Latest news with #UniversityofLouisville
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
House settlement explained: How Louisville Cardinals, Kentucky Wildcats would be impacted
Roughly five years after its initial filing, the House v. NCAA settlement is still awaiting a decision from the courts. It's one of the most talked-about lawsuits in the history of college athletics. And for good reason. If approved, the settlement would establish a first-of-its-kind revenue-sharing model between schools and athletes. Advertisement Industry leaders have been operating for months under the assumption that the agreement would go through this spring and go into effect July 1, including those at the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky. But they've yet to receive the all-clear. Here's everything you need to know about the settlement, including how Kentucky's two major schools are planning for two different futures: one where the agreement is approved and one where it's not. What is the House v. NCAA settlement? The proposed House settlement stems from the merging of three different lawsuits filed by current and former Division I athletes against the NCAA: House v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA and Carter v. NCAA. Advertisement Plaintiffs Grant House (former Arizona State swimmer) and Sedona Prince (former Texas, Oregon and TCU basketball player) filed a class-action complaint in June 2020 alleging that the NCAA violated antitrust laws by restricting athletes' ability to profit off their name, image and likeness. Former Oklahoma State running back Chuba Hubbard and former Duke defensive tackle DeWayne Carter filed similar complaints against the NCAA and power conferences. Judge Claudia Wilken, who previously presided over the Alston v. NCAA lawsuit finding the NCAA in violation of antitrust laws by capping the value of athletic scholarships, later consolidated the House suit with Hubbard and Carter. On Oct. 7, Wilken granted the House settlement preliminary approval. That version of the settlement would provide $2.8 billion in back damages to athletes who could not profit off their NIL between 2016 and Sept. 15, 2024. It would also bring revenue sharing to college sports starting July 1 with a projected cap for 2025-26 of $20.5 million per school. But one aspect of the agreement has delayed her final decision by nearly two months. Instead of scholarship limits, the version of the House settlement Wilken granted preliminary approval to established roster caps. Objectors spoke out against roster limits at the April 7 final approval hearing in Oakland, California. Afterward, Wilken gave attorneys two weeks to amend the roster limit concept. She suggested grandfathering in athletes already on existing rosters. Executives from the Power Four conferences — Big Ten, SEC, ACC and Big 12 — agreed to an optional grandfathering-in model for schools. The settlement has been back in Wilken's hands since May 16. How will settlement money be distributed? As the settlement currently stands, $2.8 billion would be provided to college athletes who could not profit off their NIL between 2016 and Sept. 15, 2024. These athletes had to file objections to or claims to be part of the settlement before Jan. 31. About 40,000 filed claims suggesting they would participate in the settlement, Front Office Sports reported in February. Advertisement The backpay is to be doled out over 10 years — 60% by the NCAA from its reserves and 40% from schools. In addition to damages, the House settlement would bring revenue sharing to college sports starting July 1 with a projected cap for 2025-26 of $20.5 million per school. How that money is divvied up will be left to individual institutions. Louisville athletics director Josh Heird told The Courier Journal at ACC spring meetings that U of L knows how it will distribute the $20.5 million among its varsity sports but declined to share exact numbers. Kentucky athletics director Mitch Barnhart told the CJ at SEC spring meetings that, rather than establishing firm percentages for each program, Kentucky will take a less rigid approach to meet each sport's needs year in and year out. Front Office Sports reported that power conference schools are expected to dedicate 75% of the $20.5 million toward their football programs. Texas Tech's reported breakdown gives 74% to football, 17% to 18% to men's basketball, 2% to women's basketball, 1.8% to baseball and the rest to other sports. That's $15.17 million for football, $3.69 million for men's basketball and $410,000 for women's basketball. How much are college athletes getting paid? College athletes would make money through revenue-sharing agreements with their schools and still be eligible for third-party NIL deals if the settlement is approved. However, the NIL market would be more heavily monitored than it is now under an enforcement structure that some industry leaders are skeptical of. Advertisement All NIL deals exceeding $600 will have to be reported to and pass through a clearinghouse called 'NIL go,' starting three days after the settlement is approved. NIL go will be operated by Deloitte with the purpose of assessing athletes' fair market value. Officials from the clearinghouse have been sharing data about past deals with athletics directors and coaches over the last several weeks, including 70% of agreements from collectives would not have passed through NIL go; 80% of NIL deals with public companies were valued at less than $10,000; And 99% of those deals were valued at less than $100,000 Those numbers are a far cry from the millions collectives have reportedly spent on athletes over the last four years or so. Restricting compensation in this way feels, to some, like a bit of a step backward. 