You are here: Home / Archives for Feature

Should College Football Be Year-Round?

November 20, 2011 by

Concussions in football are reaching a critical stage. Players, especially in college football, are getting bigger and faster at a rate that helmet technology seems unable to keep up with. Force equals mass times acceleration. Get something big enough moving fast enough and run it into a person, and you generate more force that we can disperse and shield someone’s head from.

Now though, a new problem is coming up. A study has raised the potential that football is becoming so violent that you do not need to suffer a concussion to experience the long term effects:

The scans of the injured player showed as much damage as his teammates who endured routine levels of contact, suggesting to Bazarian and Zhong that extreme hits that made athletes’ vision foggy and eyes starry – telltale signs of concussions – weren’t necessary to cause damage to their brains. Instead, it suggested the hits players endured play-to-play and week-to-week could accumulate and affect the brain’s health. Imagine linemen colliding after each snap, a running back getting bumped while powering through a hole, or linebackers finishing off a play. Those plays – the bedrock of game action – could be adversely affecting a player’s health over time, the results suggested.

The science here is just getting started, but if this research is confirmed and reveals a widespread problem, there would need to be a fundamental change in how football is organized. Rules to prevent head-to-head collisions are of limited value if big hits are only part of the problem. One option would be to remove routine contact from football, but at that point it would be a different sport.

Instead, the challenge should be to look for ways to mitigate this damage caused by regular jostling. One common sense idea would be more rest in between games. But to have more rest, you need either fewer games or a longer season. A slightly longer season would yield another bye week or two, but what if the idea of a football season played in the fall was thrown out in favor of one played over the entire academic year?

A season played over the entire academic year would also mean changing practice limits. 20 hours of athletic activity over six days a week would be quite the grind over an entire academic year. The limits would have to be somewhere between the in-season limits and the offseason limits, something along the lines of 15 hours per week, maximum of 4 hours per day, and two required off days per week. Hopefully a longer season also reduces the pressure on student-athletes to engage in voluntary activity, which adds on another 20 hours for the average FBS student-athlete.

A competition schedule might have teams playing every other week, with the occasional game on back-to-back weeks and/or two weeks off (so half of the teams aren’t one schedule and half on the other). Even with a playoff that adds games beyond the current maximum of 14, there would be periods of extended rest.

A number of ancillary benefits are possible as well. A steady practice schedule that includes fewer hours per week of athletic commitments could help academics. A longer season frees up television slots on the weekend, reducing the number of midweek games. With games every other week, coaches might have better work-life balance and more time to recruit.

Tradition would definitely be thrown out the window and there’s a chance that year-round college football would not be as great a commercial success as it might seem given the public’s seemingly insatiable appetite for the sport. But if we’re serious about the health and welfare of student-athletes, any idea that maintains the core of the sport and reduces long-term damage needs to be explored.

These ideas are a long way off though. First more study is needed to confirm this phenomenon and measure the extent of it. Assuming it is, the NCAA and researches should figure out a way to test different competition and practice schedules to see if it makes a difference. Perhaps a shorter season with a longer offseason is better. Or perhaps the key is to reduce cumulative damage by having longer periods between each game. And if that’s the case, the membership should be prepared to take even the radical step of playing football in the spring.

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: ,

Club and Division I Are a Difference in Kind, Not Degree

November 3, 2011 by

To the extent that anyone argues, without qualification, that there is not enough money to pay any athletes in college, they are wrong. Some set of schools could pay some set of athletes some amount of money above and beyond the cost of attending the school. The issue is that there is not enough money at the moment to pay even just football and men’s basketball players a significant wage and do everything else that college athletic departments currently do.

All of that other stuff has value. Coaching salaries are a typical target of pay-for-play advocates. If athletes were paid, the theory goes, coaching salaries would go down. But if they did, the best coaches might go coach somewhere else, lowering the qualify of coaching athletes receive. That is just one of many trade-offs, like whether college athletic departments should provide opportunities to a large number of athletes or compensation to a smaller group.

George Dohrmann’s pay-for-play plan then is less ground-breaking for making the numbers work than it is for making the tough choices. Fewer, smaller athletic departments in Division I would, all else being equal, free up enough revenue to provide a meaningful amount of money above the current scholarship ($12,000 in Dohrmann’s example). That comes though at the expense of many non-revenue programs.

Mainly I don’t support Dohrmann’s plan because I disagree with the trade-offs that are made. I generally believe it’s more fair and more appropriate for a university to spread resources and revenue on more athletes rather than fewer. In many ways this is the heart of the current struggle over the future of college athletics, and it is a question upon which reasonable people can differ.

But there is one flaw in Dohrmann’s plan and it comes in the treatment of club sports. Club sports are a sidebar to the article, but if you were politicking to have this plan adopted, they would be central to building support. Allowing nonrevenue teams to fall by the wayside is acceptable, the argument goes, because there is a club sports system that will pick them up. And that on a club team, athletes will receive most of the benefits they would have gotten as a Division I student-athlete.

Take these quotes in favor of the club sports model:

“We work hard and we play hard, and there is that same sense of teamwork and camaraderie.” … “We have gained a lot more life skills having had to work for everything, by not having anything handed to us. And isn’t that what college is all about?”

Those quotes come alongside claims that varsity athletes and club sport athletes are more similar then they are different. And in many ways, they are. There is often a similar time-commitment, athletes are representing the university, and many of the athletes could have been Division II, Division III or NAIA athletes, even Division I in some cases.

