As the dust settles from the House v. NCAA settlement over NIL deals, college football analysts across the sport debate its long-term effect on the sport and collegiate athletics in general.
Two analysts, Andy Staples and Ari Wasserman, declared that despite the win for players’ rights, the settlement won’t deter major programs like Georgia and Oregon from bidding high and running the sport.
Analysts See Powerhouse Schools Not Slowing Down On Big Money Offers Despite Recent Landmark Settlement
The recent House vs. NCAA settlement has significantly impacted collegiate athletics, ending three separate antitrust federal lawsuits while allowing colleges to pay their student-athletes directly.
But where there might be some perception of parity for all programs with this arrangement, On3 college football analyst Andy Staples expressed on the “Andy & Ari” podcast that he feels like the current guidelines won’t be enough to prevent powerhouse programs from maintaining their dominance over other schools.
“I hear people say there’s going to be this clearing house, and they’ll look and see if this is a legitimate NIL deal or a pay-for-play scam,” Wasserman began.
“I’ve read athletic directors and people in extreme positions of power right now discussing this, and it makes my head want to explode,” concluding with “I don’t even know how the people who are in charge of enforcement are not seeing that this is a problem.”
Staples interjected, “So I think most of the ADs — even the ones saying that it’s going to be fine — they know that this is a problem.”
“Here’s the deal. The players can’t sue because they’ve opted into the arbitration of the settlement. They’re taking revenue money.”
Using a fan named Vance’s comment, Staples said, “I love that. Imagine Deloitte telling Phil Knight how to do business.” Wasserman concurred, focusing on Oregon having that backing, saying: “We’re so aimed at people not taking advantage of the system that we’re not realizing that business owners can spend their money how they want. It’s America.”
Throughout the discussion, the two analysts explain through an example that while it might not seem outlandish to see a company like Nike shelling out thousands — even millions — of dollars on NIL deals, someone would surely intervene if a smaller business tried to orchestrate an exorbitant NIL deal.
The two analysts explained that none of these “solutions” are directly linked to capping the amounts schools can pay players.
Staples continued, “There’s no we. It’s the people who were defendants in the House [v. NCAA] case, which were the ACC, SEC, Big 12, Big Ten, and the Pac-12, essentially trying to recreate the NCAA.”
“The NCAA’s enforcement arm has been neutered.” He spoke about the other factors involved, which include NIL deal valuation by position, and which schools can offer more based on the market rate, favoring those major power conferences.
Staples even stated that former scandals of athletes favoring larger schools due to receiving under-the-table payments won’t even matter anymore because the NCAA’s past handing out of penalties won’t be as effective.
While the House case might have settled, it won’t be the last court ruling tied to college sports. With just over two months until the college football season, we’ll see how the traditional football bluebloods respond on the field to the ruling and the “parity” it brings.
