It was a busy week spending a few days in Washington, D.C. with members of the Sports Philanthropy Network and attending the Aspen Institute’s Future of Sports event.

Aspen Institute—The Aspen Institute held another forum in their series entitled “The Future of Sports.”  You can read my full write titled “NCAA Under Attack” which goes into a lot more detail.  Bottom line, changes are coming.  The only remaining question is how quickly the process will move and what the final result will be.  As you will see in my earlier article, the choice is either a level playing field or a completely open market. Stopping some place in the middle will not work well and attempts to do so will only create more problems by virtue of the additional regulations that would be required.

Washington, DC Holiday Party—We had such overwhelming interest for the Sports Philanthropy Network’s DC holiday party, that the Washington, DC, market is likely to be one of the initial Chapters the Sports Philanthropy Network will launch in 2020.  Despite many conflicts, even the people who were not able to attend last week reached out and specifically asked how to get involved with the network and were especially interested in our Membership Levels.

Chicago Holiday Party—We hosted this event in the Top Golf Swing Suites in 900 N. Michigan (Bloomingdales).  It is a terrific venue and a fun place to eat, drink and network.  I love getting the opportunity to meet people who are just learning about the Sports Philanthropy Network and telling us how they would like to get involved and joining as members of our network.

Meeting Great People and Organizations—One of the best parts of launching the Sports Philanthropy Network 11 months ago, has been the opportunity to meet and engage with so many people who are finding innovative ways to use sports to create stronger, healthier and more inclusive communities.  The caliber of people and their efforts is truly amazing.  I feel fortunate to be a part of this process, learn as much as I can about their work and hopefully be a part of the solution.  As there people join the Sports Philanthropy Network through our Membership Program, we learn more about their needs and their abilities. Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to speak to me, meet with me, record a podcast, speak at the Sports Philanthropy World Conference and participate in any of our other events.  We accomplished so much in 2019.  We have set our sights even higher for 2020.  Thank you for your support and encouragement.

Chanukah Party—Earlier today Kayla and I hosted a Chanukah Open House and it was fantastic to celebrate with Julia, Brett and many friends.  I am appreciative to have these people in my life and enjoy having the time and ability to host people to share these special occasions.

Holiday Time—As we head into the final 10 days of the year, I am thankful for the great people in my life. I am very fortunate to have two living parents who have been incredibly supportive to me during difficult times.  My sister, Sharon, is an amazing bundle of energy who has taught me many things despite her disabilities.  Julia had a great first semester at college in Madison and Brett is doing well in his Junior year at Stevenson HS.  Kayla has been an incredible addition to my world these last 17 months and I cannot imagine life without her.  While life gets hectic and we rush around a lot.  I feel fortunate to have a great network of friends, a warm home, plenty of food and clothes.  Perhaps most importantly, I have my health, something which I do not take for granted as I see so many other struggling.  I also recognize that many people are alone during this holiday period.  I encourage you to reach out and include them.  Having company is much more important than the food, drink or venue. They will appreciate your kindness!

If you didn’t have a chance to see some of the other things I have been involved with or written recently, take a look here:

• Sports Philanthropy Newsstand, December 20, 2019
• NCAA Under Full Attack at Aspen Institute’s “Future of Sports”
• Sports Philanthropy Newsstand, December 13, 2019
• PODCAST: Fred Mitchell, Chicago Blackhawks
• Sports Philanthropy Newsstand, December 6, 2019
• Roy’s Ramble, December 1, 2019
• PODCAST: Tony Giarla, AVP First
• Why an 8 Team Playoff Will Save College Football
• FIRE SABAN!! Be Careful What You Wish For ‘Bama Fans
• Why Second Guessing Playcalling is Like Second Guessing Rock, Paper, Scissors
• 25 Life Lessons that I learned from Sharon

HUMOR FOR THE WEEK

MOTIVATION FOR THE WEEK

Wishing all of my loyal readers a Happy Chanukah, Merry Christmas and positive vibes for 2020.