The tone of those quotes and the entire piece highlight the differences between club and varsity sports. That difference is explained by Jay Coakley’s power/performance and participation/pleasure models. Elements of the power and performance model are:

  • The use of strength, speed, and power to push human limits and aggressively dominate opponents in the quest for victories and championships
  • The idea that excellence is proved through competitive success and achieved through intense dedication and hard work, combined with making sacrifices, risking one’s personal well-being, and playing in pain
  • The importance of setting records, defining the body as a machine, and using technology to control and monitor the body
  • Selection systems based on physical skills and competitive success
  • Hierarchical authority structures, in which athletes are subordinate to coaches and coaches are subordinate to owners and administrators
  • Antagonism to the point that opponents are defined as enemies

By contrast, the pleasure and participation model focuses on:

  • Active participation revolving around a combination of types of connections-connections between people, between mind and body, and physical activity and the environment
  • An ethic of personal expression, enjoyment, growth, good health, and mutual concern and support for teammates and opponents
  • Empowerment (not power) created by experiencing the body as a source of pleasure and well-being
  • Inclusive participation based on an accommodation of differences in physical skills
  • Democratic decision-making structures characterized by cooperation, the sharing of power, and give-and-take relationships between coaches and athletes
  • Interpersonal support around the idea of competing with, not against, others; opponents are not enemies but those who test each other

One of these sounds like Division I athletics and one sounds like club sports. Neither is good or bad, nor is one better than the other. But they are different things, run in most universities by different departments. There are counterexamples, like BYU’s club men’s soccer team which plays in the highly competitive Premier Development League. If you ask the US Soccer Federation, they might say BYU’s club team is playing at a level higher than Division I.

So aside from the tangible loses, like the national competition, university funding, academic support, and financial aid, dropping teams to club status means asking them to embrace different values and set different goals. It is so different that it should not be considered an alternative to varsity Division I athletics. Those teams are lost. That loss can be mitigated or it can be accepted, but it cannot be explained away with club sports.

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: , ,

NCAA in the Middle

October 25, 2011 by

The day there is substantial news from one of the people or organizations committed to reforming the NCAA always seems like a red letter day for the reforms and a black letter day for the NCAA. If that is the case, Monday was doubly so, as the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics questioned President Emmert at a meeting in Washington D.C. and the National Collegiate Players’ Association announced it had gathered 300 signatures on a petition for a very specific change to the NCAA in a pilot program.

Except days like this highlight the biggest obstacles for NCAA reformers: other reformers.

The Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics has, since 1989, pursued the mission of “ensuring that intercollegiate athletics programs operate within the educational mission of their colleges and universities.” The most recent report from the Knight Commission asks for transparent financial statements, greater focus on academics, and reducing commercialism. In the view of the Knight Commission, the continuum of ideas about college athletics looks like this:

Knight Commission <—————————> NCAA

The National Collegiate Players’ Association has, since 2001, pursued a mission of “providing the means for college athletes to voice their concerns and change NCAA rules.” The NCPA’s most recent study on cost of attendance and athletic scholarships recommended that new TV revenue flow to athletes, scholarship commitments be increased, and athletes be allowed to explore commercial opportunities. In the view of the NCPA, the continuum of ideas about college athletics looks like this:

NCPA <—————————> NCAA

But in the view of the NCAA, a view that is closer to reality, the situation really looks like this:

NCPA <———— NCAA ————> Knight Commission

The NCAA sits in between those pushing for a more professional college sports environment and those yearning for a deemphasis on competition and greater focus on academics. The two sides cannot see each other, cannot collaborate with each other, and cannot debate each other. The NCAA ends up standing in as the advocate for both sides as often as it is their opponent.

If reform is presented as a competition, battle, or zero-sum game, any victory will be a fleeting one. Once someone “beats” the NCAA (whatever that means), they have to contend with another opponent, who not only wants to unwind all the recent victories, but go even further in the opposite direction than the NCAA ever did. Not to mention this new foe will be motivated by seeing, in their eyes, an even worse version of college athletics than before.

There is a persistent myth in college athletics that it can be “fixed”. That there are some set of reforms which once enacted will solve every problem forever. This myth is embodied in the claims that major reforms to bedrock NCAA principles are uncontroversial tweaks and that only two rules or ten commandments are need to keep college athletics in line.

It is far more likely that we are entering an extended period of upheaval and change, which historically last for around 20 years in the NCAA. The first, the rise of intercollegiate athletics itself, created the NCAA. The second surrounded the academic scandals and point-shaving of the 1940s and 1950s, culminating in a dramatic showdown over the Sanity Code. And more recently the 1970s and ’80s were consumed by which initial eligibility standard to use, who would govern women’s athletics, and how to clean up rampant cheating. College athletics runs in 15–20 years cycles of change and stability. It would be noteworthy if intense debate had not come up now or in the near future.

The major difference in the current cycle is the relative influence of outside factors, including would-be reformers. The NCAA has shown that, like an extended family, it can fight amongst itself and come out stronger on the other side. Surviving a twenty-year tug of war between different vision of college athletics is something altogether different.

The better model is that the NCAA, proponents of professional college athletics, and members of the academy (roughly the three big groups) be the three legs of a stool rather than three points along a line. Without one the other two fall over, and balance is always a little tricky. And all three are connected by a single purpose. Issues like realignment, budget disparities, and student-athlete welfare are not going away anytime soon. No sense in seeking an imaginary victory in a fight that can never be won.

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:

Different Country, Same Questions

October 21, 2011 by

One of the biggest recent successes of the NCAA is that the message is finally getting across that there is no such thing as “The NCAA”. There is an organization headquartered in Indianapolis with those initials. But when it comes to how college athletics is regulated and controlled, the national office is just one part of a larger network that is populated largely by member schools but which also includes conferences and coaches associations.

Now that the NCAA has convinced many to zoom in and take a closer look at the actual structure of college athletics, the next goal for the NCAA should be to convince the public to zoom out and look at the NCAA as simply one part of an even larger system. That system, messy at its best and corrupt at its worse, is the one that takes millions of children from their first experience playing sports and eventually produces a few hundred or few thousand world class athletes.

Plans for significant NCAA reform generally make two assumptions. First, that college athletics should continue as the primary method for developing professional or Olympic athletes. And second, that the effect of changes in college athletics on youth athletics can or should be ignored. The result is that many reform plans are like engineers tasked with making a car go faster, but only by focusing on the engine, not the entire vehicle.

