You are here: Home / 2011 / Archives for May 2011

Financial Fair Play Works Only in a Different Division I

May 31, 2011 by

Massive new TV contracts, fights over automatic qualification to the Bowl Championship Series, and huge donations have conspired to push to the back of the mind a fact that most people tend to either accept as gospel or challenge with force: that Division I athletics is not a profitable business.

Whether Division I athletics is profitable has been hotly debated, a debate that centers around one line item in a major Division I athletic department’s budget: institutional support. Institutional support comes in many varieties: student fees, not charging the athletic department tuition, an annual budget infusion, and even taxpayer support. The NCAA normally takes care to point out how few athletic departments would break even or make money without institutional support. Opponents disagree with removing this income as it is still income.

If we accept for the sake of argument that Division I athletics is not profitable, then there are no shortage of reasons why they are not profitable. Escalating salaries, capital projects, arms races, tighter budgets, reduced ticket sales and donations, and mismanagement are all some of the popular reasons.

But very rarely has it been asked whether a Division I athletic department should be profitable, or at least break even. When one argues that Division I athletics is flush with cash or just barely scrapping by, they are often arguing it in the service of a different point, like whether paying players is feasible or whether a school should be allowed to cut sports to comply with Title IX. Rarely is the question asked as a fundamental philosophy.

That question has been asked across the pond. In Europe, revenue gaps lead some professional soccer clubs to take a shortcut. The front office would load up on debt to buy better players, hopefully securing a lucrative Champions League place. When the club didn’t qualify for the Champions League, the team went into administration (i.e. bankruptcy protection), often being relegated.

In response, UEFA instituted Financial Fair Play rules. The regulations begin with detailed financial reporting and eventually will require teams to break even over a rolling three-year period to be eligible for European competitions (Champions League and the Europa League). Essentially, a club cannot spend more than it can bring in.

A similar situation has developed in Division I. As some athletic departments have sprinted away from the pack in terms of revenue and infusion of cash from donors, others have turned to riskier methods of financing a competitive Division I athletic department: cash from the university, either through general funds or student fees. A legitimate question to ask is whether Division I needs a set of financial fair play rules.

For those who believe a Division I athletic department should not require assistance from the university, financial fair play regulations would be wildly successful. If an athletic department had to break even to be eligible for NCAA championships or bowl games, a lot of athletic departments would start breaking even quite quickly.

The problem is that some of those athletic departments would break even by shedding multiple sports and cutting administrative staff. Since the success of football and men’s basketball often drive revenue, cuts there could decrease opportunities to grow revenue, and thus keep the department afloat or improve competitiveness.

Plus, some athletic departments simply could not generate sufficient revenue to break even in a reasonable amount of time. When an athletic department relies on institutional support for a majority of its revenue, growing outside revenue to cover the entire department is a project that could take a generation.

Finally, not all institutional support is created equal. If a department runs up a massive deficit and requires a bailout from the university, that’s an altogether different situation than if students vote to raise fees on themselves to support the athletics department.

So while a break-even requirement sounds like a good idea, it isn’t if you like the current state of Division I, a mix of diverse athletic departments all striving for elite competition, but going about it in very different ways. Less dramatic regulations like requiring fee increases to be voted on by students are more feasible. But if you require athletic departments to break even without any institutional support, the biggest effect you’ll get is a very different Division I.

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog, Feature Tagged With: , ,

What Full Cost-of-Attendance Really Means

May 24, 2011 by

Much of the hemming and hawing (to which I contributed) about the Big Ten’s proposal to increase scholarships to the full cost of attendance came from the fact that details of the proposal were scarce. Possibilities ranged from providing a stipend to every single student-athlete, including walk-ons to just providing stipends in football, both equally unlikely extremes. And this was not an issue of a lay public not understanding the issue: there were multiple reasonable proposals with widely different costs and effects on student-athlete welfare and competitive equity.

But Adam Rittenberg, ESPN’s Big Ten blogger reports that the proposal is fairly specific at this point. It would apply to all athletes on full scholarship, including athletes in equivalency sports. This means it would not be limited just to headcount sports (where generally any student-athlete on scholarship receives a full scholarship) and it would not simply increase team limits in equivalency sports. Had the latter occured, a women’s soccer team, which has 14 scholarships to split amongst a roster of around 30, would have simply been allowed to provide an extra $42,000 in aid (based on a $3,000 cost of attendance gap), without requiring it be used to cover the expenses not currently covered by a full grant-in-aid.