This past week I had the opportunity to attend the Aspen Institute’s forum entitled: “The Future of College Sports: The Government’s Role in Athlete’s Pay.”

NCAA President Mark Emmert and a wide variety of stakeholders were present. The challenge for Emmert is the rapidly decreasing strength of the NCAA and the speed at which the NCAA’s credibility is evaporating.

You can read the full coverage that I wrote for the Sports Philanthropy Network here:

NCAA Under Full Attack at Aspen Institute Forum

It has been an interesting week. Last weekend I was out in Buffalo for Project Play Western New York.  This week I have been out in California for meetings with more sports youth organizations, promoting Sports Philanthropy WORLD 2020 and meeting with speakers and sponsors for that event coming up June 25-26, 2020. If you would like to register, you can get our SUPER EARLY BIRD rate through December 31, 2019.

For much of the week I have been attending MEGASUCCESS, a conference run by JT Foxx. It has been an amazing experience.  I have also had an opportunity to reconnect with some good friends and have a chance to sit down for meaningful conversations with people who are trying to change the world.

Amidst all of the travel and activity, I am feeling very thankful for the people that I have in my life and recognize how fortunate I am to have many supportive people in my life.  While I am involved with sports philanthropy all year round, especially at this holiday time, I encourage people to think about their good fortune and donate to causes that help with food insecurity.  Blessing in a Backpack is great organization my daughter Julia is raising money for through her sorority. Blessings helps feed children in need and is something that runs across all races and geographic locations.

What I was following this week:

• Colin Kaepernick—This situation got out of control quick.  You can see what I wrote about “Plenty of Blame to Go Around in NFL/Kaepernick Fiasco.”  Ultimately, even many of those who have spoken out in support of Kaepernick’s right to protest, like Stephen A. Smith, have come down harshly on him agreeing with what I wrote about him trying to dictate terms of a job interview.  Stephen A’s comments this morning focused on the fact that the NFL was even allowing him an opportunity after he sued them, took a huge settlement and more. I will be surprised if he ends up on an NFL roster this season.

• Tua Tagovailoa injury—People heaped blame on Saban, but the injury occurred in the first half so that is clearly absurd. No team sits starters in the first half, regardless of the score.  The bigger concern might be the issue raised when it became apparent that Tua did not have the proper insurance to protect him in the event of an injury.  That is a place where they are rightfully angry at the school because he should have had coverage to protect a drop in value, not just the total permanent disability. This is why athletes need representation to help them negotiate and ensure the proper steps are taken.

• Athlete violence—In the wake of the Myles Garrett fiasco, there were many calls for the NFL to take a stronger stance against domestic violence or other violence against women. Some expressed disappointment that there was more outrage from Garrett’s conduct than some of the recent examples of violence directed to women.  It becomes interesting to watch some of the double standards that exist where players and many members of the media seem to be more willing to give players a second chance or benefit of the doubt for a domestic violence incident than they do for Myles Garrett’s helmet swing, with some calling for a permanent ban.

• The NCPA (National College Players Association) held an event at UCLA which was primarily focused on two issues:  1) health and safety of college athletes; 2) whether players should be paid or allowed to capitalize on their name image and likeness.   The stories from the women on the first panel were heartbreaking.  Listening to the abuse they suffered and hearing about the number of failures in the administration, you have to wonder how so many people could turn a blind eye to their pleas.  Yet it has happened frequently.  (You can read my more detailed summary of each panel coming soon if you check back on this site). The second panel focused on the issue of payments to players, either in the form of direct payments from the schools or allowing athletes to capitalize on their name image and likeness.  Here are a few articles that I have previously written about the topic.
  • NCAA Statement on Name, Image, Likeness Leaves Gaping Holes
  • Only Two Choices Left for College Sports: Level Playing Field or Free Market

• MEGASUCCESS by JT Foxx—Each year JT Foxx puts together an incredible lineup of celebrities for his MegaSuccess event.  So far, the event has featured: Hugh Hilton, Steadman Graham, Gabriel Macht (Harvey Spector from Suits), Omarosa, Dr. Phil, Vince Vaughn, Dolph Lundgren, Jillian Michaels and many others.  The celebrity aspect is truly just one part of the environment because the event draws over 2500 entrepreneurs from over 80 countries around the world.  It is an incredible opportunity to engage with business leaders from around the world, learn about different cultures and network with successful business people trying to help each other improve their businesses.

