiring between them. But as sensationalistic as all the TikTok comments and website stories currently are, when it comes to actually coaching a football team, let’s settle back on one undeniable truth.

This is Bill Belichick.

Sure, the current attention can be fairly labeled as the kind of “distraction” that might personally crush and professionally derail most people. Belichick is not most people.

“Never been too worried about what everyone else thinks,” Belichick told CBS.

If you allow his history — a lesson from his life in football, if you will — to inform, then you would know that there has rarely, if ever, been any personal feud, situation, tabloid headline or bit of accusational strife that has derailed the man’s single-minded focus on winning.

Belichick doesn’t just thrive in the briar patch of controversy — he seems to prefer it. The more external noise, the better.

A former player standing trial for murder? Win the Super Bowl.

Accused of illegally videotaping opponents? Post a 16-0 season.

A star quarterback alleged to have cheated to win the AFC Championship Game by deflating footballs? Name-drop “My Cousin Vinny” in a news conference, then win the Super Bowl.

Have the team get fined and stripped of a first-round draft pick and the quarterback suspended for the start of the season? Win another Super Bowl.

Maybe this isn’t what he was expecting from the book release, but let’s be clear, he was expecting to create a major media stir.

Belichick is famously passive-aggressive. When he never once mentioned Patriots owner Robert Kraft in his memoir — not even in the acknowledgments — he did so expecting a commotion. This was likely to make it clear that Belichick believed the Patriots’ success during their 24 years together was more based on the coaches and players than the very front-facing owner who, depending whose version you believe, fired Belichick in January 2024.

This was throwing red meat to the sports media machine. It just turned out that the Hudson situation represented even more red meat to the far larger American pop culture/social media machine.

Belichick might not have seen this coming, but this is how he has always operated. He welcomes speculation and even being painted as the villain. Even his closest confidants, from Bill Parcells to Tom Brady, often wind up in prolonged, public ice-outs. There are the endless scraps with the media, the league office, officials or other coaches.

The public questioning his actions and motivation? Please.

Consider that back nearly two decades ago, the NFL made a deal with Reebok for its coaches to wear approved clothes. Belichick bristled at being told what to wear. In an act of fashion defiance, both Patriots and Belichick sources say, he took a plain gray sweatshirt and cut off the sleeves to make it ugly. (It inadvertently became a huge seller, labeled the “BB Hoodie” in the Patriots Pro Shop.)

Or when, in an effort to protest the NFL making teams categorize player injuries — doubtful, questionable, etc. — Belichick began listing Brady as “probable” on the report with a shoulder injury week after week for years despite there being no known injury. Brady would just laugh when asked about it.

Or when he thought the NFL was getting too commercialized, so he refused to have his name used by EA Sports in the Madden video game — “NE Coach” was all that was listed — even though he would make money for literally doing nothing.

Or maybe consider in 2000, when he reversed course on accepting the head coaching job with the New York Jets. Rather than get all apologetic, he handwrote a note that read: “I resign as HC of the NYJ.”

He loves this stuff. Like many highly competitive people, finding an enemy, or some doubt, or some negative opinion about him seemingly feeds him. It certainly doesn’t cause him to wilt.

The current kerfuffle isn’t much different from past ones. He’s been through divorce, and his dating life was even fodder for the New York tabloids. It didn’t matter. He just kept winning.

All of that makes it unlikely that Hudson is somehow bossing Belichick around — or that she would even want to. This is just BB.

Whatever happens with the couple — we wish them the best — is one thing, but anyone who thinks Belichick is somehow incapable of weathering some gossip or jokes, or won’t be laser-focused on coaching, teaching and preparing his players, hasn’t been paying attention.

Here’s guessing Belichick will be fine. He always has been.

Continue Reading

Sports

Clemson PF takes Dabo offer, joins football team

Published

on

By

Clemson PF takes Dabo offer, joins football team

For months, Clemson football coach Dabo Swinney had joked with Ian Schieffelin that the 6-foot-8 power forward for the Tigers‘ men’s basketball team would make an excellent tight end, but Schieffelin assumed it was all in good fun. Two weeks ago, however, he got a call from Swinney with a serious offer: spend the next six months with the Tigers football team and see what happens.

Schieffelin announced on Instagram on Friday that he is taking Swinney up on the offer, forgoing any pro basketball prospects for now in favor of one last season in a Clemson jersey — this time on the gridiron instead of the hardwood.

“I’ve been just training for basketball, getting ready for the next level,” Schieffelin told ESPN. “Dabo just walked me through the opportunity he was willing to give me, and it all sounded great, something I wanted to jump on. It really just sparked my interest in wanting to try, and being able to put on a Clemson jersey again was very enticing to me. To be able to be coached by Dabo and [tight ends coach Kyle] Richardson is just a huge opportunity I couldn’t pass up.”