College athletics, as currently constructed, has a lot of advantages. It broadens the talent base. It requires athletes to make progress toward a career as a non-athlete. It funds a high level of coaching and support for many athletes through university subsidies and fan interest that is unrivaled in what is ultimately a U–23 youth league.

It has its drawbacks though. Mixing class and practice limits the amount of time athletes can train. Those large subsidies come at a time when many universities are strapped for cash. Scholastic and intercollegiate sports are almost universally tied to a system of amateurism as well.

Because the NCAA is often viewed as representative of all athletic development in the US, a lot of the failings of our development system are attributed to our peculiar attachment to high-level sports run by schools and the traditional attachment to amateurism that has come along with it. But across the pond they’re struggling with the same issues.

The Football League has agreed to adopt the Elite Player Performance Plan, which was developed by the Premier League (they are actually separate entities). The plan takes the current two designations of youth football teams (Academy and Centre of Excellence) and breaks it into four levels. Level 1 will require a budget of at least £ 2.5 million and 18 full-time staff members. In exchange for that investment, clubs have no limits on the time young players can spend in training (currently limited to 3–5 hours per week) and no limit on where players can come from (currently limited to within a 60–90 minute commute from the training ground).

That comes along with a standardized compensation system when youth players move to new clubs, with much lower initial payments and higher payments if the player becomes a productive professional for the first team.

The plan was initially met with a furious reaction from the smaller clubs, who described a parade of horribles that should sound familiar to college sports fans. Bigger clubs would gobble up all the young players, either by scouring the country for schoolboys or poaching players from the smaller clubs on the cheap. Getting passed over by a big club early would be more harmful to a youngster’s pro prospects, so the fear is agents will become prevalent for nine and ten year-olds. And a valuable source of income for some teams will go away as it will be much harder to be a feeder club, one that develops good young pros, then selling them to the richer teams.

The questions are the same in England and the US. Where should potential pros get the bulk of their playing time? Should talent be widely distributed or concentrated in a few large organizations? Is playing for a local team in meaningful games better for development that the advantages that the big boys can provide? What is the appropriate time for young athletes to start thinking about agents and contracts, salary and bonuses?

All those questions need to be asked here directly instead of through coming up with ideas about how the NCAA should operate. The NCAA is just one piece of the puzzle in the career of an elite athlete. It is time to think about that whole career and the NCAA’s place in it. Or at the very least to think about how changes to the NCAA affect the rest of that path.

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: , ,

Athletic Departments Under Attack

October 11, 2011 by

When the NCAA announced it was embarking on significant reform, it presented an opening for others to present their own reform ideas. When plans for reform started piling up from faculty members looking to rein in college athletics and the media and student-athlete advocates arguing for the professionalization of college athletics, it was not out of the realm of possibility that the NCAA would become the victim of its own reform movement. But a recent and disturbing trend is attacking something more basic and fundamental than the NCAA. Rather than going after the NCAA as an organism, would-be reformers are challenging the cells themselves: the athletic department.

Oddly enough, it was a student-athlete advocacy group, the National College Players Association that first lent credence to the idea:

The FBS non-revenue team expenses show that these schools spend far more than what’s necessary to field these teams. BCS schools spend an average of about $350,000 more on each non-revenue team when compared to FCS schools. FBS schools average 18 non-revenue generating teams per campus, which means they spend an average of about $6.3 million/year more than FCS schools on non-revenue generating sports. Schools often question where they would find the money to increase athletic scholarships. But to put this in perspective, if those excess expenditures were evenly divided among 85 scholarship football players and 13 scholarship basketball players, each player would receive about $64,000 without reducing any non-revenue generating players’ scholarship or their teams.

Jay Bilas asks about representation of not just athletes from revenue sports, but elite athletes from revenue sports:

Just one athlete per working group does not seem to allow the athlete much of a voice in the process, and one can reasonably question whether the actual experience of the typical “revenue-producing” athlete is fairly represented, let alone the views of the elite revenue-producing athlete.

The NCPA and Bilas nibble at the edges. Cutting back on non-scholarship expenses and ensuring that football and men’s basketball athletes with professional prospects are represented are one thing and raise serious questions about what the role of athletics should be in a university. But what Frank Deford is arguing is something else entirely:

I’m all for the wonderful intrinsic values of sport: exercise and competition and team spirit, but especially in these parlous economic times, it would make much more monetary sense to conduct minor college sports on an intramural basis. Would the universities’ educational mission be diminished any by that decision? Would good student applicants reject them for lack of league lacrosse games? Come on.

This sounds like it could have been written by one of the professors from Rutgers that had their phone service cut off, as Deford mentions. This does not:

All the worse, the current national model has it that some impoverished kid from the inner city risks concussions and obesity to play football in order to pay for the scholarship of a javelin thrower and the salary of an assistant swimming coach and the plane fare for the volleyball team.

Let’s address these ideas one by one.

No one is suggesting that athletic subsidies are not controversial and should not be approached cautiously. But for professors facing budget cuts and students going deeper into debt to while athletics keeps or increases subsidies, does it matter where the money goes? I doubt it makes the student or the instructors feel better when they are asked to do more with less if the money flows to the football program rather than the women’s basketball team.

As far student-athlete representation, it is the representation of elite athletes rather than representation of all athletes that would make a major difference. In his wildly popular and well-reviewed critique of the NCAA, Taylor Branch offered giving student-athletes a 20% vote as a change that would have wide-ranging impact on many facets of college athletics. Except last year, even if student-athletes had more votes than the Big Ten, Pac–12, and SEC combined, there was no legislative issue where that many votes would have changed the outcome and the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee’s position differed from the Legislative Council’s final vote. To get major change, that 20% vote would need to represent only the opinions of a tiny fraction of student-athletes.