• California Organizations—Great trip out to California to have the chance to meet with several organizations.  Met with LA Scores (Spotlight), AVP First (Spotlight) and GOALS (Spotlight coming soon).  Each of them perform incredible work in their community and I especially enjoy the opportunity to take a site visit and see the way each group works. If you want to support our efforts to help organization’s like these, you can become a member of the Sports Philanthropy Network by joining here!

• Project Play Western New York— Last weekend I had the honor to present to Project Play of Western New York in Buffalo.  There were over 75 people leading youth sports organizations about how to improve their organizations and build their capacity. There was amazing energy in the room and people that are very passionate about helping kids in their community remain active, learn through sports and develop needed life skills and relationship building through their sports activities. A special treat to end the trip was the hospitality of the Buffalo Sabres who gave me my peek into the Key Bank Center as they hosted “Hockey Fights Cancer” night. I managed to be a good luck charm to help the Sabres end their 7-game losing streak (with a 4-goal game from Jack Eichel).

If you didn’t have a chance to see some of the other things I have been involved with or written recently, take a look here:

• Sports Philanthropy Newsstand, November 22, 2019
• Why an 8 Team Playoff Will Save College Football
• Plenty of Blame to Go Around in NFL/Kaepernick Fiasco
• FIRE SABAN!! Be Careful What You Wish For ‘Bama Fans
• Why Second Guessing Playcalling is Like Second Guessing Rock, Paper, Scissors
• Roy’s Ramble November 15, 2019
• Roy’s Ramble November 8, 2019

Wishing you and your family a Happy Thanksgiving!

Fans have been clamoring for a college football playoff for years.  The BCS did a poor job of giving teams a chance at a true national championship.  The 4-team playoff has not done much better.  It has routinely excluded conference champions, excluded many really good football teams, and ultimately has become system that employs beauty pagent criteria to get access.  If you are not a blue-blood program without any flaws, you have no chance to win it on the field.  Lose an early game…you are out.  Suffer a critical injury at a core position, you might be left out even if you are playing amazing football by the end of the season.

Ultimately, in the current system, teams outside of Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State are routinely left out despite an incredible season.  The effects of this can be seen around the country as teams with a realistic playoff aspiration are seeing significant drop offs in fan interest after they suffer a first loss, and recognize they have zero chance with two losses.

Look at these five reasons to expand to 8 teams, you will see how important this move will be for college football.

1. Schedules are set too far in advance.
2. Conference Championships really only thing a team controls year-to-year.
3. Injuries can keep out deserving teams.
4. Flukely plays and/or bad officiating could keep a team out.
5. Home Field is an enormous benefit.
6. More teams in the running in November.
7. Criteria are inconsistently applied

1. Schedules are set too far in advance.

Non-Conference games played in 2019 were likely scheduled sometime between 2006 and 2012.  Are the power programs today the same as they were in those years?  Can you predict how good a Power 5 team will be 7 to 13 years (or more) in advance.  Judging a program’s success by the strength of that Non-Conference schedule makes little logical sense, because it is not like the school could predict the “strength” at the time it was schedule.

• Conference Championships really only thing a team controls year-to-year.

The only item in the control of a team each year is to win its games.  Ultimately, for every team, in every conference, one of their main goals each season is to win their conference.  That accomplishment alone should be sufficient to get a Power 5 team into the CFP.  The beauty pagent conversations of the CPF Committee (which we discuss further below) should not be allowed to override a conference championship.

• Injuries can keep out deserving teams.