The final remaining question is whether this additional aid would be exempt. If it isn’t exempt, then said women’s soccer team could only provide the same 14 full grant-in-aids, but some student-athletes might count as greater than a full grant-in-aid, a 1.10 scholarship for instance. I’m reading a lot into Chad Hawley’s comment about having the “same scholarship structure” but I believe the aid will be exempt. Otherwise it would mean no additional aid to equivalency sports, which is necessary to bring anything approaching Title IX balance to this proposal. That means a student-athlete receiving a full cost-of-attendance scholarship would still be counted as if they were only receiving tuition, fees, room, board, and books.

Here’s what that would cost, how it would affect student-athlete welfare, how it affects compliance, and what the competitive impact would be.

What It Costs
Costs will be determined by which sports a school sponsors. Headcount sports are easy to calculate since generally student-athletes are on full scholarship and would receive the additional financial aid (national average of $3,000 is used):

  • FBS Football: 85 x $3,000 = $255,000
  • Men’s Basketball: 13 x $3,000 = $39,000
  • Women’s Basketball: 15 x $3,000 = $45,000
  • Women’s Gymnastics: 12 X $3,000 = $36,000
  • Women’s Volleyball: 12 x $3,000 = $36,000
  • Women’s Tennis: 7 x $3,000 = $21,000

For equivalency sports, the cost is not so easy to calculate. Some programs generally do not give give full scholarships, saving money in order to build deeper teams. Other programs use the bulk of their scholarship limit on full grant-in-aids for a few student-athletes, rounding out the roster with walk-ons. Plus, as we’ll see below, different financial aid rules may cause different recruiting tactics and new ways to divy up scholarship money.

How It Affects Student-Athlete Welfare
Generally it’s a major win, but there are caveats. It will mean that star student-athletes will have essentially all of their educational costs covered, with pocket money left over for a trip home or entertainment. If student-athletes are also still allowed to accept other aid, like Pell Grants, the neediest student-athletes may even be able to start helping out their families.

But if the extra cost means schools are forced to cut sports or other student-athlete services, that needs to be taken into account. That cost is significant, but not unreasonable. It’s also limited. Weight rooms and locker rooms will continually get more expensive, but it’s possible to know the actual cost of larger scholarships and it likely won’t get bigger than full cost of attendance.

Finally, if the aid is not exempted for equivalency sports, it will mean a redistribution of wealth from role players to stars. That means some athletes who are currently on scholarship wouldn’t be on scholarship, while some would be offered less than they were previously.

How It Affects Compliance
A few hundred bucks a month is not going to make a great deal of difference for student-athletes who are offered lavish gifts like cars, personal training, jewlery, trips to South Beach, etc. But according to former NFL agent Josh Luchs, many times the benefits used to recruit a student-athlete are fairly modest. If a student-athlete can no longer be swayed by pocket money, agents will be forced to provide bigger benefits to student-athletes. And bigger benefits are easier to catch.

It also changes the moral calculus when it comes to extra benefits. There continues to be a myth of the student-athlete as starving artist. Certainly, there are student-athletes who struggle to get by. But it is much more often the result of the school deciding not to provide things it is permitted to provide, rather than the rules keeping basic necessities out of student-athlete’s hands. With the full cost of attendance covered for revenue sports and star athletes, plus all the existing and legal ways to get cash to a student-athlete, it will no longer be a case of needing to take money from agents or boosters.

How It Affects Competitive Equity
Obviously if a school cannot afford to provide as many full cost-of-attendance scholarships as it wants, it will suffer competitively. How much depends on how short a school falls in this regard. For instance, if a school determines it can afford additional cost for nine basketball student-athletes on both teams, that covers a normal rotation, and the reserves will only receive a full grant-in-aid. A school might be able to remain competitive in that case. But if it cannot afford them at all, it recruits from a significant disadvantage.

More interesting is if we assume that everyone can afford the proposal or that it is paid for by the NCAA. If that’s the case, then it could increase parity by preventing traditional powers from saving on star athletes. Successful programs in equivalency sports can save scholarship by offering almost full grant-in-aids, say $28,500 if a full grant-in-aid is $30,000. Do this enough and it means being able to offer a scholarship to another role player vs. fill the spot with a walk-on.

But if stars are now giving up an additional $3,000, they’ll be less inclined to sign with the better program for less scholarship. That means an up-and-coming program could make a big recruiting coup, or it means that traditional powers will not be able to build the same type of depth they are used to.

It also highlights the value of certain positions. Chad Hawley picked a poor example of a women’s soccer goalie. Goalies in any sport tend to make less than field players, and the NCAA is no exception. In baseball and softball, the competition for top pitchers will heat up, while less of the new money goes to players in the field because they are typically less likely to be on full scholarships.

How Much of a Game Changer Is It?
Realistic versions of this proposal could have radically changed college athletics by drastically increasing how much it cost to compete in any sport. But the version of the proposal we’re likely to see from the Big Ten in the next year or two strikes a middle ground between keeping this change from bankrupting athletic departments and maximizing the additional aid to student-athletes.

