NCAA women's rules committee proposes coach's challenge to initiate video review on variety of plays
INDIANAPOLIS — The NCAA Women's Basketball Rules Committee proposed that a coach's challenge be required to initiate a video review of out-of-bounds calls and three other types of plays.
The committee met in Indianapolis this week and voted to recommend the change for the 2025-26 season.
Proposals must be approved by the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel, which is scheduled to meet June 10.
Under the proposal, plays that could be challenged at any point during the game include out-of-bounds calls, backcourt violations, whether a change in team possession occurred before the ruling of a foul where free throws would be involved and whether a foul was assessed to the correct player.
Officials could not initiate reviews on these calls with the exception of whether a foul was assessed to the correct player.
Teams would not be required to have a timeout to make a video review challenge in NCAA women's basketball competition. However, a failed challenge would result in an administrative technical foul for an excessive timeout.
'The committee was concerned with pace of play and the number of reviews occurring at the end of games,' said Nicki Collen, rules committee chair and coach at Baylor. 'This was also an experimental rule in this year's WBIT. By removing the option for officials to review called out-of-bounds violations and allowing coaches to challenge the call, you increase flow at the end of games while still allowing for the opportunity to get the call right.'
The committee also proposed, among other things, setting the shot clock to 20 seconds when, following a dead ball, the offense is awarded the ball in its front court; eliminating the rule that jerseys need to be tucked in; a team technical foul for using excessive timeouts or playing with six players when the ball becomes live; and suspending the player and head coach for one game if the player competes in a game that the player should have missed due to a suspension.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
3 Important Tax Considerations Following The House Versus NCAA Ruling
Following a lengthy legal battle, the AP reports that Judge Claudia Wilken has approved a deal between the NCAA and lawyers representing NCAA athletes. While the deal is nuanced, the key takeaway from this deal is that schools can now begin paying athletes directly. This change represents a significant departure from the NCAA's longstanding tradition of its athletes being student-athletes, hence remaining amateur (and unpaid) during their time in college. Although this coming year will be the first time that college athletes will begin to get paid directly by their schools, athletes receiving millions of dollars has become a mainstay in recent years. This ruling will allow schools to pay a total of $20.5 million in total to their student-athletes in the initial year. While these significant cash flows for the athletes can be very beneficial, they also carry tremendous tax burdens that the athletes may or may not be prepared to accept. In this article, I highlight three important tax considerations that college athletes should consider as we head into a new era of collegiate athletics compensation. Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code tackles this topic. It states, 'Gross income means all income from whatever source derived.' This line item means that as athletes receive money from schools, NIL collectives, or sponsorships, they will be required to remit taxes on those funds received. As many deals are worth millions of dollars, it is important to highlight the ramifications of receiving these funds. For instance, consider Duke standout forward Cooper Flagg, whose Fox Sports reports received $28 million in compensation during his one year as a college basketball star. This amount of income firmly puts him into the top tax bracket at the federal level, meaning that all income over $626,350 will be taxed at a 37% tax rate. This means that without any other deductions, Flagg would owe over $10 million in federal income taxes. Furthermore, Flagg will have considerable state income tax liabilities due to the tax levied in his domiciled state of North Carolina as well as will have to pay the self-employment taxes (15.3%). What can also be problematic is that all compensation is subject to taxation, including in-kind compensation. According to Opendorse, athletes need to be aware of compensation beyond just the cash payments they receive. For instance, if an athlete has a partnership with a local car dealership and, as part of that partnership, they get a free car lease, the fair market value of that car lease that the athlete is not paying is a form of compensation. Similar rules apply to athletic gear, meals and entertainment, travel expenses, and other forms of in-kind compensation. What potentially gets lost in the equation is that these athletes do not have an employer who takes taxes out of their paycheck, as do most taxpayers. Instead, they must make quarterly payments to the taxing authority for their portion of the taxes owed. Thus, if an athlete receives a $1 million check, the athlete must put aside a significant portion (potentially more than half of it) of those funds to pay their taxes. This withholding will become even more important as athletes begin derive even more compensation