Take a look at Tua’s recent injury.  If Alabama had lost a close game which was missed by their star QB, shouldn’t they still have an opportunity to be considered if he was healthy come playoff time? Under the current format, there would be little chance to that to occur.

• Flukey plays and/or bad officiating could keep a team out.

Do we really want a team left out of the CFP with a bad call or a flukey play?  Yes, I recognize that this could occur at any level, no matter how many teams we put into the CFP.  However, an expansion to 8 teams would give an aggrieved team the opportunity to overcome a hiccup, something that does not exist in the current format.

• Home Field is an enormous benefit.

A common complaint against expanding the playoff, is that it would make games less meaningful.  To the contrary, I think it would make the games MORE meaningful.  Teams would be battling for home field in the Quarterfinals all the way through the conference championship games.  We have seen situations where it has been clear that a team may be in the CFP, even with a loss in the championship (or conversely, eliminated even with a close loss).  The distinction between playing at home or traveling across the country to another power school would keep the stakes high.

• More teams in the running in November.

A team with two losses currently has no chance to get into the CFP.  For some of the reasons set forth above, you can see that could unfairly penalize a team.  If you look at the Top 25 right now, there are probably a dozen teams who could reasonably have a chance to make an 8 team playoff that would have zero chance to make a 4 team playoff.  As currently situated today, there are really only about 8 teams with a chance:  Ohio State, Clemson, LSU, Georgia, Alabama, Oregon, Utah and Oklahoma.  You might be able to make arguments for a few others, but it would take a lot of upsets. In an 8 team playoff, you would still see a path to the playoff for: Baylor, Penn State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, Notre Dame and Auburn.  This basically doubles the pool of candidates and sets up critical games down the stretch as we head to rivalry week.  The importance of this breadth and diversity cannot be overstated since it will allow many programs to see a viable route to the program even when they understand that likelihood of finishing in the Top 4 is not a realistic goal.

• Conference Championship games frequently lack energy

So now let’s look at the actual selection process.  My proposal is for 8 teams, rewarding all 5 Power Conference Champions with a bid.  This ensures that all Conference Championships mean something.  On the rare occasion that a truly “undeserving” team wins the championship, so what? They become an underdog and a darling and maybe they make a run!  The Group of 5 teams would have a spot reserved for them as long as the highest ranked team in that group is in the Top 12 (or Top 15).  I don’t think anyone minds seeing a Central Florida take a spot in the tournament, but nobody wants to see a three loss Group of 5 team ranked 20^th or worse taking up a valuable spot.

• Criteria are inconsistently applied.

When you look at the way the committee approaches the conversation, you essentially see three distinct conversations:

• Body of Work—Your body of work can only be as good as your schedule.  So these all relate to each other, but sometimes a school just wins and wins and wins, but may not look as impressive.  Does that team deserved to be excluded because they do not blow out every opponent?  Put them on the field and they will just win games…and they should get that chance.

• Best Win—another function of the schedule. Not only your schedule, but the schedule of an opponent.  Beat a really good team who has beaten nobody else and you will get little credit, no matter how good that team is.  Beat a mediocre team that has a win over another mediocre team  (i.e. overrated in preseason polls) and you will jump up the charts.

• Worst Loss—If multiple teams have one loss, is the primary consideration who they lost to?  Or who else they have beaten?  This year, Georgia has a terrible, home loss to South Carolina.   Alabama has a close home loss to LSU.  Georgia’s loss is clearly worse, but they are rated higher due to wins over Florida, Notre Dame and Auburn.  The committee flip flops every year on how they apply this criteria.

• Strength of Schedule—Subject to the same problem noted above based on how far the games are scheduled in advance.

Ultimately, the expansion to 8 will be great for college football.  What used to be the best college sports season out there, has now largely been reduced to watching which team between Alabama, Ohio State or Clemson can run up the score the highest.  That is not a sustainable model.

Do you want a level playing field? Or a free market system?