When someone pitches the idea of defunding nonrevenue sports or reverting them to intramural status, it undermines their claim that they believe in the value of elite athletic competition. High-level athletics either have intrinsic and/or academic value or they do not. To suggest that the only athletes and sports deserving of investment by universities are those that can produce revenue strips athletics of any intrinsic value, just like saying the only majors a college should offer are ones that draw enough donations and research dollars to support themselves.

This is what President Mark Emmert meant when he said college athletics are not a business. Changing conferences to grow revenue might make business sense, but not if that money is used to keep the wrestling team from being cut or to fully fund scholarships for rowers. President Emmert’s comment was somewhat aspirational, as he acknowledged the frenzy of the deal seemed to be overtaking more important considerations.

Even Division I members struggle with this issue. A lot of administrative furniture is being hastily rearranged to increase the maximum value of a scholarship. This will primarily benefit athletes who are already receiving full scholarships in sports with the largest budgets. But Division I financial aid rules still require a student-athlete who is not getting already getting tuitions, fees, room, board and books to give up aid that has nothing to do with athletics because [it counts against team limits][7]. It is an issue that Division I has gone back and forth on as much as cost-of-attendance, but which occurs is under the radar since it rarely, if ever, affects football or men’s basketball. That discussion is being put on hold for now in order to provide more for revenue sport athletes.

As often as college athletics is taken to task for looking like a profit-seeking enterprise, it gets chastised just as often for not acting like a business. As the NCAA seeks to blend higher education with elite athletics that people just so happen to be [willing to pay a lot of money to watch][7], there will always be that tension.

The goal of Division I should be to constantly expand and improve athletic and educational opportunities for student-athletes. That means all student-athletes. It means not resting on the laurels of the full grant-in-aid or APR. By the same token, it means bringing more and more sports up to the same level of financial aid and support that the revenue sports enjoy. But what it absolutely does not mean is dismantling or gutting athletic departments to feed two teams.

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: , , ,

Realignment’s Effect on the NCAA

September 19, 2011 by

Conference realignment in the NCAA has generally resulted in more conferences. When the Southwest Conference folded, Conference USA was created out of it. The Mountain West Conference was created when the Western Athletic Conference (the original 16 team football conference) split in two. Conference movement is a constant across all of Division I. Since 1985, only 1992–93 saw no conference movement.

A lot of how the NCAA works seems to be geared toward steady growth in member institutions and member conferences. When the size of Division I grows, a lot of things happen almost automatically. Tournaments expand, the governance structure grows and shifts, and the administrative needs of Division I are reassessed.

When the number of conferences shrink, what happens is less clear. Nothing needs to happen. If a conference disappears, but not its member institutions, that just means another at-large bid is available to tournaments where the conference qualified for automatic qualification. The conference can be removed from the governance structure, which may not even affect all committees and cabinets. This is a feature of the way the NCAA operates. This allows the very autonomous institutions of the NCAA to shift around without toppling the structure above.

The current events may necessitate action. The conferences that might cease to exist would be among the largest and most powerful conferences in the governance structure. At some point realignment driven by football may be deemed to be too much for multi-sport conferences and the idea of an institution being a member of one conference for most sports could end.

Votes in the Legislative Council would be substantially changed. If the number of large FBS conferences dropped to four, it would mean that without another change, six votes are lost in the Legislative Council. The four superconferences would have a majority on FBS issues and one would assume be able to vote as a bloc more effectively with four rather than six constituencies. But on issues facing all of Division I, the FBS conference would lose their majority. All 20 FCS and non-football conferences would need to be united and it would only be a small majority, but it would be a shift in the delicate balance.

The way votes are distributed amongst the Division I conferences means consensus tends to rule the day. The Legislative Council rarely votes on “party line” and legislation is rarely adopted via a close vote. Generally a consensus is found or proposals are modified before going to a coin-flip vote. There’s value to maintaining the current legislative structure and distribution of votes since it has seemed to produce a legislative process that serves the needs of the greatest number of institutions. It also appears good for student-athletes. In 2010–11, the Legislative Council voted against the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee position only three times.

Going back to institutional voting would radically change how the NCAA is governed but it might be necessary. Voting would be less about consensus and more about majorities since the same type of debate would be impossible. One could see the end of the Legislative Council as a voting body, with institutions getting together to discuss legislation (formally or informally) but voting and institutional positions managed online. Groups like NACDA (and its affiliates) and coaches associations would become more important in developing legislative positions.

If multi-sport conferences disappear, that could mean more conferences than institutions, as every sport looks to rebuild the structure provided by today’s conferences. Conference based governance would be impossible, changing the relationship between the NCAA and its members. Without a middleman, the NCAA would deal with institutions on an individual basis. That would roll back the delegation of some functions to conferences, like administering medical hardship waivers (a.k.a medical redshirts) and the reporting of the most minor violations.

Pretty much everyone in college athletics wishes this round of conference realignment is over. With such major changes possible, the hope is that a period of stability will follow. I agree with President Emmert that an “NCAA Commissioner” deciding who will be in what conference is not likely and not a positive. There might be a role for the NCAA to establish a more formal, national process for when and how institutions change conference affiliation.

Once the dust settles on conference realignment though, the effect at the national level needs to be sorted out. That means this is both an opportunity for major change and unanswered questions presenting a possible hurdle to reform. Either way, these conference changes are more likely to be the first act rather than the final one.

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: , , ,

NCPA Presents Good Question, Hints At More Radical Change

September 14, 2011 by

The struggle over whether to pay college athletes is relatively simple. Or at least, it is compared to the struggle over what to pay college athletes. Proposals to allow a greater degree of compensation to college athletes are a dime a dozen and it is easy to find objections to a specific proposal. This is actually a positive. It means the NCAA is getting enough right that it is hard to change and please a substantial majority of people.

The recently released study by the National College Players Association and Drexel University’s Department of Sports Management is one of the most detailed and well-executed pay-for-play proposals in recent memory. It offers a detailed plan that addresses multiple issues. It offers a plan to see these reforms turned into actual change. And it offers no shortage of data in support of the proposal.