The great unknown is how many programs can afford this and to what degree. And this is program rather than department specific. A school will do whatever it can to find the money for football, men’s basketball, and enough women’s sports to satisfy Title IX. The question is who can then provide this additional money to baseball/softball, soccer, and track and field.

The greatest impact is likely to be felt in Division I’s middle class: FBS schools out of the BCS conferences and the FCS. They will have the largest additional scholarship bills to meet, with comparitively low revenue to meet them. And underrated winners will be non-football departments like Gonzaga and Xavier, with strong revenue but not the massive additional expense of football.

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog, Feature Tagged With: , , , ,

In the news: May 23

May 23, 2011 by

A story in this morning’s Indianapolis Star called attention to the widening gap between educationally based athletics and AAU competition.

Writer Kyle Neddenriep posed an informal poll to participants at an AAU qualifying tournament. The question was:  “Do you prefer AAU or high school basketball?” Of the 25 players of all ages questioned (including four current college players), Neddenriep reported that 19 picked AAU. Most of the athletes cited the ephemeral benefits of exposure, travel, freedom and style of play.

How you view this issue depends, of course, on how what you want from basketball. If the purpose is creating better basketball through a highly selective, exclusive process, then elite competition has its advantages. But if the objective is to follow through on the premise that education and athletics are effective complements, then somebody needs to pay more attention to nurturing high school programs.

High school administrators are rightly concerned about all of this. NFHS Executive Director Bob Gardner and NFHS President Nina Van Erk wrote the following in the May issue of High School Today: 

“The popular theory by many parents is that by involving their children in out-of-school club programs, the coaching and preparation will be better than what they receive through the high school team and will greatly enhance the chance for a full-ride athletic scholarship for their son or daughter. We certainly acknowledge that there are a few high school athletes who may benefit from a year-round focus on one sport because they have the skills and talent to play at the next level; however, among the 7.6 million participants in high school sports, these individuals are few and far between.

“Consider these numbers: About 3 percent of high school basketball players, 5 percent of high school soccer players, 5 percent of high school football players and 6 percent of high school baseball players will play at the NCAA level. From the high school to the professional level, the odds are better at winning the lottery. For example, less than one-half of one percent of high school basketball players will be drafted by an NBA team.

“Many families incur huge debts trying to chase college scholarships for their kids – money they wish they had back for college tuition when the scholarship offers fail to materialize. Through research of articles on this subject, it is common for families to spend $5,000 to $10,000 a year funding their child’s athletic pursuits in out-of-school programs. Three years ago, the College Board estimated the average annual cost at a four-year public school was about $6,200 – very similar to the annual expenditures by many families for club sports.

“In some cases, participation in an out-of-school program in a particular sport could be beneficial, but often athletes (and their parents) are lured into giving up other sports in the high school setting – thereby forfeiting the educational component – to focus solely on one sport and to chase the dream of a college scholarship.”

Monday’s article in the Indianapolis Star did not treat high school sports and elite training/competition as an either-or proposition. Instead, the writer compared and contrasted the two approaches.

But high school athletics are threatened. Think about the pay-for-play debate that rages at the college level and then consider that many high school participants must pay to play through more frequent and ever-increasing fees.  Between the lack of public support and the tug that comes from elite programs, high school athletics programs could cease to exist somewhere down the line.

If you believe in educationally based athletics – as you should if you support college sports – that would be a tragedy of the highest order.

About Dave Pickle

Filed Under: NCAA Insider

In the news: May 20

May 20, 2011 by

The outburst of opinions from high-profile administrators about adjusting Division I financial aid limitations has the news wires crackling.

So, what are we talking about, based on remarks made over the last several days?

Britton Banowsky, Conference USA: “Universities justify spending tens of millions of dollars on coaches’ compensation, with a seemingly insatiable appetite for more growth. At the same time, a small fraction of that amount is spent on all scholarships for all student-athletes. Unless the student-athletes in the revenue-producing sports get more of the pie, the model will eventually break down. It seems it is only a matter of time.”

John Swofford, Atlantic Coast Conference: “Could it be limited to only revenue-producing sports? I’m not sure we would want to do it. And from a legal standpoint, how does it mesh with Title IX? I think we’re a ways away from getting there. But it’s a student-athlete welfare issue. It’s a way to enhance the student-athlete experience and put a dent in some of the financial strains that some athletes have.”

Gene Smith, Ohio State AD: “The reality is that schools can afford it more than you realize…Just look at some of the television contracts that have come out recently.”

