Vexed by House v. NCAA’s huge settlement, AAC officials shift to survival mode in college athletics’ new world

IRVING, Texas – American Athletic Conference officials expressed frustration with the resolution of the House vs. Board of Education settlement. NCAA and how it will affect the future of the league.

“Frustration and disappointment are probably the words you hear from a lot of us outside of the Power Four,” North Texas athletic director Jared Mosley told CBS Sports on Thursday. “Just because so much of this has come upon us… the fact that now we’re going to have to take a significant portion of this [back pay] with what we’ve been told will be 90% Power Five football and basketball players, it’s difficult to reconcile how we are taking away current opportunities and services from our students for a problem we didn’t necessarily create.”

The settlement, which still awaits a judge’s approval, is expected to pay out $2.8 billion over the next 10 years in back injuries to former college athletes from 2016-21. The NCAA office will assume a portion of the settlement. Of the remaining amount, 40% will be paid by legacy Power Five, with 60% coming from the Group of Five, FCS and non-Football Division I leagues.

Had the NCAA not reached a settlement, the damages awarded by a judge could have been enough to bankrupt the organization.

“We thought [the settlement] was necessary, we understand the threat of bankruptcy,” said AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco. “But what we don’t appreciate is that we really weren’t involved in the discussions from the beginning and yet we were responsible for a portion from them.”

The five power conferences were all named parties in the House v. NCAA, along with the NCAA. Therefore, each of them – as they existed when the lawsuit was filed in 2021 – needed to approve the agreement. Approval of Group of Five conferences such as the AAC was included in the NCAA Board of Governors agreement.

Aresco noted that some adjustments to the way settlement payments would be calculated could ease the burden on AAC. A memo obtained by Yahoo Sports set the potential cost of the AAC at more than $8 million per year, or more than $500,000 per member, over the next 10 years. That’s because the Group of Five will also receive a smaller share of ESPN’s new contract signed with the College Football Playoff, despite much more overall revenue.

“To go back at a time when the contract has more than doubled is kind of absurd,” Tulsa athletic director Rick Dickson said. “So you have this double impact of … a reduction in revenue growth, and we get a disproportionate share of the bill.”

An alternative proposal was put forward by CCA 22 – the 22 non-FBS conferences in Division I – that would have forced the Power Five to pay 60% instead of 40%. However, he ended up being passed over. The proposal would not have significantly impacted AAC’s share.

Ultimately, only 40% of the NCAA’s pay cut will be felt by Power Five schools. Group of Five schools will pay 17%, with the remainder coming from FCS, non-football schools and other sources. Payments are calculated based on NCAA distributions to member institutions over the years.

“This directly shines a light on the group driving the bus in the [Autonomy 4] level, and really, you could probably refer to them as A2,” said Dickson, who will retire on June 30. “As a guy who’s going to be out the door in 30 days, that’s the root of what most of us are dealing in conferences like this. Everything is being overwhelmingly tilted toward two entities in a way that it’s hard to argue is a benefit to everyone.”

Perhaps the biggest dynamic change comes from revenue sharing. FBS teams will be capped at approximately $22 million in direct payments to athletes, although details are still being worked out. It’s unclear whether this will have an impact on the Group of Five conferences, but several ADs said there is essentially no way to realistically raise $20 million a year. And perhaps most gallingly, there is no definitive end to the antitrust cases against the NCAA, so it’s unclear how far the settlement will go.

“We don’t know what we buy,” Aresco said. “What kind of antitrust protection do you have when there’s a cap? Is Congress going to help us? I don’t know if it necessarily will. The other issue is we don’t bargain collectively with anyone, so if someone attacks the cap, can we defend it?”

Several athletic directors acknowledged that cutting sports or other extreme actions remains a possibility based on how the agreement is handled. Still, there is little interest on the part of those present in breaking away from or moving away from the power leagues in any meaningful way.

“I think the only thing we have to do is draw the line and continue to fight for access,” Mosley said. “Having opportunities in the CFP, having opportunities for our teams to compete in March Madness and other championships. As long as we have that, we can figure out in our world that we live in the best way to do that and put people in the best possible position to succeed.”