However, the NCPA paints a very different vision for Division I athletics that most college athletes, fans, and administrators are used to. In making a series of assumptions, the NCPA study embraces a cynicism that is hard to go along with even given the quality of the proposal and the data to support it. If the NCPA wants its proposal to be taken seriously by stakeholders in the NCAA and the rest of college athletics, it must address these issues.

Major League Pay in the Minor Leagues

One of the tried and true criticisms of the NCAA is that the association is operating minor leagues for the NFL and NBA, either through implict acceptance or outright conspiracy. Which is why I find it confusing that alternate revenue models default to collectively bargained revenue sharing agreements that are only common in the major leagues. I’ve covered this issue before, but if any pay-for-play system developed in college athletics, it seems more likely it would resemble minor league or developmental pay, rather than major league pay.

Calling a collectively bargained revenue split “the free market” is also something of a misnomer, especially when citing a number that was simply offered one side in a negotiation. A collective bargaining agreement restricts the free market in order to make it a more competitive market. In a free market, the Miami Heat might have paid the Big Three more and had a different and better compensated supporting cast.

Finally, the study does not address a very important exception to the NBA and NFL revenue splits. High school seniors–and in the NFL college freshmen and sophomores–are offered 0% of the revenue. No matter what the NCAA is offering, it is better than nothing. Absent evidence that the NCAA wanted this situation and helped bring it about, that discrepancy must be addressed before anointing the results of a CBA process as fairer than the NCAA legislative process where student-athletes do have a voice, whether you belief it is sufficient or not.

The True Value of Being a Student-Athlete

The NCPA study takes pains to focus the conversation on the immediate status of student-athletes. This prevents the pay-for-play debate from moving into the realm of the value of an education or the dollar figure that should be attached to instruction from coaches. It makes for a much simpler and more practical debate.

The study takes the value of room and board, essentially the living expenses provided to student-athletes, and measures it against the national poverty line. The study generally finds a full scholarship wanting. However, the study did not take into account the additional financial aid or benefits that are available to student-athletes, not counting the portion of the NCAA’s revenue distribution earmarked for student-athletes (that is a seperate issue).

In addition to room and board, student-athletes receive a number of other benefits. While institutions cannot provide clothing at their discretion, what is available to student-athletes for “practice or competition” is interpreted rather broadly. When a student-athlete is on the road or starting the night before a home game, meals can be provided. Not to mention that a full-grant in aid covers the academic year (typically 8–9 months) while the poverty line is based on the entire year and the other months (semester and summer break) can be covered by another source (vacation period expenses or summer aid).

On top of that, there is additional aid. Federal grants, state grants, scholarships, and need-based aid. All of this helps fill the gap between a full grant-in-aid and the cost of attendance. Admittedly, the best organization to undertake a comprehensive study of what full scholarship student-athletes are paying out of pocket taking into account this additional “income” is the NCAA. And while the NCAA should make that study a priority (and likely will given that the membership is currently debating this issue), that does not mean these sources of financial aid and basic necessities for student-athletes can be ignored.

The Cure Cannot Be As Bad As The Disease

One source of assistance for student-athletes in meeting the gap between the full grant-in-aid and cost of attendance is the Student Assistance Fund. The study is dismissive of the SAF, claiming it is an element of control over student-athletes.

It is entirely reasonable to say the SAF is not enough, and could not be enough no matter how well-funded. It is also reasonable to disagree with the SAF regulations, which allow the money to spent on student-athletes in ways other than providing direct benefits to individual athletes. It is even reasonable to suggest that institutions should direct more of the SAF money to revenue-sport athletes, although I vehemently disagree with that position.

It is not reasonable to not give the NCAA and its members credit for the SAF. If the scholarship gap is a practical problem, millions of dollars that can go to student-athletes to fill that gap cannot be discredited or worse vilified. It puts the NCAA in an impossible Catch–22. Provide the money and the NCAA is a “welfare state” using the money to control student-athletes. Don’t provide the money and the NCAA is hoarding revenue that student-athletes helped earn. Outside income is either a philosophical issue separate from the scholarship gap or the scholarship gap is not a practical student-athlete welfare issue. It cannot be both.

Defunding Non-Revenue Sports

I have to start by giving credit where credit is due. Most arguments for NCAA reform fail right off the bat because they have not considered basic questions about what college athletics should look like. How many schools should be in the top level of college athletics? How many sports should they sponsor? How many athletes should be competing on the same level for the same rewards?

The NCPA has thought about these questions. While it is not explicit, the focus on the scholarship gap suggests the NCPA does not mind a smaller Division I. While I may be reading too much into this and other NCPA studies, it seems reasonable to say the organization believes institutions in Division I should be able to fully finance their student-athlete’s educations. What is explicit is how many sports institutions should be sponsoring at the highest level, in this case men’s basketball, football, and just enough women’s sports to meet the school’s legal obligation under Title IX.

Saying institutions should only invest in non-revenue sports what is legally required or the bare minimum necessary to field a team is asking the NCAA and its members to embrace a cynical view of intercollegiate athletics. That college sports should be run as a profit-maximizing enterprise and under-performing business units shuttered or defunded.

That claim requires more than simply a statement that concludes non-revenue sports are lavish excesses. To justify taking money away from programs where coaches rarely make millions and where new money is often spent improving the student-athlete experience, you need an explanation of why only football and men’s basketball players deserve a well-funded, elite athletic experience.

Small Reforms, Massive Tweaks

The NCPA’s report is one of the better and more detailed studies of economic issues facing student-athletes. It has shortcomings but those do not detract from the larger point. Colleges could provide more to their student-athletes within the principles the NCAA has established. Of the reforms offered, the NCAA has committed to exploring all but two: deregulation of athletically related income and Congressional action (which if the current reform movement bears fruit would not be necessary).