directly from their schools. A critical wrinkle in the taxation of sports-related income is the jock tax. According to H&R Block, the jock tax is an extra layer of taxation levied on athletes when they play in a different taxing jurisdiction. This tax is levied on the athlete's salary. However, some jurisdictions will include bonuses that were achieved if the conditions of receiving those bonuses were met while performing in that other jurisdiction. The jock tax has led to numerous headlines in the media. According to Kiplinger, the jock tax led to a back-and-forth tax battle between California and Illinois over Michael Jordan's income during the 1991 NBA Finals. Their article also highlights how players like Stephen Curry and Nikola Jokic routinely pay over $1 million in jock tax on an annual basis. The precise formula for calculating the jock tax is messy and varies substantially based on where the athlete plays. For a college athlete now being compensated by their school, they will need to determine the portion of their income earned while playing at universities and tournaments in different states and ensure that they comply with the tax laws in those states. Even after an athlete pays federal income taxes and jock taxes, they will then need to pay their state income taxes. The state income tax rate can fluctuate drastically, as high as 13.3% in California and as low as 0% in several states, including Texas, Florida, and Washington. Thus, an athlete may want to consider their state tax liability when selecting their school. As I reported in Forbes, an athlete like Arch Manning decided between playing at Alabama, LSU, and Texas. While there were clearly many factors in play, Manning chose to play at Texas (0% state income tax rate) over the other schools in states that impose a state income tax, saving him hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. This nuance has led to states like Alabama and North Carolina to consider exempting NIL from state income taxes. In fact, as I reported in Forbes, Arkansas has gone the entire way and passed a law exempting this income from state taxation. Interestingly, many of these proposed and passed laws were directed at NIL income without considering the possibility that these athletes might eventually get paid directly by their schools. Thus, the House v. NCAA ruling has tremendous impacts on state income taxation considerations for these athletes, and the athletes will need to carefully consider and monitor their income to ensure that they comply with state tax laws.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Former Alabama infielder announces transfer portal decision
Former Alabama infielder announces transfer portal decision After previously entering the NCAA transfer portal a few weeks ago, former Alabama Crimson Tide infielder Kennedy Marceaux has officially announced where she will play her college softball next season. Announced via a post on social media, Marceaux is headed back home for the 2026 season, as she has committed to the Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns. A native of Kaplan, Louisiana, Marceaux spent her freshman season at Alabama this past spring in which she saw action in 27 games for the Crimson Tide, 10 of which she started. Over that span, the infielder batted for a .310 AVG offensively with two home runs, nine RBI, and one stolen base. Prior to Alabama, Marceaux was one of the biggest names in the Crimson Tide's 2024 recruiting class, coming to Tuscaloosa as the 2024 Louisiana Gatorade Player of the Year. Contact/Follow us @RollTideWire on X, and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Alabama news, notes and opinion.
UPI
2 hours ago
- UPI
NCAA pact to pay current, former athletes to transform college sports
Basketball great Caitlin Clark, now a professional, still could reap a great deal of money from the University of Iowa as a result of the settlement to which the National Collegiate Athletic Association agreed on Friday. File Photo by Corey Sipkin/UPI | License Photo The business of college sports was upended after a federal judge approved a settlement between the National Collegiate Athletic Conference and former college athletes Friday. After a lengthy litigation process, the NCAA has agreed to provide $2.8 billion in back pay to former and current college athletes, while allowing schools to directly pay athletes for the first time. Joshua Lens, whose scholarship centers on the intersection of sports, business and the law, tells the story of this settlement and explains its significance within the rapidly changing world of college sports. What will change for players and schools with this settlement? The terms of the settlement included the following changes: The NCAA and conferences will distribute approximately $2.8 billion in media rights revenue back pay to thousands of athletes who competed since 2016. Universities will have the ability to enter name, image and likeness, or NIL, agreements with student-athletes. So, schools can now, for example, pay them to appear in ads for the school or for public appearances. Each university that opts into the settlement can disburse up to $20.5 million to student-athletes in the 2025-26 academic year, a number that will likely rise in future academic years. Athletes' NIL agreements with certain individuals and entities will be subject to an evaluation that will determine whether the NIL compensation