The portion of the House vs. NCAA settlement that is getting the most attention is the $20.5 million that universities can spend themselves on NIL payments for their athletes. However, there is a part of the settlement that you will be hearing much more about if you have not already.

There is a stipulation in the agreement that states any third-party NIL deals (e.g. anything that does not come directly from the university) worth $600 or more must be approved by a “clearinghouse” called “NIL Go.” The clearinghouse would be managed by an accounting firm called Deloitte and they would seemingly have the power of rejecting deals that they deemed were above market value and/or did not serve any actual business purpose.

Sounds good, right?

Well, there is absolutely zero chance that any NIL deal rejected by Deloitte would hold up in a court of law. Apparently, whoever added this ridiculous stipulation in the recent House settlement – and the parties that agreed to it – were not aware that the nation’s highest court has already spoken on this matter. Perhaps not directly, but the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 2021 NCAA vs. Alston case spoke volumes and set a strict precedent. In short, good luck getting a court to agree that an athlete’s NIL deal is “above market value” and therefore voided. There is not one judge in the country that would do that after NCAA vs. Alston. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the “NCAA attempting to restrict athletes from collecting benefits beyond full-ride scholarships violated antitrust law.” That is precisely what this clearinghouse would be doing.

Furthermore, how is Deloitte going to determine what is “above market value?” Here’s the thing in a capitalist society: Your market value is whatever someone is willing to pay you. We have what I would consider above-average college quarterbacks who will be making $4 million this season. Like it or not, that is literally their market value.

And get this, at a recent conference, Deloitte stated that “70 percent” of previous NIL deals across college athletics would have been denied by them (per Yahoo’s Ross Dellinger). Oh, that’s rich.  Seventy percent, eh? Well, 100 percent of those cases would have been thrown out in court. Imagine the first time a local car dealer gives a kid seven figures and the agreement is voided by Deloitte. That kid would eventually get every penny because the NCAA — even using a third party — cannot restrict athletes from collecting benefits beyond full-ride scholarships. There is no gray area here. NIL — which really should be called PTP (pay to play) — gives athletes benefits beyond scholarships and therefore cannot be restricted. This is what makes the “NIL Go clearinghouse” one of the most absurd things I’ve ever seen. How could anyone think preventing an athlete from making a certain amount of money would hold up in court, after the country’s highest court already ruled unanimously on this issue?

Justin Williams from The Athletic quoted college football coaches and administrators who are convinced “the bagman” will return in full force because of this settlement. They also believe athletes won’t even use the NIL Go system to declare what they are making through their various NIL deals. Here is an excerpt from his piece:

In candid conversations, coaches and staffers have serious doubts that athletes will declare those deals, or do so accurately. Some have suggested that players are being encouraged not to declare deals at all, but to simply take the money and keep quiet rather than risk the clearinghouse flagging it. And if that’s the case, where do we suspect that money might be coming from?

 “I guess it would just be the same as the way things used to work,” lamented an athletic director, frustrated by those already angling to undermine the settlement. “We’d be right back where we started.”

Before NIL, “bag men” were the not-so-invisible hands of big-time college sports, boosters who secretly funneled cash to top players and recruits. It was cheating in the same way that driving over the speed limit is a crime: If it wasn’t flagrant or egregious, you probably weren’t getting caught.

Keep it locked to Bucknuts for full coverage of all things Ohio State football. Athletic director Ross Bjork will meet with the media on Thursday to discuss the changing NIL landscape.

D1Softball, Softball America, NFCA and USA Softball polls all tabbed the Red Raiders as the No. 2 team to close out the season. This is Tech’s highest ever ranking and adds to a long list of historic accomplishments by the 2025 roster.

The Red Raiders won their first Big 12 regular season and tournament titles, hosted their first NCAA Regional, advanced to their first NCAA Super Regional and eventually made it to the promise land of college softball in Oklahoma City for the WCWS.

