Houston Christian Question Looms Over Houset Settlement

With the long form Home against the NCAA The regulation is expected to be submitted this week to U.S. District Judge Claudia WilkenA major obstacle (among others) looms on the road to the judge who will certify this historic agreement in the coming months.

It remains to be seen how much Wilken weighs. Houston Christians motion to intervene in the case, filed on June 20 and representing the first formal objection to the terms of the settlement. HCU, a member of the Southland Conferenceclaims that its interests were not represented in the settlement negotiations.

“If HCU is successful here and is able to intervene in this matter, I expect we will see other non-P4 schools do the same,” With wintera sports lawyer for Kennyhertz Perrytold On3. “This could really jeopardize the project Home “A colonization on unstable ground.”

Is home certification a sure thing?

Legal experts caution that certification is not a foregone conclusion.

The athletes will have 90 days to opt out of the deal. And Wilken could object to some elements of the deal, which could send the two sides back to the negotiating table.

If Wilken certifies it — potentially by early next year — the deal involves the NCAA and the 32 First division The conferences will pay $2.8 billion in damages over 10 years, and schools will be allowed to share up to $22 million per year with athletes at their discretion.

In its July 12 response to the motion to intervene, Houston Christian said it was not until “approximately” May 23 when the NCAA and Power Five The conferences agreed to settlement terms – and HCU learned it would have to pay about $3 million over 10 years in damages.

Houston Christian claims the proposed settlement will force its university and others to “divert funds from the core mission of education and research to support high-profile sports entertainment, without any finding that HCU has deprived student-athletes of their right to benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness.”

HCU added that the parties’ position is that the school has “no right to its own money, but plaintiffs and defendants do. They believe they can spend HCU’s money however they want, all to advance the cause of big-money athletics and to the detriment of students pursuing a higher education at a non-Power 5 school.”

Plaintiffs want Houston Christian’s motion dismissed

On July 5, plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a motion asking that Houston Christian’s motion to intervene be dismissed.

In court documents, the plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that the motion to intervene amounted to a “premature objection” to the proposed settlement. They also argue that as a non-party in the case, Houston Christian “lacks standing to object to a class action settlement. Because its motion to intervene is in reality an objection to the proposed settlement, it should be dismissed on that basis alone.”

As the May 23 settlement approval approached, other non-power conferences also backed away because they said their interests were not represented in settlement negotiations and that the damages model disproportionately affects schools outside of power leagues.

All conferences learned earlier in May that they would be responsible for the bill, sources said. They also received a memo in the days leading up to the settlement laying out the financial details, sources said. About 60% of the $1.6 billion going to conferences will come from leagues outside the Power Five fraternity and 40% will go to power leagues.

Houston Christians aren’t the only group affected

The damage model prompted the group of 22 outside commissioners to FBS The ranks began to propose an alternative framework for damages. It would have increased the percentage of the damages bill that goes to the powerful leagues to nearly 60%. The proposal was not quickly adopted.

THE Home The damage model was also boosted Great East Commissioner Val Ackerman to express what she called “strong objections” to the proposed damages framework in emails to the NCAA president Charlie Baker and his legal advisor.

In his May 18 memo, a copy of which was obtained by On3, Ackerman wrote: “The liability of the 22 non-FBS conferences (including the Big East) under the proposed formula appears disproportionate, particularly because the primary beneficiaries of the NIL ‘retroactive payment’ amounts are expected to be FBS football players.”