How Alabama football could be impacted by a House vs. NCAA lawsuit settlement | Goodbread

Grant House has the perfect last name, because the former Arizona State swimmer's lawsuit — House vs. NCAA — stands to be the one that burns the house down. The metaphorical house, in this case, is the current NCAA revenue model that doesn't cut athletes in, at least not in a direct way, on the biggest cash cow in college athletics: TV money.

Generally, lawsuits bore me. They probably bore you. They take already-complicated issues and make them even more complicated with legalese. Attorneys get paid while the layman's eyes glaze over in confusion. So with the fewest and simplest words possible, here are the Cliffs Notes: college athletics power brokers are currently in deep negotiations with House plaintiffs on a settlement that would put a percentage of a school's athletic department revenue straight into the pockets of its athletes, per Yahoo! Sports. And we're not talking chump change here. It could start with well over $1 billion in backpay to former NCAA athletes, and going forward, establish a payout that could be in the neighborhood of $20 million annually for current and future athletes at power conference schools.

MILROE UPDATE: What's next for Jalen Milroe's development? Kalen DeBoer discusses Alabama football QB

ON THE COVER: Jalen Milroe featured on EA Sports College Football 25 cover for deluxe edition

From there, the wrangling is endless, and so are the unanswered questions. Will athletes in revenue-earning sports get more than those in sports that lose money? Would the value of a scholarship and other benefits athletes already receive weigh against the payout (and why shouldn't it?) How does Title IX fit into all this? Is collective bargaining on the horizon? Would the inevitable belt-tightening by athletic departments spell doom for non-revenue sports?

At Alabama, these are all relevant questions whether you're Director of Athletics Greg Byrne, a coach, or an athlete. But for most Alabama fans, the relevant question is this: how will it impact things on the football field? And while the answer to that is multi-pronged, here's one prong you can be sure of: the appeal for underclassmen to stay in school and play as a senior instead of making a jump to the NFL would be stronger than ever. The money players make with NIL has already made an impact in this regard. Pre-NIL, more than 100 underclassmen routinely entered the draft. Last year, with many players making six and even seven figures from NIL, only 58 underclassmen entered the draft. Now imagine each power conference school dumping another $20 million on top of the NIL trough. It's absolutely enough of a windfall to keep more players in college.

I'm not talking about first-round talents here, or even second-rounders — they'll be gone regardless — but where NIL has compelled would-be sixth-and seventh-round picks to stick with NIL money for another year, the House settlement might just do the same for the NFL draft's middle rounds.

Think Jermaine Burton, or Justin Eboigbe, for two recent Alabama examples; not superstars, but reliable, impact starters at the college level for whom nothing is guaranteed in the NFL. Rookie contracts for those players have a total value in the single-digit millions, but that value is only realized if they don't get cut. The guaranteed money isn't nearly as much; they can make a fraction of that for one season, get cut before Year 2, and never make another dime playing football. If they even make it through Year 1.

Of course, a House settlement could have that effect across the board in college football, so it wouldn't create a competitive advantage for Alabama coach Kalen DeBoer. But as a new hire who had a fight on his hands for roster stability from Day 1, it would be a welcome advantage nonetheless. Per reports, the settlement could be coming as quickly as the end of the month, with a new revenue model going into effect as early as 2025.

As for all those unanswered questions above, they only scratch the surface of a longer list.

But the question players could eventually be asking is one DeBoer should welcome: why not stick around and play with House money?

Tuscaloosa News columnist Chase Goodbread is also the weekly co-host of Crimson Cover TV on WVUA-23. Reach him at cgoodbread@gannett.com. Follow on Twitter @chasegoodbread.

This article originally appeared on The Tuscaloosa News: How Alabama football could be impacted by the House vs. NCAA lawsuit