As soon as non-revenue sports are presented as a source of funding for these reforms, this ceases to be about fixing one system and becomes a call for a new system. One where expanding opportunities for women, training Olympic athletes, and providing educational opportunities for more athletes is seen as a negative. It is no longer about holding the NCAA accountable for the association’s own mission. It is about fundamentally changing college athletics. When the two are confused, no honest or productive conversation about reform can occur.

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: , ,

“Untouchables” Still a Bit Unobtainable

September 9, 2011 by

After Yahoo! Sports released its investigative report of the alleged extra benefits and recruiting scandal at Miami, former NFL agent Josh Luchs endorsed an idea that comes around every few years. Whether you house them in the athletic department or not, compliance officers are employees of the university, subject to the possibility of any number of ethical dilemmas. Luchs suggests the NCAA pay for and place compliance officers at schools. As employees of the NCAA, they cannot be fired by the school for doing their job, thus solving many of those ethical dilemmas.

Let’s assume the logistical issues could be solved. Working as an NCAA-employed compliance officer on campus would be like a State Department or FBI field office assignment. You move every couple of years until you made it to the national office in Indianapolis. Attracts a certain type of person, but that’s part of the goal here. There is still a Good, Bad, and Ugly to this type of system.

The Good

The biggest benefit would be a much simpler and more consistent major infractions process. Lack of institutional control and failure to monitor charges would not exist. The NCAA would now be in control and it would be the NCAA’s responsibility to monitor. Beyond the actual violations, the only questions would be how many people subverted the monitoring systems the on-campus staff had in place, and how severe should the show-cause orders be.

The Bad

The biggest drawback is that the majority of these NCAA positions would be new positions, not replacement or reassignment of existing staff. There are some compliance responsibilities an NCAA staff member on campus cannot perform. Decisions about whether to file a waiver, arguments for mitigation in student-athlete reinstatement cases, and how the Student Assistance Fund is managed should be made by university staff.

And if the NCAA is permanently represented on campus, expect schools to “lawyer up,” so to speak, by retaining or hiring their own compliance staff. That’s great if you’re in the compliance industry. But whether this is paid for with new or existing money, it means that money is earmarked for a larger administration rather than for a better student-athlete experience.

The Ugly

A system of permanent on-campus NCAA staff creates a more adversarial system. One big benefit of an adversarial system is that it sets very clear motives and roles. It’s my belief you get a better compromise when two people with clear and opposing motives are forced to come to an agreement. But we’re not talking about negotiation here. We’re talking about the enforcement of rules by the authorities.

In that case you get less compromise and more argument. If coming to a compromise takes a long time, winning an argument takes longer. And while that arguing is going on, innocent student-athletes and coaches will be caught in the middle. That means longer reinstatement cases and a slower secondary infractions process.

There’s a role for a long-term presence by the NCAA on an institution’s campus when something goes wrong. Probation and parole is overseen by a probation officer, not the judge. Failing an external audit should mean having to allow the NCAA to come in for a year or two to fix the issues. At the very least, that should be the pilot program before changing the relationship between the schools and the NCAA in a way that cannot be undone if it doesn’t work.

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: , ,

Reason amid the mess

August 18, 2011 by

A new round of Division I conference realignment conjecture has moved everybody to Defcon 2, and the allegations against the Miami (Florida) football program are troubling, to say the least.

The commentary has been white hot, with almost every principal getting lit up in one place or another. The unfortunate proximity to last week’s presidential retreat, with all of its promise, has been noted.

So it was good, in the midst of all this, to find a calm, reasonable assessment of the current state of affairs.

Duke professor Charles Clotfelter, please take a bow.

“Rule-breaking in college sports is often viewed strictly in moral terms, as a reflection of defective character,” Clotfelter wrote in Tuesday’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “But it would be a mistake to ignore the powerful influence of the universities themselves and the incentives they create by attaching such importance to athletic success.

“Cheating won’t be solved just by tighter rules and better enforcement. A century of big-time college sports tells us that much.

“Real change won’t happen until university trustees, not just presidents, show they value the academic mission more than winning games.”

About Dave Pickle

Filed Under: Feature, NCAA Insider

2011-12 POPL Review: Personnel and Amateurism

August 16, 2011 by

The 2011-12 Legislative Cycle kicked off with the release of the Publication of Proposed Legislation (affectionately known as the POPL). If the Division I Manual gets a hard time for being over 400 pages, the POPL is no less weighty. 81 proposed changes to the Division I Bylaws cover 136 pages. Over the rest of the week, I’ll give my thoughts on all of them. That’s just the start though. A number of proposals linger from last year. And in October and January the results of the Presidential Retreat and men’s basketball recruiting model may push the total number of new proposals over 100.

Today are personnel and amateurism. Personnel proposals often look a lot like recruiting proposals because who recruits is often as important as how you recruit. Both the personnel and amateurism proposals have a strong deregulatory bent, although it is more a mixed bag in personnel. What seems like a small change could be presented as a test case for a major rewrite. That’s one reason a lot of small, common sense changes fail to make it through. But before we get on with those two big areas, we start by number the days for an entire 22-page bylaw.

2011-11: Removal of Bylaw 21

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Administration Cabinet

Intent: To specify that the Administration Cabinet shall oversee the administrative functions related to the management of the Division I governance structure and Division I representation on Association-wide and common committees; further, to remove Bylaw 21 from the Division I Manual and specify that policies and procedures related to selection, composition, duties, term of office and operation of committees and cabinets shall be published on the NCAA website.

Analysis: This will certainly lighten the Division I Manual a bit. Bylaw 21 is just over 20 pages long, although plans are in the works to only publish select rules in the actual Manual, thinning the book itself further. There are two issues. First, the Admin Cabinet does not include a representative from every conference. And second, this makes changes to the NCAA’s governance structure, which can affect championship selection, more opaque. If the Admin cabinet expanded itself as a “third branch” alongside the Legislative and Leadership Councils, some of these fears would be soothed.