In the wake of this week’s statement by the NCAA that it intends to explore ways for athletes to be compensated for their name, image and likeness, it appears that we have only two options left for the direction college sports is going to go.

Option 1:             Free Market

Option 2:             Level Playing Field

We are going to explore these two options and I am very interested to hear what you think will ultimately be the choice.  I have my opinions but I will save them for the end of this article.  With California passing its law and other powerhouse states like New York, Florida and Illinois being well on their way to implement similar laws, it was only a matter of time until the NCAA fell in-line with the economic realities and public sentiment about allowing athletes to receive compensation.  Unfortunately, the NCAA’s own statement fell far short of coming up with a viable framework which would let student-athletes really understand how the NCAA would interpret the concepts in its statement.  You can read more details here in terms of the gaping holes left by the NCAA’s position.   Even after you read their statement and understand this holes, you have to take a step away from the anger, hostility and frustration which have long been a part of this discussion.  Catch your breath, open your mind and ask yourself what an ideal world of college sports looks like.  Most of us can agree we are not there right now, but the question is whether there is even a pathway to get there.

In my opinion, there are only two options.  There is no slippery slope, because there is really no place to stop.  Or even try to stop.  This looks more like a cliff.  You are either at the top, or you are at the bottom.

LEVEL PLAYING FIELD

The entire purpose of the NCAA regulating competition in college sports was to preserve some degree of a level playing field.  Recruiting restrictions, scholarship limits, admission requirements and virtually everything else that the NCAA governs were put into place to preserve that level playing field.  Why are the restrictions virtually limitless and the penalties so draconian?  Because Michigan and Ohio State do not trust each other to compete fairly.   Alabama, Auburn and LSU believe that its competitors would do everything in their power to win. While the NCAA is an easy target, the reality is that the rules are implemented by the schools.  The schools are the ones that want help to protect themselves against other “rogue” schools that would implement a win at all costs arms race.  If one elite school in a conference wanted to pull out all of the stops, then other schools would be forced to do the same thing in order to compete.

Many people would argue that the playing field is already unlevel.  If you look at the revenue generated in the Power 5 conferences, there are great disparities between the top schools in the Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, ACC and Pac 12, especially when you compare them to the lower level schools in each conference.  The challenge in front of the college sports community, is how the Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) conversations are going to change college sports. 

IF (and that is a big if), you desire to retain a level (or more level) playing field, you will need to grant the NCAA potentially even more power to regulate the actions of the schools, limit the ways that athletes can earn money and monitor how and when that money is paid to the student-athlete. 

If that concept sounds repugnant to you, then you are probably a proponent of the FREE MARKET below, but just be careful, because you might get what you wished for.

FREE MARKET

The Free Market solution means exactly what it sounds like.  ALL bets are off.  The rules are no longer in existence.  Colleges can recruit athletes in any way that they choose.  Just like colleges can recruit students today.   Nobody monitors whether the students Michigan chooses to admit are following the same requirements as the students Ohio State admits.   Alabama can currently admit its choice of students and provide them as much financial support as it chooses as an institution, without any regard to what Auburn or LSU might offer that same student.  So why is this a bad thing?  It might not be.  Let the institutions make their own admission decisions just as they currently do for non-student-athletes. Goodbye NCAA Clearinghouse.  Goodbye to regulations about core requirements, minimum GPAs, non-qualifiers or any other form of regulation.

QUESTION:         Will this change college sports?

ANSWER: Absolutely. 1000%.   Schools will now be free to recruit, pay, provide financial support or do ANYTHING else that they want to attract talent.  Just as they currently do for regular students.  College sports has changed and it is going to continue to change. The current model is not sustainable and expecting the NCAA to solve the problem is naïve.  Olympic sports have easily survived the transition from the amateurism model to one that allows all forms of compensation.  So what? Don’t we want to identify the best athletes? 

QUESTION:         Will this concentrate the power in some of the elite schools. 