Mike Slive, Southeastern Conference: “I have long thought that we should revisit the current limitations on athletic scholarships by expanding to the full cost of attendance.  This is a student-welfare issue that deserves full consideration at both the conference and national level. I look forward to that discussion.”

Jon Steinbrecher, Mid-American Conference: “The first question to answer is − is this the right thing to do? That is a worthwhile debate. As an association the NCAA strives to differentiate intercollegiate athletics from professional sports, and it is important that we continue to maintain the collegiate model.”

Tommy Bell, Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne AD: “There is a small percentage of the NCAA membership that has the financial wherewithal to even consider that. The overwhelming number of schools are not in a position to do that.”

Jim Delany, Big Ten commissioner: “There are some conferences and some institutions that have higher resources than others …. Forty years ago, you had a scholarship plus $15-a-month laundry money. Today, you have the same scholarship, but not with the $15 laundry money. How do we get back more toward the collegiate model and a regulatory system that is based more on student-athlete welfare than it is on a level playing field, where everything is about a cost issue and whether or not everybody can afford to do everything everybody else can do?”

Troy Dannen, Northern Iowa AD: “Television has already put certain leagues in a position where they’re playing a game that no one else can play. The cost-of-living component issue is a legitimate problem, and the NCAA is on-record saying that. I don’t think that’s any secret. I would much prefer the NCAA look for a way that all institutions across the board can address the problem as one.”

You don’t have to be Hercule Poirot to see that some of these men are more enthusiastic than others about the prospect of this change. Larger financial aid packages likely would broaden the competitive gap between the biggest programs and those that are struggling to make ends meet now. As a number of commentators noted, administrators from Division I’s “equity conferences” do not appear to be losing much sleep over that concern.

Dannen, the Northern Iowa AD, correctly alluded to the fact that discussions about full cost of attendance are not new. The late NCAA President Myles Brand had a dalliance with the topic, and Mark Emmert has been all about discussing the idea almost from the day he assumed the NCAA presidency last September.

Where this goes next isn’t exactly clear. As Delany said, there’s “a long way between the talk and the action.” Presumably, there’s going to be a lot of chatter at conference and NCAA meetings over the next several months.

Finally, I thought columnist Drew Sharp offered an effective contrarian view on the subject. Writing in Friday’s Detroit Free Press, he cautioned that what’s being discussed likely would not sanitize big-time sports: “The fallacy in paying scholarship athletes a regular stipend is the delusion that such practices would reduce the covert dirty dealing that too often turns big-time college sports into a prime-time-televised pig sty,” he wrote. “Even if you pay them all you want up front and in the open, it won’t stop some players from demanding even more from scurrilous boosters and sports agent ‘runners.’ ”

About Dave Pickle

Filed Under: Feature, NCAA Insider

Time for Football to Pick a Side

May 19, 2011 by

Since the beginning, major college football has enjoyed a charmed life in the NCAA. It has the freedom to run its championship the way it pleases. It gets to distribute its revenue the way it sees fit. And the FBS membership has the freedom to carve out its own regulatory scheme, ideas that often get translated into the rest of the Division I Manual (e.g.: how football spring practice provided the model for fall softball).

At the same time, bowl subdivision football leans heavily on the NCAA. For starters, football student-athletes are factored into the calculation for distributing revenue like the Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund and Special Assistance Fund. Those two funds are based on how many scholarships you provide and how many Pell Grants your student-athletes receive. Because the marginal value of each scholarship goes up (i.e. the 125th scholarship is worth more than the 25th), starting off with 85 scholarships makes it much easier to carve out a large part of that pie.

In addition, football uses the regulatory resources of the NCAA as much as any other sport, if not more. A football prospect who will require extensive academic and amateurism investigation pays the same $65 as a golf prospect who will sail through the Eligibility Center. The enforcement staff may not have a dedicated unit for football like they do for men’s basketball, but Agents, Gambling and Amateurism and the rest of the general enforcement staff spends more time on football than any other sport.

In exchange for all this, football provides a pittance to the NCAA. The revenue the national office made from football amounted to $420,000, the total of the licensing fees paid by the 35 bowl games. That’s not even enough to cover the NCAA’s estimated $500,000 loss that the Association takes putting on the FCS tournament.

That’s not to say that football doesn’t support college athletics period. A profitable football program does much of the heavy lifting to support the rest of the athletic department. So does men’s basketball, especially outside of the FBS. And there are plenty of sports that take a lot from the NCAA but do not give back. Baseball for instance has sport-specific legislation and uses disproportionate Eligibility Center resources, but it’s championship doesn’t fund the NCAA.

The major difference between football and men’s basketball though is that football does not fund the system as a whole. Only a tiny sliver of revenue from a BCS bowl game leaks out of the FBS, and none of it to the organization tasked with regulating the sport. That same organization shares criticism with the BCS for the faults in college football’s postseason, as evidenced by the Department of Justice’s letter to the NCAA.