'They're just encouraging people to cheat again,' Dan Furman, president of Louisville's official collective 502Circle, told The Courier Journal. Advertisement SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey spoke about the clearinghouse at spring meetings. When asked directly if he had confidence in these guardrails, Sankey said yes. "People are going to have opinions," he said. "Nothing ever worked when people sat around and said, 'Well, this won't work.' We're adults, we're leaders, and I think I communicated this (recently), we have a responsibility to make this work." Why roster limits are delaying Judge Claudia Wilken's decision? Instead of scholarship limits, the version of the House settlement Wilken granted preliminary approval to established roster caps. This structure would cause thousands of athletes across the country to lose their spots — mainly in football and Olympic sports. Objectors spoke out against roster limits at the final approval hearing in Oakland on April 7. Advertisement Wilken told attorneys they needed to fix this issue or else she would reject the settlement. She suggested grandfathering in athletes already on existing rosters. Executives from the Power Four conferences came back with an optional grandfathering-in model for schools. Objectors then argued for mandatory grandfathering, but lawyers from the NCAA and power conferences maintained that their proposal should satisfy Wilken's demands and solicit approval. What does Kentucky's NIL bill say? Several states have laws permitting schools to directly pay college athletes — including Kentucky. The commonwealth passed Senate Bill 3 in March, amending its previous NIL legislation so state universities could legally operate within the House settlement's proposed revenue-sharing model. Advertisement Ross Dellenger of Yahoo! Sports reported in early May that athletics directors predict many schools will use state law to begin paying athletes, regardless of whether Wilken denies the settlement. One AD told Yahoo!: 'What can the NCAA do about it?' What will Louisville do if Judge Claudia Wilken rejects House v. NCAA settlement? If Wilken denies the settlement, U of L will likely move forward with paying its athletes directly, Heird told The Courier Journal at ACC spring meetings. 'That's probably the path we would go down,' Heird said. 'Just from the standpoint of the more control you can have of the situation, the better. It's been a little bit disjointed with outside entities, collectives, doing things. So I would presume that's the road we would go down.' Advertisement Should the settlement get denied, U of L wouldn't be beholden to the $20.5 million cap. Instead, paying athletes would just 'be a budget constraint,' Heird said. 'But I'd contend it's a budget constraint now.' What is Kentucky's NIL budget? UK, like all other universities, will be limited to $20.5 million to share with its athletes under the settlement's current terms. This $20.5 million represents 22% of the average revenue of power conference schools and Notre Dame across eight categories, including but not limited to ticket sales and media rights. UK totaled $129.2 million across those categories, according to its 2023-24 NCAA financial report. Barnhart told The Courier Journal at SEC spring meetings that, rather than establishing firm percentages of the $20.5 million for each program, Kentucky will take a less rigid approach to meet each sport's needs year in and year out. What is Louisville's NIL budget? U of L, like all other universities, will be limited to $20.5 million to share with its athletes under the settlement's current terms. This $20.5 million represents 22% of the average revenue of power conference schools and Notre Dame across eight categories, including but not limited to ticket sales and media rights. Louisville totaled $105.5 million across those categories, according to its 2023-24 NCAA financial report. Advertisement Heird told The Courier Journal at ACC spring meetings that U of L knows how it will distribute the $20.5 million among its varsity sports but declined to share exact numbers. Reach college sports enterprise reporter Payton Titus at ptitus@ and follow her on X @petitus25. This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: What is the House settlement? How U of L, UK would be impacted