exceeds an acceptable range based on a perceived fair market value, which could result in the athlete having to restructure or forgo the deal. The NCAA's maximum sport program scholarship limits will be replaced with maximum team roster size limits for universities that choose to be part of the settlement. Why did the NCAA agree to settle with, rather than fight, the plaintiffs? In 2020, roughly 14,000 current and former college athletes filed a class action lawsuit, House vs. NCAA, seeking damages for past restrictions on their ability to earn money. For decades, college athletics' primary governing body, the NCAA, permitted universities whose athletics programs compete in Division I to provide their athletes with scholarships that would help cover their educational expenses, such as tuition, room and board, fees and books. By focusing only on educational expenses, the NCAA was able to reinforce the notion that collegiate athletes are amateurs who may not receive pay for participating in athletics, despite making money for their schools. A year later, in 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in a separate case, Alston vs. NCAA, that the NCAA violated antitrust laws by limiting the amount of education-related benefits, such as laptops, books and musical instruments, that universities could provide to their athletes. The ruling challenged the NCAA's amateurism model, while opening the door for future lawsuits tied to athlete compensation. It also burnished the plaintiffs' case in House vs. NCAA, compelling college athletics' governing body to take part in settlement talks. What were some of the key changes that took place in college sports after the Supreme Court's decision in Alston vs. NCAA? Following Alston, the NCAA permitted universities to dole out several thousand dollars in what's called "education benefits pay" to student-athletes. This could include cash bonuses for maintaining a certain grade-point average or simply satisfying NCAA academic eligibility requirements. But contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court's Alston decision didn't let college athletes be paid via NIL deals. The NCAA continued to maintain that this would violate its principles of amateurism. However, many states, beginning with California, introduced or passed laws that required universities within their borders to allow their athletes to accept NIL compensation. With over a dozen states looking to pass similar laws, the NCAA folded on June 30, 2021, changing its policy so athletes could accept NIL compensation for the first time. Will colleges and universities be able to weather all of these financial commitments? The settlement will result in a windfall for certain current and former collegiate athletes, with some expected to receive several hundred thousands of dollars. Universities and their athletics departments, on the other hand, will have to reallocate resources or cut spending. Some will cut back on travel expenses for some sports, others have paused facility renovations, while other athletic departments may resort to cutting sports whose revenue does not exceed their expenses. As Texas A&M University athletic director Trev Alberts has explained, however, that college sports does not have a revenue problem -- it has a spending problem. Even in the well-resourced Southeastern Conference, for example, many universities' athletics expenses exceed its revenue. Do you see any future conflicts on the horizon? Many observers hope the settlement brings stability to the industry. But there's always a chance that the settlement will be appealed. More potential challenges could involve Title IX, the federal gender equity statute that prohibits discrimination based on sex in schools. What if, for example, a university subject to the statute distributes the vast majority of revenue to male athletes? Such a scenario could violate Title IX. On the other hand, a university that more equitably distributes revenue among male and female athletes could face legal backlash from football athletes who argue that they should be entitled to more revenue, since their games earn the big bucks. And as I pointed out in a recent law review article, an athlete or university may challenge the new enforcement process that will attempt to limit athletes' NIL compensation within an acceptable range that is based on a fair market valuation. The NCAA and the conferences named in the lawsuit have hired the accountancy firm Deloitte to determine whether athletes' compensation from NIL deals fall within an acceptable range based on a fair market valuation, looking to other collegiate and professional athletes to set a benchmark range. If athletes and universities have struck deals that are too generous, both could be penalized, according to the terms of the settlement. Finally, the settlement does not address -- let alone solve -- issues facing international student-athletes who want to earn money via NIL. Most international student-athletes' visas, and the laws regulating them, heavily limit their ability to accept compensation for work, including NIL pay. Some lawmakers have tried to address this issue in the past, but it hasn't been a priority for the NCAA, as it has lobbied Congress for a federal NIL law. Joshua Lens is an associate professor of Instruction of sport & recreation management at the University of Iowa. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