Football has had their cake and eaten it too for a long time. Now comes the news that the Big Ten may be leading the charge for bigger cakes, regardless of whether anyone elses bakery can keep up:

“The reality is, if there’s cost of attendance and you can’t afford it, don’t do  it,” [Ohio State AD Gene Smith] told reporters at the meetings. “The teams you’re  trying to beat can’t do it either. Don’t do it because Ohio State’s doing it.  That’s one of the things schools at that level get trapped into thinking.”

Arms races aren’t all the same. Some are just perception. You don’t need a fancy new weight room to field a successful Division I football team. As long as your weight machines aren’t breaking down and there’s enough room for athletes to work out as much as they want, you have what you need. But you need a fancy new weight room to recruit a successful team because everyone else has one.

An arms race for scholarships is different through. If one school is offering you a full ride that ends up costing you, on average, $12,000 over four years and another school is offering to pay every single penny, the choice is pretty clear. Unless there’s a very compelling reason to choose the first school, it is at a distinct disadvantage.

Mr. Smith’s comment though doesn’t apply to football or men’s basketball. Schools can afford to increase their scholarships to full cost of attendance for those sports. Or more accurately, they have to afford to increase their scholarships. But it’s a tough road to limit increased scholarships to just those two sports.

If the NCAA were to legislate that male athletes are permitted to receive larger scholarships and no female athletes are, a Title IX challenge would be filed the following day. It would be difficult even for the NCAA to limit full cost of attendance scholarships to headcount sports, since despite having more headcount sports, women only have a maximum of 47 headcounts vs. 98 for just men’s basketball and football. So equivalency sports almost certainly have to be included, drastically raising the cost. The cost increase is even more drastic for schools without football.

What Mr. Smith has done is reveal the reason behind those massive TV contacts. They are not simply to fill the pockets of administrators or coffers of universities. The point is to win. And not just to win at football and men’s basketball but to win at everything. An extensive and expensive move to cost of attendance scholarships allows schools with major football and basketball revenue to press home that advantage in sports where it’s still possible for smaller schools to focus their energies and compete at a national level. A great example is Portland, who has created national powerhouses in cross country and women’s soccer without big TV contracts or football revenue.

There will never be total competitive equity unless the NCAA passed a rule limiting the total spending of athletic departments. But there are ways to stop it from getting worse or at least stem the tide. And one way is to get football off the fence, one way or another.

One option is for FBS football to agree to a playoff, but not just any playoff. An actual NCAA Championship, run by the NCAA, with revenue distributed by the NCAA according to traditional standards of NCAA revenue distribution. Lots of black, the same field at every site, with blue circles as far as the eye can see. Assuming a college football playoff earned revenue equal to the Division I men’s basketball tournament, it would pay for the jump to full cost of attendance scholarships for all sports, a substantially increased enforcement staff, all while allowing for significantly higher revenue distributed based on success in the championship.

The other option is for FBS football to be kicked out. That is, to remove FBS football from the list of NCAA sports, stop regulating the sport, and stop using football to determine how revenue is distributed. In effect, if football does not want to have actual skin in the game of its own regulation, the NCAA shouldn’t either.

Could it happen? That largely depends on who would vote on a proposal to remove FBS football. But remember that if you pit the BCS AQ conferences vs. the rest of Division I, the “have nots” control a sizeable 33-18 majority on the Legislative Council. So if the rest of Division I, including some FBS conferences, decide that removing football (at least temporarily) from the NCAA is in their best interests, they have more than enough votes to do it.

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog, Feature Tagged With: , , ,

In the news: May 16

May 16, 2011 by

Something that has never happened before will happen this summer.

There will a change in the leadership of the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics when Executive Director Mike Cleary retires and is replaced by current Deputy Executive Director Bob Vecchione.

What makes it unique is that NACDA’s executive director has never before been replaced. Cleary is the original model, having been in the role for 45 years. We’ll offer a well-deserved profile on Cleary in the summer issue of NCAA Champion magazine.

In the meantime, I caught up with Vecchione and asked him a few questions about NACDA:

Q: Where do you see NACDA going over the next several years?

A: We’ve done a tremendous job of overseeing the growth of the associations that we have under our umbrella (NACDA currently manages 12 associations, in addition to its core membership). Now we’re going to focus on managing each of those associations.  For instance, the compliance association − we need to do a better job of assisting them in growing their market and educating their members. Seeing as NACDA’s basic mission is education, we want to assist in the education of all the various components that are contained under our umbrella.

Q: Sometimes, it might look to outsiders that NACDA and the NCAA are rivals in some ways. How do you see the relationship?

