i can’t even prepare you for who’s on sax😭

From Friday: We have our first new case that (in part) tests the Ohio executive order that purports to allow all Class of 2022 athletes eligibility to play this season. The plaintiff is Miami (OH) basketball player Amber Scalia. Super interested to see how this turns out.

Not unsurprisingly, higher player payroll leads to a higher chance of winning in college football. As noted, financial advantages which translated to wins were previously expressed through facilities and coach pay. Now you can add player payroll to that list.

Blessed to be named mid season all state 1st team D and 2nd team O!! @InsightSportsLA @bhiggs_11

Here we go!!!

Yeah, this is about what we expected from a response.

Update on today’s Wisne hearing.👇 Prediction is that the trial court’s preliminary injunction gets reversed. Meaning class of 2022 athletes seeking a fifth season will have to rely on injunctions granted in other state and federal cases.

what (and i cannot stress this next part enough) tf just happened washington

The Protect College Sports Act sells out college athletes and bails out the NCAA. Here's what I told @stephenasmith

Eligibility lawsuits aren’t what’s causing coaches to not recruit high school athletes. It’s the NCAA’s new eligibility rule itself, which as a court aptly noted creates a roster crunch for the 2027-28 season. Anyone adding players for the 2026-27 season has open roster spots.

Oh my. I thought Nick was just paraphrasing here, instead of directly quoting a court calling the NCAA's Class of 2022 decision "Calvinball". He was not.

Another court holding that the plain text of the new NCAA bylaws is unambiguous and declining to accept the NCAA's press release stating that Class of 2022 athletes are ineligible as part of the challenged contract. Also declining to accept appellate stays as helping the NCAA.

Proponents of the PCSA continue making its main purpose clear: let the NCAA go back to capping athlete compensation w/o consequence. While letting every other expense source continue to be market based. If athletes didn’t have significant value, a cap wouldn’t be needed.

Q: If legislation, a litigated settlement, and collective bargaining all produced the exact same outcomes for revenue-generating college athletes, would you support all three? A: No. I doubt the substantive outcomes would actually be the same. But, even if they were, the process matters—for the athletes and for how a liberal democracy treats their rights. The #PCSA legislative process is flawed because Congress is bargaining away free-market rights of revenue-generating college athletes with nearly every tangential stakeholder in the room (including MLB), and almost no representation from the revenue-generating athletes whose rights are being limited. That's deeply troubling. A litigated settlement (e.g., the proposed House settlement) is somewhat better: the players at least have counsel (Jeffrey Kessler is excellent). Yet, it is still limited procedurally. Class counsel does not owe a duty of fair representation to future class members, and future disputes over the quasi employer-employee relationships are not subject to NLRB challenge. So, still athlete rights are overly curtailed. Joint multi-employer collective bargaining, by contrast, maintains these important procedural safeguards. The main voices in collective bargaining are labor and management. The players’ representative owes a duty of fair representation to current and future players. Players can bring challenges against employers and their own representatives to the NLRB. Outside interest groups do not have a seat. And multi-employer bargaining occurs only if the athletes vote to form a union—it is not imposed. Those distinctions matter. @Profmikecarrier and I published a short article in @FordhamLRev on why collective bargaining fits this setting better than the alternatives. A link is here: dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5053…

In 2025-26, 63 schools paid athletes the full amount allowed under the House settlement ($20.5M). There are 67 P4 schools plus Notre Dame. That means only 5 out of the 68 schools didn’t pay the full $20.5M. When NCAA comp caps go up, power schools usually quickly hit the cap.