The Age
3 days ago
- Health
- The Age
Stephanie was told she would never get better. Now she's at the forefront of treating her illness
For years, Stephanie Boulet was told she would never recover from anorexia nervosa. Enduring hospital admissions and residential care through her adolescence and 20s, the treatment – which assumed she was motivated by a desire to be thin – didn't work. 'It is not fair that I was in that state for as long as I was, repeatedly reaching out for care and being called 'treatment resistant' and [my condition] 'severe and enduring',' Boulet said. Evidence-based treatments for adults with eating disorders do not work for roughly half of patients, and there is no standalone evidence-based treatment for anorexia or other specific disorders, meaning clinicians rely on guesswork to find ways to help. But a promising new US trial has found a personalised treatment approach targeting unique combinations of symptoms for each patient led to a greater decline in symptoms compared to the current gold-standard treatment, enhanced cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT-E). Loading The results of the small randomised controlled trial, the first trial of personalised treatment for any mental illness, were presented at the Australian Eating Disorders Research and Translation Centre's (AEDRTC) conference in Sydney last week. The findings are yet to be peer-reviewed. Lead researcher Professor Cheri Levinson, director of the Eating Anxiety Treatment (EAT) Laboratory at the University of Louisville, said current treatments were based on averages that don't account for the huge variations in the symptoms, behaviours, thought processes and characteristics of people with eating disorders. 'Patients with the same diagnosis can present with extremely different symptoms,' she said. 'Growing data shows that about 50 per cent of patients have weight and shape concerns as their central or most important symptoms, meaning 50 per cent do not,' she said, floating the concept of an 'eating spectrum disorder' approach to diagnosis.
Sydney Morning Herald
3 days ago
- Health
- Sydney Morning Herald
Stephanie was told she would never get better. Now she's at the forefront of treating her illness
For years, Stephanie Boulet was told she would never recover from anorexia nervosa. Enduring hospital admissions and residential care through her adolescence and 20s, the treatment – which assumed she was motivated by a desire to be thin – didn't work. 'It is not fair that I was in that state for as long as I was, repeatedly reaching out for care and being called 'treatment resistant' and [my condition] 'severe and enduring',' Boulet said. Evidence-based treatments for adults with eating disorders do not work for roughly half of patients, and there is no standalone evidence-based treatment for anorexia or other specific disorders, meaning clinicians rely on guesswork to find ways to help. But a promising new US trial has found a personalised treatment approach targeting unique combinations of symptoms for each patient led to a greater decline in symptoms compared to the current gold-standard treatment, enhanced cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT-E). Loading The results of the small randomised controlled trial, the first trial of personalised treatment for any mental illness, were presented at the Australian Eating Disorders Research and Translation Centre's (AEDRTC) conference in Sydney last week. The findings are yet to be peer-reviewed. Lead researcher Professor Cheri Levinson, director of the Eating Anxiety Treatment (EAT) Laboratory at the University of Louisville, said current treatments were based on averages that don't account for the huge variations in the symptoms, behaviours, thought processes and characteristics of people with eating disorders. 'Patients with the same diagnosis can present with extremely different symptoms,' she said. 'Growing data shows that about 50 per cent of patients have weight and shape concerns as their central or most important symptoms, meaning 50 per cent do not,' she said, floating the concept of an 'eating spectrum disorder' approach to diagnosis.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Gun advocacy group says speaker ‘shamefully lied' about surviving school shooting at Frankfort rally
