Buried deep inside a Tuesday press release announcing major changes to “help enhance the flow of the game” in men’s college basketball was a hint at an even more significant change to the game. Last month, the NCAA Men’s Basketball Rules Committee proposed the creation of a joint working group to gather feedback for potentially moving from halves to quarters.

Since then, the NCAA revealed there’s been “positive momentum” toward the move to quarters, and the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel further recommended Division I conferences actually develop a working group to provide further feedback on the option. Men’s college basketball is the only division of the sport that utilizes halves as opposed to quarters. Women’s college basketball has utilized quarters since the 2015-16 season.

“In considering the decisions last month, the NCAA Men’s Basketball Committee had conversations about ways to continue this direction in the upcoming years, which includes positive momentum for moving the men’s game from halves to quarters,” the NCAA’s press release Tuesday read. “The committee realizes there are hurdles to implementing the quarter format to the game, including the structuring of media timeouts to accommodate commercial inventory. 

“The committee recommended NCAA Division I conferences create a joint working group to provide feedback on the potential change from halves to quarters.”

NCAA approves multiple major rule changes in men’s college basketball

The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel approved proposed changes that are expected to enhance the flow of men’s college basketball beginning in the 2025-26 season, according to a release Tuesday. Those changes include allowing coach’s challenges to review out-of-bounds calls and goaltending or basket interference, as well as modifications to the rule on continuous motion on shot attempts.

Regarding the proposed coach’s challenge, much like in college football, teams must have a timeout to request an instant replay review. If the challenge review is successful, teams will be granted an additional video review challenge for the remainder of the game, including overtime. If unsuccessful, the team loses the ability to challenge any other calls in the game.

Coach challenges will not impact an officials’ use of instant replay for timing mistakes, scoring errors, shot clock violations, 2-point vs. 3-point field goal attempts, flagrant fouls, etc.

Officials can initiate video reviews on basketball interference/goaltending and restricted arc plays in the final two minutes of regulation and in overtime. The NCAA revealed recent data showed these sort of reviews caused “minimal game interruptions,” and the Men’s Basketball Rules Committee members believe the coach’s challenge “will have a significant impact on the flow of the game.” NCAA officials aren’t allowed to conduct video review on out-of-bounds calls unless first prompted by a coach’s challenge.

Other enhancements approved Tuesday include new points of emphasis for officials to address delay-of-game tactics, limiting time at the review monitor, improving game efficiency and reducing physicality.

With regard to the changes to the continuous motion rule, an offensive player who ends his dribble going toward the basket and takes contact from a defensive player is now permitted to pivot or complete the step and finish the field goal attempt. Currently, players are awarded the basket/field goal only when they’re are fouled in the process of shooting the ball.

It was only a matter of time. Five days after California district judge Claudia Wilken‘s Friday night approval of the landmark House v. NCAA settlement, a group of women’s sports representatives have filed an appeal citing Title IX violations, according to On3’s Pete Nakos. Front Office Sports insider Amanda Christovich first reported the group’s intent to appeal earlier Wednesday.

The group of women’s sports athletes are arguing the House settlement — which officially ended college sports’ long-standing “amateurism” model and ushered in revenue-sharing that allows Division I schools to provide direct financial payments to student-athletes — violates the Title IX gender equality statute since it doesn’t include any language that directly addresses Title IX.

The appeal, which named eight objectors — Vanderbilt cross country runner Kacie Breeding; former or current College of Charleston soccer players Elizabeth Arnold, Savannah Baron, Lexi Drumm, Riley Hass and Emmie Wannemacher; College of Charleston volleyball player Emma Appleman; and Virginia volleyball player Kate Johnson — was filed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to the filing.

Title IX appeal delays planned $2.8 billion in back damage payment proccess

The Title IX appeal will not impact future revenue-sharing plans, but could delay the $2.8 billion back damage payment process for college athletes from 2016-24 that opted in to the settlement.

Instead of facing $20 billion in back damages, the NCAA and Power Five conference defendants signed off on a 10-year settlement agreement that includes $2.776 billion in back damages. The NCAA is responsible for paying the amount over the next decade, approximately $277 million annually. Roughly 60% will come from a reduction in annual distribution to institutions, including from all non-defendant schools that opt into the settlement. The NCAA is tasked with closing the other 40%, which will come through reducing operating expenses.

The settlement also imposes new restrictions on college sports. Deloitte’s NIL clearinghouse, titled “NIL Go,” will now regulate all third-party NIL deals of $600. If not approved, the settlement says a new third-party arbiter could deem athletes ineligible or result in a school being fined. In a gathering at the ACC spring meetings last week, Deloitte officials reportedly shared that 70% of past deals from NIL collectives would have been denied, while 90% of past deals from public companies would have been approved.

Beginning July 1, Power conference schools — and non-Power conference programs that opt into the settlement by June 30 — will be able to share as much as $20.5 million with athletes, with football expected to receive approximately 75%, followed by men’s basketball (15%), women’s basketball (5%) and the remainder of sports (5%). The amount shared in revenue will increase annually.

Power conference football programs are expected to have an additional $13-16 million to spend on rosters beginning with the 2025 season, according to Nakos. Many schools have front-loaded contracts ahead of the settlement’s approval, allowing them to skirt the new rules and take advantage of contracts not vetted by Deloitte clearinghouse NIL Go before June 7.