2011-12: Personnel – Graduate Assistant Coach – Basketball

Sponsor: Big East

Intent: In basketball, to permit an institution to employ one graduate assistant coach.

Analysis: Basketball has not been able to use two of the special categories, primary around concerns that volunteer or graduate assistant coaches would not be substantially different than countable coaches, and squad size does not require them. But with limits potentially coming to non coaching staff, adding the relatively inexpensive graduate assistant coach is a good compromise. Even if running camps will provide them with a decent chunk of change.

2011-13: Personnel – Graduate Assistant Coach – No Previous FBS or Professional Coaching Experience

Sponsor: Big East

Intent: In bowl subdivision football, to specify that a graduate assistant coach must have either received his or her first baccalaureate degree or have exhausted athletics eligibility (whichever occurs later) within the previous seven years; or the individual must not have not previously served as a coach (either on a salaried or volunteer basis) at a Football Bowl Subdivision institution or in a professional football league.

Analysis: The graduate assistant coach in football was limited recently to individuals who received their bachelors degree or exhausted their eligibility within the last seven years. This proposal would provide an exception to that limit for coaches who meet the spirit of a graduate assistant coach: those looking for their first job to break into the ranks. Even if a 10-year NFL career takes a former player out of the seven-year window.

2011-14: Personnel – Graduate Assistant Coach – No Previous Collegiate or Professional Coaching Experience

Sponsors: Pac-12, Big Ten, MAC

Intent: In bowl subdivision football, to specify that a graduate assistant coach shall have no previous professional or collegiate football coaching experience as a head or assistant coach.

Analysis: You are forgiven if you believe you are seeing double. This proposal is different from the Big East’s in two respects. First, it replaces the seven-year limit rather than adds an exception to it. And second, it requires no collegiate or professional experience rather than just no FBS or pro experience. Between the two I prefer this one since it cuts the total number of rules in the book.

2011-15: Personnel – Student Assistant Coach – Full-Time Graduate Student Within Five-Year Period of Eligibility

Sponsor: Southeastern Conference

Intent: To permit a full-time graduate student within his or her five-year period of eligibility to serve as a student assistant coach, provided he or she meets additional criteria, as specified.

Analysis: The student assistant coach was originally a position for student-athletes who played their first four years, but had a fifth year on their five-year clock remaining. It was expanded to include any athlete still working toward their first degree, but at the expense of student-athletes who graduated in four years and started a graduate degree. The SEC’s proposal neatly fixes this oversight.

2011-16: Personnel – Student Assistant Coach – Football Nonparticipant

Sponsor: Southern Conference

Intent: To specify that in football, an individual who has neither engaged in intercollegiate football competition for the certifying institution nor engaged in other countable athletically related activities in intercollegiate football beyond a 14-consecutive-day period at the certifying institution may serve as an undergraduate student assistant coach, provided the individual meets the remaining criteria applicable to an undergraduate student assistant coach, as specified.

Analysis: When the student assistant coach was expanded a couple years ago, there was debate about how to handle students who were not good enough to stay on the team long enough to exhaust their eligibility but who still wanted to get into coaching. One idea to allow athletes to give up their eligibility in exchange for a coaching spot, but fears of running athletes off killed the idea. The SOCON is giving it another shot, with the idea being that students who failed to stick with the team after a tryout or would rather try coaching should have that opportunity.

2011-17: Personnel – Outside Income – Part-Time or Volunteer Staff with Sport Specific Responsibilities

Sponsor: Big XII Conference

Intent: To specify that contractual agreements between a part-time or volunteer athletics department staff member with sport-specific responsibilities and an institution shall include the stipulation that the staff member is required to provide a written detailed account annually to the president or chancellor for all athletically related income and benefits from sources outside the institution.

Analysis: As athletics administration has expanded, more and more staff are helping out as part-time or volunteers both with coaching staffs and with central administration. Who needs to report outside athletically-related income has gotten a bit fractured. This resets the requirement to all full-time staff members and any part-time or volunteer staff member who is working directly with a team, like a director of ops. or video coordinator. A decent compromise.

2011-18: Recruiting – Receipt of Calls from Prospects

Sponsor: Southeastern Conference

Intent: To eliminate the restriction on the receipt of telephone calls from prospective student-athletes (or prospective student-athletes’ parents, legal guardians or coaches) that requires such calls to be received by the head coach or one or more of the assistant coaches who count toward the numerical limitations.

Analysis: As difficult as the monitoring of coaches calling prospects is, prospects calling staff is even worse. Most cell phone records do not show who an incoming call came from. So it’s certainly a major monitoring win, while not allowing more people to call prospects. But the proposal comes from one of the big boys. And it would allow coaching staffs to pass some of the recruiting of lower-level prospects to non coaching staff, since these prospects are typically more eager. More worrisome might be boosters and former student-athletes becoming “volunteer recruiting coordinators,” now able to receive calls from student-athletes.

But this is not a significant competitive equity issue. If a coach passes a recruit off to a noncoaching staff member, that leaves an opening for other schools to show greater interest by maintain contact through the coaching staff. And prospects still need to want to make the calls, so there is not a major student-athlete welfare issue. Hopefully this proposal goes through, especially given some of the other phone call legislation in the cycle.

2011-19: Personnel – Limits on Number of Off-Campus Recruiters – Spring Football Evaluation Period

Sponsor: Southeastern Conference

Intent: In bowl subdivision football, to specify that all nine assistant coaches may evaluate prospective student-athletes at any one time during the spring evaluation period; further, in championship subdivision football, to specify that all 11 coaches may evaluate prospective student-athletes at any one time during the spring evaluation period.

2011-20: Personnel – Limits on Number of Off-Campus Recruiters – Women’s Basketball Spring Nonscholastic Evaluations

Sponsor: Big East

Intent: In women’s basketball, to specify that four coaches may evaluate prospective student- athletes at any one time at nonscholastic events during the spring evaluation period.

