Summarize and humanize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in English Hi, everyone! Welcome back to The Times of Troy newsletter. I’m Ryan Kartje, the USC beat writer at The Times. We’re nearing the end of the road for this year’s college sports calendar. After tonight’s men’s national title game, we’re left with just transfer portal scoops and 15-minute snippets of spring football to get us through April. After that, well … you can find me on the golf course.But before I dust off the ol’ putter, we should probably mention that we’re approaching a momentous day in the history of college athletics.This morning, a final hearing will be held in a downtown Oakland courthouse to review the NCAA’s landmark settlement of three antitrust lawsuits. If approved, the settlements will launch a new era of college athletics — one featuring revenue sharing with athletes, a cap system for athlete compensation and a new enforcement arm meant to eliminate donor-backed payments that aren’t true name, image and likeness deals.We have no idea when Judge Claudia Wilken will announce whether she approves the settlement. There are more than a dozen witnesses scheduled to object to the settlement during Monday’s hearing, and there is no guarantee the settlement, if approved, will withstand legal scrutiny it’s sure to face in the future.But schools are spending millions anticipating the settlement is approved. And millions more on lobbyists to codify it into federal law. But no matter how many millions — or billions? — are spent to make it happen, there is one element of the settlement that I am quite certain, once it’s passed, is doomed to fail.To explain, let’s start with the basics. If the House settlement — which combines three separate cases — is approved, schools will be allowed to pay their athletes directly from a pool that’s tentatively set to start this fall at $20.5 million. Athletes will be allowed to sign legitimate name, image and likeness deals outside of that framework. Some examples include JuJu Watkins’ deal with Nike or Caleb Williams’ deal with Dr. Pepper. But any NIL deal that exceeds $600 will soon have to be reported to Deloitte for approval as “real NIL” and must have “a valid business purpose.” It is supposed prevent thinly veiled attempts at getting around the new salary cap.The idea is to eliminate donor collectives and their unchecked, unregulated payments to college athletes. To police this new landscape, the power conferences have put forth a plan to create their own enforcement arm, outside of the auspices of the NCAA, that will impose long-awaited guardrails on NIL and punish any schools that try to circumvent them.It’s a nice idea, but wishful thinking at best.For one, it’s begging for legal challenges. Assuming Congress doesn’t act quickly on a college sports bill — a safe bet for anything involving Congress — then all it will take is one compelling antitrust lawsuit for the whole thing to fall apart. And a cap system that limits an athlete’s earning potential for his or her name, image and likeness is a pretty juicy case for any attorney to chase.When I asked USC coach Lincoln Riley this week for his thoughts on the viability of this new enforcement arm, it was the legal aspect of things that gave him the most pause.“It’s tough because obviously there’s a whole legal side of all that,” Riley said. “And you’re going to need something that holds up legally, something that has enough teeth to accomplish what it needs to accomplish and is not just going to get run over with people getting sued and all of that. That’s the world those people live in. That’s why it’s been tough to find it. Obviously if we can, that would be great.”But let’s say, in a perfect world, that the settlement framework survives legal challenges. That doesn’t mean schools won’t constantly try to cheat the system anyway.Paying players outside of the rules is not a new concept. Boosters have been dropping bags of money in front of recruits and scholarship athletes, in one way or another, for decades — even if it meant violating NCAA rules to do it. The only difference in recent years is that this process is now playing out in the open, with collectives using booster money for payments to players that didn’t require a “valid business purpose.”I’m skeptical that genie can be put back in the bottle. Especially with an entire cottage industry of agents already in place and a system already incentivizing athletes to chase newer, bigger paydays. The possibilities for paying athletes are now endless. And all it takes is one team skirting the cap to get ahead, before others naturally follow. That’s just the way of the world.So in order for this new entity to actually deter schools from cheating, it will need the power to punish schools, coaches or athletes who step outside of those rules. But why would we assume this entity would wield that power more fairly and effectively than the NCAA? Or who’s to say that any school with its back against the wall, faced with suspensions or a forfeit or a loss in cap dollars, would respect that authority?We don’t have any idea how that process will function or what punishments will look like. But if they aren’t severe enough to actually deter schools or athletes from taking outside payments, then there’s zero chance the system will function in the way the power conference athletic directors are hoping it will.When I spoke to USC’s athletic director Jennifer Cohen in February, I asked her if she thought it was a realistic plan.