A:  I don’t see them as rivals at all. I’ve been on both sides of the desk. I’ve been a corporate sponsor back in my National Car Rental days, and I ran the Final Four locally back in 1992, so I’ve seen the NCAA and NACDA from both sides. There are so many similarities; there are so many things we can and will be doing together.  I should mention that Mark Emmert’s inaugural appearance as NCAA president was at the NACDA convention. We work real hard to develop these relationships, and the NCAA has been a fantastic partner.

Q: Where do athletics directors fit in the college sports universe nowadays?

A: They say the athletics department is the front porch of the university, and the athletics director is in the No. 1 rocking chair on that porch. The AD is a vital role, and as you see in the role of the evolution of the athletics director. There are ADs who carry the role of vice president of a university.  Gene Smith has it at Ohio State, I know Jimmy Phillips has it at Northwestern, Kevin White has it at Duke. There are a lot of ADs who are now gaining in that recognition and responsibility with that vice presidential title. And that means that university presidents are also seeing the importance of the athletics departments on campus, and that’s going to continue to grow.

Q: What are the biggest priorities?

A: It’s all based on education, what happens with the media. There are so many moving pieces out there right, especially the media rights piece. The compliance piece is such a big part of the equation. But that’s the beauty of our business. It’s ever-changing. That’s why the educational component, which we focus on, is so important because the more things change, the more you need to be constantly aware and constantly educated as to what is happening out there and, more importantly, what are your counterparts doing to overcome the obstacles and take advantage of all the opportunities. And that’s what we provide.

Q: Does NACDA have a role to play with how college sports are portrayed?

A: No one is satisfied with how the enterprise is portrayed in the media. You can’t control what other people say about you. But just look in our daily lives. Look how many hours our athletics departments are putting into community service. Nobody says anything about that, and that’s just wrong. What about all the great things that the student-athletes at the University of Alabama are doing in the community? Is anybody writing about that? All you can do is work in your own community, and if the stories come out of it, that’s great. You have to work from an inside-out perspective. By the way, Bob Williams and the NCAA put together a media summit of conference media people earlier this year and brought them to Indianapolis, and that was a great, great first step. We have to continue doing those things because we have a tremendous story to tell.

Q: The academic advisors association will join NACDA next year, and CoSIDA also plans to meet jointly with NACDA in the future. Will other organizations be joining NACDA?

A: We take it case by case. We have our base foundation set up right now. If there are other groups down the road, we will definitely analyze it and look at it. But the basic intent was to build an organization that is based on the creation of an association for each business unit that reports into the director of athletics, and we’re well on our way to accomplishing that goal. We don’t have too many other silos to fill. For the time being, we’re very happy where we are. We’re just going to enhance the educational components within each of those silos and, down the road, if additional opportunities present themselves, we’ll sit down with our leaders and see if that’s the direction they want to take. But for the time being, we’re very happy. Plus, if we added any more associations, I think the staff would probably assassinate me.

Q: Describe how Mike Cleary adapted over such a long career.

A: The industry has gotten a lot younger, if you will. But Mike has been flexible with that evolution, primarily because he’s raised nine kids. You don’t raise nine kids and 21 grandkids – all live within a five-mile radius −  and not be part of that evolution. So it’s a perfect marriage of the growth of the association and the growth and evolution of his family. There’s nothing he hasn’t seen. His management style is based honesty and integrity. He’ll support you 1,000 percent. He’s just been a tremendous role model, a tremendous mentor, and I’ve learned a great deal from him.

About Dave Pickle

Filed Under: NCAA Insider

In the news: May 13

May 13, 2011 by

Results from almost all precincts are in, and it looks like there’s a strong consensus that Tuesday’s NCAA Enforcement Experience succeeded in creating a greater understanding of the issues surrounding a typical Division I infractions case.

The purpose never was to “convert” media members into somehow advocating for the NCAA system. Rather, it was to provide a look behind the curtain so they could better understand how a serious case might play out from beginning to end. Along the way, the media members on hand were given unprecedented access to enforcement staff and Committee on Infractions staff members.

Not surprisingly, this resulted in a lot of commentary. It’s probably dangerous to compress thoughts from 24 different writers into one distillation, but what the heck: The overall takeaway was that the enforcement process is generally well-executed by capable, properly motivated people; the concern is with the overall structure and process. Writers also voiced a plea for more consistency with penalties.

“Understanding something and agreeing with it are two different things,” wrote Stewart Mandell of Sports Illustrated. “Nothing I saw Tuesday changed my opinion that the entire enforcement process could use a drastic overhaul; that it’s saddled by inconsistencies and inefficiency; and that it’s too unnecessarily complicated for fans to ever truly understand.”