Analysis: 2011-19 and 2011-20 are the same concept applies to different sports. Women’s basketball gets one weekend in the academic year to evaluate at AAU events, so allowing a fourth coach out for those four days makes sense. And both football and women’s basketball have limits on how many person-days coaches can be out recruiting, either during the year or during specific evaluation periods. This could be the first step to eliminating the limit on the number of off-campus recruiters in favor of tighter recruiting calendars or person-day limits.

However, there’s a cost. Allowing all the coaches to recruit at once means all the coaches could be off campus at once. For 2011-20 and women’s basketball, one weekend is not a major concern. But football could have all of its assistants gone for and entire work week. And with no limit on off-campus recruiters, there is no need to replace them and have coaches return to campus for a breather. We could see a spring evaluation period where coaches remain off-campus for weeks or even the entire month and a half, with finals smack in the middle. This must be addressed, even if programs should have more freedom to use their limited recruiting resources how they see fit.

2011-21: Personnel – Football – No Return to Campus During Contact Periods

Sponsors: Big East and Big XII

Intent: In football, to specify that during a contact period, a replaced coach is not required to return to the institution’s campus before engaging in additional recruiting activities, provided not more than seven coaches engage in off-campus recruiting activities each day.

Analysis: 2011-21 attempts to bring the concept of not requiring coaches to “touch home” when they switch who is recruiting to the academic year for football. But again, the most important contact period for football is smack in the middle of finals, meaning all the coaches could be gone at once.

2011-22: Personnel – Men’s Basketball Bench Personnel

Sponsor: West Coast Conference

Intent: In men’s basketball, to specify that during a contest against outside competition, institutional bench personnel shall be limited to four coaches, one director of basketball operations (or similar position) and two additional individuals (e.g., athletic trainer, team physician, manager).

Analysis: If being a coach means anything, it means getting to sit on the bench and help athletes win a game. So if you are not a coach, your usefulness on the bench is debatable. Instead of limits on who an institution can employ, limiting who gets to act like a coach during games is a good alternative. I just wonder if we’ll start to see front rows of “fans” in suits holding clipboards relaying stats and consulting with coaches during games.

2011-23: Amateurism – Definition of an Agent

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Amateur Cabinet

Intent: To specify that an agent is any individual who, directly or indirectly, represents or attempts to represent an individual for the purpose of marketing his or her athletics ability or reputation for financial gain, or seeks to obtain any type of financial gain or benefit from securing a prospective student-athlete’s enrollment at an educational institution or from a student-athlete’s potential earnings as a professional athlete.

Analysis: This proposal has already picked up the names of any number of individuals. It is a good start to defining the type of conduct we want to prohibit. But it does not solve all the problems in a case like the Cam Newton case, such as what the appropriate penalties are when there is no proof a prospect or student-athlete knew they had an agent or if there is no proof of financial gain by the athlete or anyone else.

2011-24: Amateurism – Expenses from Sponsors

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Amateurism Cabinet

Intent: In individual sports, to specify that, prior to full-time collegiate enrollment, a prospective student-athlete may accept up to actual and necessary expenses associated with an athletics event and practice immediately preceding the event, from a sponsor (e.g, neighbor, business) other than an agent, a member institution or a representative of an institution’s athletics interests.

Analysis: This is one of those proposals (along with 2011-25) that will get everyone on both sides of the amateurism debate fired up. Proponents of the NCAA’s definition of amateurism will point to this proposal to show just how fair amateurism can be and how much student-athletes and prospects can get under it. Opponents will point out how allowing sponsorship robs amateurism of principle. Having seen kids have to repay a lot of money from their neighbors and local community, I’m a fan.

2011-25: Amateurism – Tennis – $10,000 Prize Money Per Year Prior to Enrollment

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Amateurism Cabinet

Intent: In tennis, to specify that, prior to full-time collegiate enrollment, an individual may accept prize money based on his or her place finish or performance in open athletics events, not to exceed $10,000 per calendar year; further, to specify that once the individual has reached the $10,000 limit, he or she may receive additional prize money on a per-event basis, provided such prize money does not exceed his or her actual and necessary expenses for participation in the event.

Analysis: Like 2011-24, this proposal will launch a philosophical debate about amateurism. But it will also draw a bit of fire for being what appears to be an arbitrary number. Given the NCAA’s track record, there is bound to have been a lot of research and calculation done to come up with that number. Either it is well below what Division I tennis prospects spend on their sport, or anyone who earns more than $10,000 per year professionalizes themselves in other ways (has an agent, signs endorsements, etc.). This was proposed back in 2007 before, but was withdrawn.

2011-26: Amateurism – World University Games

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Championships/Sports Management Cabinet

Intent: To include the World University Championships in all bylaws that apply to the World University Games.

Analysis: Not to much to say about this one other than its a no-brainer for the NCAA to expand international experiences for athletes. It is notable mostly because it may be the first fruit of a stronger relationship between the NCAA and the USOC, so stay tuned.

2011-27: Amateurism – Sponsorship By Professional Sports Organizations

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Championships/Sports Management Cabinet

Intent: To specify that a professional sports organization may serve as a financial sponsor of an intercollegiate competition event, including regular season and postseason events, provided the organization is not publicly identified as such; and that a professional sports organization may serve as a financial sponsor of an activity or promotion that is ancillary to the competition event and may be publicly identified as such; further, to eliminate the prohibition on professional sports organizations or personnel as acceptable advertisers in conjunction with NCAA championships.

Analysis: This is likely to be one of the most hotly debated and misunderstood proposals of the cycle. Coming on the heels of 2010-26, expanding sponsorship and promotional activities in the midst of a reform movement is bound to draw scrutiny. The proposal does not allow for professional leagues or teams to begin filling the coffers of athletic departments. The idea seems to be more marketing of the Pac-12 Basketball Tournament during Lakers games, as one example. But whether the effects of the proposal can be explained to everyone’s satisfaction is the big question.

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: ,
«Older Posts
Newer Posts»

Copyright �© 2010-2012 NCAA �·