 

The push from the NCAA and Power Five conferences to enact federal legislation around college sports is intensifying. U.S. Representatives Lisa McClain (R-Mich.)and Janelle Bynum (D-Ore.) introduced the “College Student-Athlete Protections and Opportunities through Rights, Transparency and Safety Act” on Tuesday morning, dubbed the College SPORTS Act.

The bipartisan legislation includes many of the provisions the NCAA has repeatedly requested, such as federal preemption of state laws and codification that college athletes are not employees. The bill would also allow athletes to use their scholarships to complete a degree within 10 years, even if they leave school early, and establish agent registration and disclosure requirements.

“I don’t think this is about drawing lines between Democrats and Republicans or the House and Senate,” SEC commissioner Greg Sankey told reporters on Monday. “I think this is an opportunity for our governmental leaders, our political leaders, to come together around solutions to support our Olympic development program, to support college football and every one of our sports that flows off of that, including those that are labeled as non-revenue sports, to provide additional support for women’s sports.”

Meanwhile, a discussion draft has been circulating college athletics. The proposal under the House of Representatives’ Committee on Energy and Commerce would also codify much of what the NCAA has pushed lawmakers to enact in recent years. The House subcommittee is scheduled to discuss the draft at a legislative hearing on Thursday.

“This discussion draft comes at a time of historic transition for college athletics,” the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC said in a joint statement on Tuesday morning. “In the absence of federal standards, student-athletes and schools have been forced to navigate a fractured regulatory framework for too long. Following the historic House settlement, this draft legislation represents a very encouraging step toward delivering the national clarity and accountability that college athletics desperately needs. We urge lawmakers to build on this momentum and deliver the national solution that athletes, coaches, and schools deserve.”

The renewed push for federal legislation comes days after the House v. NCAA settlement was approved. Since the NCAA was founded in 1906, institutions have never directly paid athletes. That will now change with the settlement ushering in the revenue-sharing era of college sports.

For the new College Sports Commission entity to be successful in enforcing the settlement, many around college sports believe it needs federal backing. The commission appointed Major League Baseball executive Bryan Seeley as CEO on Friday night.

“For too long, college athletes have generated enormous value for their schools and athletic programs without being allowed to share in the success they help create,” McClain said in a release announcing the College SPORTS Act. “We’re protecting the values that make college athletics great while modernizing the system to reflect today’s reality. This bill preserves the student-athlete model while offering real protections, real opportunity, and real fairness. I appreciate Congresswoman Bynum for partnering with me to get this bipartisan legislation moving forward.”

The historic House settlement decision came down last week, setting the tone for a new era of college sports. Athletic departments across the country now have a new set of rules to play by, from revenue sharing to roster limits, but it will not impact everyone the same way.

From sport to sport, the reaction will be different. In college basketball, there is widespread concern over how it could impact teams from the Power Four to the mid-major level. Clear answers might not emerge for several years as the adjustment it made, but the initial indicators point to clear winners and losers.

Here is a breakdown of which conferences and programs fit into each category moving forward.

Winners

Big East

The Big East conference enters the new era of college athletics with a unique position, bringing a group of programs which prioritize basketball over football into a world which artificially caps the ability of schools to invest in both. While the conversation surrounding the benefit could be outsized, it provides each coach with an easier view of the change.

Where the conversation on benefit moves past reality comes with the $20.5 million number. While that is the maximum, it is based on the incoming revenue. In the case of the Big East, the current TV deal disperses about $7 million to each school per year which is significantly less than the multi-sport conferences. This is not the full budget available, but is the largest sum of guaranteed money each school can count on.

Early projections for elite Power Four schools, which would have the full – or close to the full – sum, sit somewhere between $10-15 million to run football. The gap would then exist from many college basketball teams, but not all. Of course, there are many other programs on campus which need a slice of both pies.

Gonzaga

No program in the country positioned themselves better to benefit from the House settlement decision than Gonzaga. The long-time WCC powerhouse, which moved from mid-major darling to a blue-blood debate over the past 20-plus years, is set to join the new Pac-12.