Fair enough. I’ll go a step further and say Mandell shouldn’t limit the criticism to enforcement. Usually the complexities come from efforts to ensure fairness. Sometimes they come from necessary political compromises. Once in a while, a bad idea simply gets on the books and stays there. But there’s not much point in fretting about whether excessive complexity exists. The important question is how change can occur.

Rules enforcement is something that the NCAA must get right. The challenge has always been big, but modern times have made it harder than ever. Technology has changed the landscape, and so has all the money surrounding sports of all kinds. At its core, however, the purpose of the enforcement program has never changed: It’s all about fairness. If the rules are not equitably enforced, the competition is not fair.

Anyway, kudos to the NCAA enforcement staff and to the Division I Committee on Infractions for their excellent effort – and for providing a forum about how rules enforcement can be improved.

*     *     *

Here’s an overview of what several writers put together from Tuesday’s Enforcement Experience:

Enforcement Experience offers rare inside look at NCAA infractions (Stewart Mandell, Sports Illustrated)

Biggest lessons learned at NCAA’s Enforcement Experience (Seth Davis, Sports Illustrated)

‘Enforcement Experience’ a revealing peek at NCAA’s heavy burden (George Schroeder, Eugene Register-Guard)

Heat on new NCAA president Emmert to get tough (Dan Wetzel, Yahoo Sports)

NCAA offers inside look at enforcement, investigation process (Steve Yanda, Washington Post)

Mark Emmert isn’t backing down (Eamonn Brennan, ESPN)

Nothing simple about catching cheaters (Pat Forde, ESPN)

Taking a peek behind the rules curtain (Kyle Veazey, Jackson Clarion Ledger)

NCAA attempts to properly handle third-party recruitment (Jon Solomon, Birmingham News)

NCAA opens up on enforcement (David Moltz, Inside Higher Ed)

NCAA looks to debunk myths about enforcement investigations (Libby Sander, Chronicle of Higher Education)

NCAA needs more schooling on sports, not media (Mike DeCourcy, Sporting News)

About Dave Pickle

Filed Under: Feature, NCAA Insider

Fail Better

May 13, 2011 by

The NCAA’s Enforcement Experience seems to have been a big success. If the intent was to open up the infractions process enough that we can move beyond problems that aren’t actually there to the ones that are, job well done. Already you can see it in the quality and specificity of some of the recommendations made by the attendees. Mike DeCourcy recommends penalties carefully crafted to the sport to improve effectiveness. Stuart Mandel approved of President Emmert’s suggestion of new divisions between the types of violations, and offered the idea of a “czar of discipline”

Everyone has ideas about how enforcement should work, ideas that are hopefully better now after the NCAA offered a glimpse into how it works right now. But I’m not interested in how enforcement works. I’m interested in what happens when it doesn’t.

Consider the criminal justice system. The American criminal justice system is based on a few bedrock principles, one of which is that someone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. That doesn’t mean much when the criminal justice system works. Given good police work, diligent prosecutors, competent defense, and a fair judge and jury, the truth generally comes out.

The presumption of innocence comes into play at the margins, where the system breaks down. When a prosecutor can’t prove conclusively that someone committed a crime, nor can the defense prove conclusively that the defendant is innocent. In those cases, the presumption of innocence says the defendant walks. If a defendant can find a technicality, he or she walks. If a defendant chooses to put up no proof of their innocence and the prosecutor cannot prove guilt, the defendant walks.

A lot of NCAA reform ideas focus on how enforcement (or student-athlete reinstatement, amateurism, academic eligibility, financial aid, etc.) should work when it’s working. And certainly there are areas of the NCAA that were poorly designed. Or to put it another way, even when they are working properly, they don’t work the way we want them too. But more often than not NCAA regulations and processes silently do what they were designed to do.

It’s when NCAA enforcement breaks that you hear about. When an investigation takes too long, when a penalty seems too severe or too lenient, when one school is treated differently than another school. And that’s where the toughest questions are when talking about improving the enforcement process. Whether you think about this as an engineering challenge or a philosophical problem, this is the toughest hurdle a reform idea has to get over.
Take for instance the cases where the circumstantial evidence is strong, but the witness is unreliable and there’s no smoking gun. When there’s a tie like this, the system is going to have to pick a winner.

This is not a binary choice. You could create a lesser charge, almost like an appearance or impropriety. Or you could continue the current practice: entrust a group of people to use their best judgement. By this point it is clear that many people have a problem with that sort of system.

But it’s not that such a system always fails or never works. Just what when it fails, it fails spectacularly. The engine seizes up, smoke billows out, and major repairs are necessary. Instead of shrugging it off as one of those things that happens, it becomes a major catasrophe.