— On3’s Pete Nakos contributed to this report.

One of the key terms in the House v. NCAA settlement, an NIL clearinghouse is rolling out. Called NIL Go, it will vet deals worth more than $600, and there are questions about what potential punishments would look like.

Now that the settlement received final approval, Alabama athletics director Greg Byrne clarified that plan. Speaking on McElroy and Cubelic in the Morning, he pointed out the process if a deal is flagged.

NIL Go – maintained by Deloitte – will fall under the purview of the newly formed College Sports Commission, headed by former MLB executive Bryan Seeley. The goal is for a quick process, Byrne said, and “checks and balances” will take place with regard to consequences.

“If there’s a deal that is flagged saying it’s not legitimate or it’s above range of compensation, fair market value – the terms that are being used – then the student-athlete has an opportunity to re-negotiate the deal, then re-submit it,” Byrne said. “If they don’t think that’s right, then there’s an arbitration that can happen with that. The goal is to have it be handled very, very quickly and efficiently. And we need that to happen. If they go ahead and play the young man or woman when it has been deemed not a legitimate deal, there will be consequences. Anything from eligibility to – there’s differing levels.

“To be honest, I’m learning about how all that works right now. I’ll have a better answer for you in six months from now. But there are checks and balances from a consequence standpoint that, hopefully, we’ll have some teeth to it to where people will say, ‘Hey, I’ve got to live within the rules that have been created.’”

According to the College Sports Commission website, deals fall into one of three categories – “Cleared,” “Not Cleared” or “Flagged for Additional Review” – through NIL Go. Loss of eligibility is also listed as a punishment. The clearinghouse was one of the key terms of the House v. NCAA settlement, and it is in the early stages of its rollout.

As the settlement went through the approval process, though, schools were bracing for the clearinghouse to go into place. In the meantime, programs front-loaded deals during the transfer portal windows.

However, the sense is the price of top positions – such as quarterbacks – likely will not go down thanks to of revenue-sharing funds and third-party NIL deals. Sources have told On3’s Pete Nakos that combination is leading to top budgets that could touch $25 to $30 million.

A Pennsylvania federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by former Penn State men’s basketball captain Kanye Clary against the school and head coach Mike Rhoades because Clary failed to offer necessary specifics in his accusations.

Chief U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann wrote that Clary did not “identify the audience of the allegedly defamatory statements” and failed to include dates for some statements. Other statements weren’t identified as false or were “too vague” to support a viable claim, Brann wrote.

Clary, a 5-foot-11 guard and former four-star recruit out of Massanutten Military Academy (Woodstock, VA), played two seasons at Penn State from 2022 to 2024. He transferred to Mississippi State for the 2024-25 season and will play at Oklahoma State in 2025-26. 

Clary sued last December. He contends that Rhoades mistreated him in several ways. As Clary tells it, Rhoades “dismissed” his concerns about “lax discipline” and too much “leniency” for teammates arriving late, showing disrespect and violating other team rules. As Rhoades objected to some teammates “receiving preferential treatment,” he says he became the target of retribution. 

The allegedly strained relationship between Clary and Rhoades played a role in Clary’s NIL dealings or lack there-of. He says that in January 2024, his family reached out to Rhoades to question why Clary, who was the Nittany Lions’ leading scorer in 2023-24, had no NIL deals. The family also suggested that Penn State and an affiliated collective, Happy Valley United, were illegally using his NIL in social media and marketing materials. That discussion, Clary contends, led to Rhoades sending him an NIL contract that would have been between the player and Happy Valley. 

Clary refused to sign since he believed the deal would have underpaid him. He insists the “retaliation” against him only “escalated” thereafter.

To make matters worse for Clary, he sustained a concussion during a game in January 2024. He says the concussion gave Rhodes additional “ways” to punish him. He says Rhoades “spread a false narrative” that Clary “improperly missed classes” when (Claims claims) he was excluded due to recovery from his concussion. Clary also asserts that Rhoades suggested he was failing his classes when he was only missing one assignment because of concussion symptoms and that he wanted to transfer for NIL related reasons. Rhoades, the player adds, also said Clary improperly used the word “bro” when “the entire team and coaching staff used that term.”

Further, Clary refers to teammates overhearing coaches badmouth him “behind his back” and believes the alleged badmouthing was “at the behest of Coach Rhodes.” Clary’s father, Anthony Clary, also claims that another coach relayed to him that Rhoades was slandering his son. Those alleged comments made it harder for Clary to transfer and the experience caused him to suffer from “anger, resentment and depression.”

The defendants deny the allegations, but Brann wrote the more relevant legal issue is that Clary’s complaint fails to adequately plead defamation. Under Pennsylvania law, Clary must allege specifics about the supposedly defamatory words, including the speaker, the date, to whom the statement was made and an assertion the statement was, in fact, false. Generalized assertions that someone else is saying reputationally harmful statements is not enough.

To that end, Brann reasoned that Clary’s assertions fail for one reason or another. For instance, Rhoades’ allegedly claiming Clary was failing his courses lacks details as to whom those comments were directed and when they were made. Also, claims regarding use of the word “bro” are not described in the complaint as untrue. 

Brann provided Clary an opportunity to file an amended complaint by June 24. Whether Clary can offer the necessary specifics remains to be seen.