In addition to added TV deal revenue and access to better competition, which would come with the conference move regardless of the changing landscape, there is a new leg up on the competition. Since the Bulldogs bring a basketball team and no football team to the conference, the ratio of revenue they are allowed to allocate under the salary cap will seem outsized.

Where many WCC teams will be on an even playing field under these rules, they hold an advantage over the existing Pac-12 teams and incoming Mountain West programs. Even when the revenue allocated is cut down based on the lack of football, the salary cap limits the opportunity of their rivals to keep up.

Lawyers

The House settlement was a large step forward for college athletics, finally hitting reset on a set of enforceable rules. However, from the clearing house designed to accept or reject NIL deals outside the $20.5 million paid by schools to the ongoing NCAA eligibility questions, there is plenty left to challenge.

Ultimately, without a collectively bargained agreement or congressional intervention, there are plenty lawsuits left to try. Even the future interaction between the NCAA and the new governing body remains a question which could require additional legal input to unpack.

Losers

Football powerhouses

No matter how much revenue a school makes, the cap is currently set at $20.5 million, with ambiguity on the ability to sign traditional NIL deals outside that. Given some projections that it will take close to $15 million to compete at the highest level in football, there is only a small slice left for men’s basketball, women’s basketball, baseball, softball and Olympic sports to share.

For those teams expected to compete in the College Football Playoff every season, the basketball staff will have to accept less money than their competition in the NCAA Tournament. It is a give-and-take which has existed on a different scale for years, with facility upgrades and staffing decisions being prioritized for one program over the others but takes on a new life here.

These schools still have plenty to offer, with new Texas basketball coach Sean Miller addressing the pros and cons of his move this offseason. Based on their commitment to making it happen, and standing in the sport, many of these teams will kind a way to maximize their opportunity and invest in success.

Traditional mid-major

Perhaps the biggest loser in the House settlement decision is the traditional mid-major program, which continues to move further away from relevance as the power conferences leave them behind financially.

The AAC, Conference USA, MAC, Mountain West and Sun Belt were all viewed as challengers who challengers who could at least provide a fun storyline at one time. They are now further reduced to feeder schools in this model, given the lack of TV deal money and revenue share to spend.

Where the Big East can counter the money gap with a commitment to one sport, these conferences compete across all sports. That leaves them with less money than the competition across the board, allowing specialized schools to pass them with no recourse outside of program-slashing decisions.

Rule-following

Unfortunately, one of the consequences of a return to concrete rules is the inevitable desire to bend them. With the gray area of outside NIL deals already a potential sticking point, there is no question that the governing bodies of college sports will ramp up the number of investigations once again.

While no one particularly likes living in the “Wild West” era of college sports, a return to rules will not reduce the number of outlaws – especially when they are all publicly aware of the treasure chest the current model allowed them to access.

“Winning the Honda Award is an incredible honor that not only represents me, but also my teammates, coaches and family,” said Canady. “I am so grateful to represent this sport!”

A Topeka, Kansas native, Canady was named a consensus First Team All-American by the NFCA, D1Softball and Softball America. Canady was also named the Big 12 Pitcher of the Year, Big 12 Tournament Most Outstanding Player and a member of the 2025 WCWS All-Tournament Team.

Canady led the nation in wins (34), ranked second nationally in ERA (1.11) and strikeouts (319), third in hits allowed (3.88), and was fourth in strikes-to-walk ratio (6.62) in route to being named the NFCA Pitcher of the Year and a top three finalist for USA Softball Player of the Year.

About the award:

The Honda Sport Award has been presented annually by the CWSA for the past 49 years to the top women athletes in 12 NCAA-sanctioned sports, signifying “the best of the best in collegiate athletics.” The recipient of the sport award becomes a finalist for the Collegiate Woman Athlete of the Year and the prestigious 2025 Honda Cup, which will be presented during a live telecast on CBS Sports Network on June 30, at 7 pm ET, in New York City