The surest bet I can make about the NCAA’s enforcement procedure, no matter what reforms or improvements are made, is that it will break. The second surest bet I can make is that the closer to perfect we think the process is, the more shocking that failure will be. Unless we’re ready for it and we know what’s going to happen when enforcement breaks down.

That involves making hard choices. It may mean saying “If you can break this, you win” or “If this breaks, tough luck, you lose.” But failure has to be the starting point, not the afterthought. Before you explain how the NCAA enforcement process should work, you first have to explain how to get through the times when it doesn’t.

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog, Feature Tagged With: , ,

In the news: May 11

May 11, 2011 by

A new blog called BusinessofCollegeSports.com does a good job of filling a void in the world of college sports financial analysis.

So much college athletics financial analysis these days is agenda-based, with writers too often seeking to marginalize or even demonize those who have different perspectives.

However, Kristi Dosh, who bills herself as the SportsBizMiss, approaches her subject matter in an open, analytical and reasonable manner. Take today’s missive on the Bowl Championship Series, for example:

“Is the BCS fair?” she asks. “I think there’s an argument to be made on both sides, but honestly I don’t really care. I enjoy reading and listening to debate on both sides of the BCS argument, but I mentally shut down when I hear the words ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’. Didn’t your mother tell you life isn’t fair?”

From there, she makes a nifty parallel between her own nonpaid role as a sports blogger for Forbes.com and the circumstances surrounding BCS non-AQ schools.

Dosh covers the rest of the college sports waterfront, writing about everything from student activity fees to how much nonrevenue sports actually cost. As a practicing attorney, Dosh knows her way around resources and is skilled at accumulating and displaying information that generally informs rather than inflames. All the while, she keeps the reading experience eclectic and enjoyable.

Dosh has been writing on sports issues for Forbes.com for a while now, but the BusinessofCollegeSports.com blog has been around only a month. I recently exchanged emails with her about why she chose to blog exclusively about college sports, and here’s what she said:

“As a sports fan, I’m most passionate about baseball. Accordingly, I assumed that was the sport I wrote about most frequently as a contributor to SportsMoney on Forbes.com. Imagine my surprise when I tallied up how many posts I’d written about each sport over the past year and found college sports outnumbered baseball 3:1! It was then the idea for BusinessofCollegeSports.com was born.

“I started BusinessofCollegeSports.com just one short month ago. Between my passion for analyzing the business of college sports and the incredible number of hits, tweets and emails my college pieces had been receiving on SportsMoney, I knew there was a market for this kind of coverage and no one out there providing it. There are several sports business analysts who do a great job covering college sports when there is something newsworthy, but I couldn’t find anyone whose sole focus was the business of college sports.

“The response to the website from fans and other members of the sports media has confirmed my belief that there was a high level of interest in these topics, and that I was embarking on territory untouched by others.

“I post something new on BusinessofCollegeSports.com every weekday, and I have zero concern that I will ever run out of material. I wake up every morning excited to write about something in the world of college sports.

“For me, the business of college sports is more fascinating than any other area of the sports world because college athletics are run like a business, but the athletes are not employees and hold no bargaining power. This creates a number of circumstances unique in athletic competition. Add in the fact that college sports exist within the academic arena and a whole new set of issues and debates appear. I can’t imagine finding more material anywhere else in the world of sports!”

I doubt if the NCAA and Dosh will be foursquare on every issue, but that’s OK. The objective should be better understanding through reasonable debate. As far as I’m concerned, BusinessofCollegeSports.com contributes to that end.

About Dave Pickle

Filed Under: Feature, NCAA Insider

In the news: May 6

May 6, 2011 by

Is success in athletics valued over success in academics for young African-American men?

That was the question examined in Atlanta this week at a panel discussion sponsored by the W.E.B. Du Bois Society. The event was well covered by Maureen Downey of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in her “Getting Schooled” blog.

Downey’s blog makes clear that too many young black men value their athletics experiences over academics despite the long odds that they will ever play a minute of professional sports. That part is depressing, but it was encouraging is to read about high-profile African-American athletes who are addressing the problem. Wednesday’s panel included Bryan Scott of the Buffalo Bills, former CNN sports analyst Larry Smith, NBA legend Dikembe Mutombo, Atlanta-area high school athlete Akil Dan-Fodio, former Atlanta Brave and Atlanta Falcon Brian Jordan, former Detroit Lion Ryan McNeil and Atlanta Falcon fullback Ovie Mughelli.

Kudos to Downey for covering this discussion. Other education writers should follow her lead and examine the mix of economic, educational and sociological issues that too often complicate the relationship between athletics and education.

About Dave Pickle

Filed Under: NCAA Insider
«Older Posts

Copyright �© 2010-2012 NCAA �·