FRANKFORT, Ky. (FOX 56) — A national gun safety organization said one of its featured speakers during a Frankfort news conference lied about being a gun violence survivor. On Feb. 12, FOX 56 covered a gun safety rally hosted by Everytown, an organization focused on ending gun violence. Gun advocacy group says speaker 'shamefully lied' about surviving school shooting at Frankfort rally Crystal Rogers case: Steve Lawson's stepchildren, former coworkers testify on day 2 of trial Paducah man claims he was stabbed over lawn-mowing argument Multiple people spoke at the event, including a University of Louisville student, Calvin Polachek. Everytown identified Polachek as a gun violence survivor in the press release sent to FOX 56 and other media outlets. During the rally, Polachek told an emotional story of a school shooting at his high school in Dallas, Pennsylvania, claiming his best friend and several classmates were killed. However, in the past 24 hours, FOX 56 has received numerous emails and messages from community members in Dallas saying the story Polachek told was a complete lie. 'The sentiments I was getting from our community were troubled and disappointed, and maybe a little bit more severe than that,' said Dallas School District superintendent Thomas Duffy. Duffy said the district never experienced the shooting Polachek described. 'There certainly was some discomfort with a story like that being reported about in a relatively small district in the northeast part of that state,' Duffy added. 'The events that were described did not take place, thankfully, in our district.' Duffy said the district is working with its attorney to ensure parents and families know the truth. Kentucky's most misspelled word, according to study Drug overdoses see major decline: How Kentucky measures up UFO sightings in Kentucky: A look back on past 30 years 'They were well aware that this didn't occur here, and obviously our current parents and families, but just to affirm that the information conveyed about this horrific act of school violence was inaccurate,' said Duffy. Concern over Polachek's story isn't limited to Pennsylvania. Kentucky officials who attended the rally are speaking out, too. Kentucky State Representative Adam Moore was one of the speakers that day and said he is deeply troubled by what happened. 'Even if this is a person who is on my side of an issue, if that means responsible gun ownership, that does not mean that the lie is okay,' Moore said. 'I hate this. It is absolutely unethical and plain wrong to be lying about this stuff, even if he's on my side of the issue.' FOX 56 reached out to Everytown to ask when they learned Polachek's story wasn't true, which they said was after its Kentucky Advocacy Day. A spokesperson said, 'Calvin Polachek is not an active volunteer with Moms Demand Action or Students Demand Action, and we are deeply disappointed that someone would exploit the tragic, lived experience of many to use our platform to share a story that was not true. Calvin reached out to our Kentucky chapter, shamefully lied to our volunteers, and shared a tragic story that we later learned was not true. This is an affront to the countless survivors of gun violence who show extraordinary courage every day by reliving their darkest moments in service of the fight to end our country's gun violence crisis. We are revisiting our guidance to our grassroots networks in an effort to ensure this never happens again.' Trump escalates war of words on Putin as Ukraine ceasefire deal stalls President Trump's latest pardons include reality TV stars, Capitol rioters, and convicted sheriff Trump pardons former GOP Rep. Michael Grimm amid clemency spree FOX 56 also asked if Everytown is required to notify media outlets when something like this happens. The spokesperson reiterated what they said in the previous statement, saying, 'We are revisiting our guidance to our grassroots networks in an effort to ensure this never happens again.' We have learned that Polachek was a student in the Dallas School District. We reached out to him for comment, but haven't heard back. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Time Magazine
20-05-2025
- Health
- Time Magazine
Tiffany Benjamin
Last fall, the Humana Foundation donated $15.2 million to nonprofits working to improve the emotional health and nutrition of seniors and school-age children and $6.75 million to expand health equity research at the University of Louisville. The grants were part of CEO Tiffany Benjamin's larger vision to eliminate barriers in health care—an approach that garnered her the 2024 Council on Foundations award for outstanding leadership in corporate philanthropy. Since becoming head of the health insurance giant's philanthropic arm in 2022, Benjamin has reined in the foundation's once scattered giving strategy to concentrate on mental health, food scarcity and novel health interventions for chronic conditions. Disaster relief is also a priority—in the past year, the foundation sent $1.5 million in aid for recovery efforts after Hurricanes Milton and Helene and an additional $250,000 to help flooding victims in Kentucky. The foundation is also helping to fund Face the Fight, a suicide-prevention program it cofounded in 2023 with USAA that has so far screened nearly 15,000 vets for suicide risk and provided more than 5,000 interventions. Benjamin has also revamped the foundation's grantmaking strategy to include multi-year grants and streamlined the application process. 'Most of my job is saying no to really great projects, but my favorite thing is when we invest in an organization at a tricky time and they tell us: because of your investment, we were able to do this amazing, big thing,' Benjamin says.
