the speed with which this spun out of control was astounding. The original complaint was should a student athlete be able to monetize a bad homemade music video on YouTube. Under the old rules he could not but a non-athlete of course could. I think most reasonable people would agree that was unfair but I don’t think very many reasonable folks would call this the answer. You’re correct that judges must decide cases on the facts that exist but I’d argue that the way this was applied was probably overreach because the legislative branch just didn’t do anything.

Once the courts defined the issue as the NCAA colluding to deprive the players of their right to earn, it put the NCAA in a situation where they had to negotiate the settlement, The resulting settlement has terms the big programs can live with and some even profit from and the small programs not so much. The interests of the fans and other sports were not at the table.

How about FCS programs sign multi-year deals w players? They're unproven and unwanted by the big schools, FCS takes a risk and develops them, and then they get poached? Makes no sense. FCS programs have the costs of players who don't pan out.

I’m not a JD, but idk how enforcement would work. If deep pockets wanted a guy bad enough, buying out the contact might just be the cost of business. But if a guy called bluff and just disregarded the contract, the optics of a school seeking damages from a student might be tough politics. When you say it makes no sense, you mean for us. This makes total sense for the Big 10 to outsource development costs and risks.

Schools are getting commitments to stay as a condition of receiving revenue sharing. Washington QB Desmond Williams signed such a contract and when he tried to enter transfer portal Washington and Big 10 threatened to sue him for breach of contract.

Maybe make the first scholarship a two year deal with a buyout so the FCS program gets compensated for their investment.