Schieffelin blossomed into one of the key cogs for the Tigers’ hoops team the past two years. He averaged 12.4 points and 9.4 rebounds per game last season as Clemson earned a 5-seed in the NCAA tournament, losing to McNeese in the first round.

He had entered the transfer portal last month hoping for a fifth year of eligibility amid several ongoing lawsuits against the NCAA, though Schieffelin said the likelihood of an outcome in time for him to play basketball in 2025-26 was slim. He had been preparing for a crack at the pros — likely overseas or in the G League — when Swinney called with the offer.

“I’d never rule out me going back to basketball,” Schieffelin said. “I’ll see how these next six months go, see how development goes, see if I really like playing football. But I think this is a good opportunity for the next six months.”

Clemson lost starting tight end Jake Briningstool after last season. Briningstool, who signed as an undrafted free agent with the Kansas City Chiefs last week, played in 48 games and made 127 catches over four years at Clemson. The Tigers’ depth chart at the position is thin on experience, with Josh Sapp (13 catches), Olsen Patt-Henry (12 catches) and Banks Pope (1 catch) the only tight ends on the team to have recorded a reception.

In October, Swinney teased his interest in adding Schieffelin to his roster, suggesting he would fit in nearly anywhere on the field for the Tigers.

“He could play tight end, D-end. He could play whatever he wanted to play. He’d be an unbelievable left tackle,” Swinney said. “I’ll definitely have a spot. We have a lot of rev share ready too if he wants to pass up wherever he’s going [after basketball].”

Schieffelin said he hadn’t taken Swinney’s suggestions seriously during basketball season, assuming the coach was just teasing, but when the opportunity became real, he quickly understood the vision Swinney had for him.

“The call two weeks ago was very serious,” Schieffelin said, “and I thought, maybe it’s an opportunity to stay around a little longer and join a national championship contender.”

Schieffelin said he is not expecting to earn serious NIL money but does think his body type could allow him to blossom into a potential NFL prospect.

He played quarterback as a ninth grader before opting to focus on basketball the following year. Schieffelin said he will spend the next few months working on conditioning and strength gains to prepare for the rigors of football as well as working to build relationships with his new teammates, but he said he doesn’t have any set expectations for the season.

“Playing college basketball for four years, I’m used to the grind and used to work,” Schieffelin said. “But it looks different on the football side, so just getting in the weight room and learning everything.”

Before making his decision, Schieffelin said he spoke with Colts tight end Mo Alie-Cox, who was a four-year starter in basketball for VCU before signing with Indianapolis. Alie-Cox hadn’t played football since his freshman year of high school but is now entering his eighth NFL season.

“We talked about what went into his decision to go the football route,” Schieffelin said. “He helped me just knowing why he decided, and it made me decide to just give it a chance and see where I could take it.”

Alie-Cox is one of a handful of basketball players who have made a successful transition to football. Greg Paulus played hoops at Duke before becoming the starting quarterback at Syracuse in 2009. Jimmy Graham and Julius Peppers played both sports in college before becoming All-Pro NFL players. Antonio Gates played basketball at Kent State before giving football a try. He was announced as a Pro Football Hall of Fame inductee in February.

“Just being able to compete with these guys and impact the team any way I can,” Schieffelin said of his goals. “I’m going into this very optimistic and ready to learn. Being able to compete every day is something I enjoy. To learn football and have fun.

“Maybe I’ll be really good, maybe I’ll be really bad. It’s something that was worth a shot. And being able to put a Clemson jersey on again is really special to me, and to do it this time in Death Valley is going to be amazing.”

Continue Reading

Sports

Yankees place Chisholm (oblique) on 10-day IL

Published

on

By

Yankees place Chisholm (oblique) on 10-day IL

NEW YORK — New York Yankees second baseman Jazz Chisholm Jr. was placed on the 10-day injured list Friday, the team announced, three days after sustaining a right oblique strain on a swing against the Baltimore Orioles.

Chisholm had been scheduled to undergo an MRI in New York on Thursday, an off day for the Yankees. The move is retroactive to April 30. Infielder Jorbit Vivas was recalled from Triple-A Scranton/Wilkes-Barre to replace Chisholm on the active roster.

Chisholm, 27, is batting .181 with seven home runs and a .714 OPS in 30 games; 10 of his 19 hits have been for extra bases. He has been a plus defender in his return to second base this season, his original position in the majors, after primarily playing center field for the Miami Marlins and third base for the Yankees last season.

Vivas, 24, has yet to make his major league debut. The Yankees called him up in late April, but he was sent back to Triple A three days later without appearing in a game.

Vivas is batting .319 with two home runs, an .862 OPS and 15 walks to eight strikeouts splitting time between second base and third base in the minors this season. The Yankees acquired him, alongside left-hander Victor Gonzalez, from the Los Angeles Dodgers for prospect Trey Sweeney in December 2023.

Continue Reading

Trending