“I believe that we have to believe that,” Cohen said. “You know, I think if we want to get to a system that has some sort of constraints — like we’re in college, and we’re having a hard time having checks and balances. In the pros, they don’t have those same challenges, right? So I believe we have to believe we can reimagine how to operate in this new era in a way that’s as equitable as possible.”And in a perfect world, maybe this new system would usher in a new, more equitable era for college athletics.But coaches can already see the cracks in the foundation. And while I think the settlement is a step in the right direction, it’s going to be a rocky road ahead when it comes to actually enforcing it. Enjoying this newsletter? Consider subscribing to the Los Angeles Times Your support helps us deliver the news that matters most. Become a subscriber. USC guard Wesley Yates III changed his mind about staying in Los Angeles, entering the transfer portal as NIL payout offers for athletes spiked. (Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times) — With potential settlement payment limits incoming, there’s a rush to lock in big payouts right now in the transfer portal. On July 1, deals that haven’t been paid out to athletes will have to be sent to Deloitte for clearinghouse approval if the settlement is approved. But right now, boosters can still pay unchecked amounts to athletes under the guise of NIL, if they please. And that has something to do with the skyrocketing paydays you’ve seen in the basketball transfer portal recently. When it was reported that John Calipari had a $10 million budget to work with at Arkansas last offseason, the number stunned a lot of people. But one source in the college hoops world told me that several schools are set to spend that much this time around, knowing that things will change. Granted, USC isn’t one of them. “Everybody is playing ‘Beat the clock,’” Auburn’s Bruce Pearl told Yahoo’s Ross Dellenger this week.— Wesley Yates III’s departure to the portal is a devastating setback for USC men’s basketball. As recently as a few weeks ago, the Trojans’ standout freshman was all-in on staying with USC. Everyone believed that still to be the case until recently. But as teams front load their spending, it’s safe to assume offers for Yates’ services went through the roof in recent weeks. When his name finally appeared in the portal, according to reports, it came with a “do not contact” tag, meaning Yates already has an idea of where he’s going. Keep an eye on Kentucky, which has plenty of money to spend. But regardless of where he winds up, this sort of situation is just the sad state of affairs in college basketball right now. USC basketball coach Eric Musselman and his staff helped deliver Yates’ breakout season, and now, some other coach and program will reap the rewards. USC has no choice but to go back to the portal once again, in search of another difference-maker.— With Avery Howell and Kayleigh Heckel out, Lindsay Gottlieb has a lot of work to do in the transfer portal. Losing those two freshmen, both of whom should have had big roles next season, is a tough pill to swallow. But that’s how it goes these days. Especially when you have a superstar, such as Watkins, who siphons up a lot of the scoring and attention. USC’s most pressing need in the portal, prior to their departures, was the frontcourt, and already, Gottlieb has had one coveted forward on campus in Breya Cunningham, a 6-foot-4 forward who hails from San Diego and spent the last two seasons at Arizona. But to stay afloat without Watkins for most — or all — of next season, USC may need to pull a big name out of the portal in the coming weeks. Could Olivia Miles, formerly of Notre Dame, give USC a look? What about Ta’Niya Latson, the nation’s scoring leader who is leaving Florida State? It’s not like the Trojans are barren of talent. But the circumstances next season without Watkins suddenly seem much more bleak.— Watkins led all female college athletes in NIL deals. That’s not exactly a big surprise, I know. But the sheer number of deals is impressive. According to data from SponsorUnited, Watkins currently has 20 NIL deals. And these aren’t local car dealerships — we’re talking Nike, Gatorade, United Airlines, Fanatics. North Carolina’s R.J. Davis (25) and Arizona punter Cash Peterman (21) are the only college athletes who have more NIL deals. Starting next season, Watkins will get to add revenue-sharing money on top of her NIL earnings.In case you missed itProfessor Pete Carroll finds a rapt USC audience for his ‘Win Forever’ philosophyPromising USC guard Wesley Yates III enters the transfer portalUSC falls to Villanova in College Basketball Crown quarterfinalsJuJu Watkins becomes first USC player to win AP player of the yearJ’Onre ‘Big General’ Reed brings energy and power to USC offensive lineRashaun Agee helps USC men’s basketball beat Tulane in Crown tournamentHow will USC women’s basketball adapt next season without star JuJu Watkins?USC women fall again to Paige Bueckers and UConn in Elite Eight of NCAA tournament What I’m watching this week Seth Rogan arrives for the series premiere of “The Studio” on the opening night of the South by Southwest Film Festival on March 7 in Austin, Texas. (Chris Pizzello / Invision / AP) It’s been a fantastic few months for television, and Apple, fresh off its “Severance” success, has just added another excellent entrant into the small-screen mix. I will generally follow Seth Rogen wherever he might ask me to go, but “The Studio” might be his best work yet as a producer and show creator. The show follows Rogen as the new head of a legacy film studio that’s struggling to adjust to the new age of movies and content. It’s poignant. It’s hilarious. And it’s great filmmaking — the entire second episode is about a scene that’s a single shot … that’s shot in a single, 30-minute shot. Brilliant stuff. Until next time… That concludes today’s newsletter. If you have any feedback, ideas for improvement or things you’d like to see, email me at ryan.kartje@latimes.com, and follow me on Twitter at @Ryan_Kartje. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.
Keep Reading