ANSWER:  Yes.  It is highly likely that many of the elite Power 5 schools will get the first choice of talent.  But so what?  If they have the incentive to field a competitive team, the school now has the obligation to make its institution attractive to student-athletes.  Shouldn’t we want the student-athletes to make the decision for a reason that makes sense relative to their future goals?  If some school is willing to pay more for you to come to their university, might that not be a good thing for the student-athlete?  Would some of them consider schools that they would not have considered if they were able to be paid more?

QUESTION:         Doesn’t that cheapen the process?

ANSWER:  No.  It actually makes the school selection process more appropriate to the individual athlete.  A player could decide if a smaller payment from Alabama was more worthwhile relative to his professional football prospects, as opposed to cashing in a lower level Power 5 school or even a non-Power 5 school that would give him a greater compensation package.

QUESTION:         How are student-atheltes supposed to be able to navigate this process?

ANSWER:            Like people in all other aspects of the business world—they would have to hire an attorney and/or agent.  Open up this type of consultation and representation, would mean that the student-athletes would have someone helping them navigate the process and negotiate the best deal possible.

So now that you have read some of the options, tell us what you think?  Do you really feel that there is another way?  Is there any room to compromise and implement some reasonable regulations?  I don’t see it.  I think we are headed towards the free market system, and heading there quickly.  We will not ever see a truly level playing field (or even one approaching what we have now).   The universities will have to use their own judgments, morals, endowments and other factors to decide who they want to admit.  What type of students? What type of athletes?  Spending how much money?  Now the athletic department will have to make some economically rational decisions as to who it brings in.  Currently, a football program will bring in 85 scholarship players.  They can only have 85.  So if they are full, they have to find a way to reduce that number (also known as running off a player).  If someone is not performing, they can be recruited over, meaning the school does not have to continue to honor their scholarship.

Let’s be clear, the free market system is not without problems.  Without a governing body it could be like the Wild West.  Players could be bought each year. Players at one school could be recruited to transfer to another school the following year (even if the contracts provided differently).  An entirely new body of law would develop around this area because none of us have any idea whether courts would enforce a restrictive covenant in the scope of a college athlete who signed with a university for financial aid or other compensation to play football there.  In this free market system, we would almost certainly see the development of a players union.  Someone would need to representing the players and their long-term interest.

Regardless of which side of the issue you are on, one thing is guaranteed.  This next 5 years are going to contain some of the most radical changes college sports have seen.  If you look back at this past week, you will see that this was when the change in the landscape became irreversible.

VOTE NOW:    WHAT DO YOU PREFER? LEVEL PLAYING FIELD?  OR FREE MARKET?

Take the poll here!!

If you didn’t have a chance to read our earlier post: NCAA Position Leaves Gaping Loopholes, here is your chance

Yesterday the NCAA released a statement proclaiming that it was starting the process to allow student-athletes to be compensated for their name, image and likeness.

Sadly, though it is at least a step in the right direction, it leaves loopholes that are big enough to drive a football equipment truck through.

While it is nice to see the NCAA finally taking any type of action, its own statement raises many of the exact issues that I predicted as trouble spots in my October 4, 2019 posting: California’s Name, Image, Likeness Law Won’t Solve All Problems with NCAA.

Since that time, New York, Florida and Illinois have also proposed legislation that addresses these areas.

• New York
• Florida
• Illinois

A peek at the headlines that littered Twitter and the sports journalism landscape yesterday included the following headlines from high profile and reputable sources:

• CNBC: NCAA to permit athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness
• USA TODAY: NCAA Board of Governors opens door to athletes benefiting from name, image and likeness
• CNN: NCAA says athletes may profit from name, image and likeness
• ESPN: NCAA clears way for athletes to profit from names, images and likenesses
• CBS: Inside the NCAA’s move to allow athletes to profit from name, image and likeness rights

None of those headlines seem to accurate capture what the NCAA actually said in its statement. The NCAA did not set any clear timeline nor clear guidelines nor an indication that it was going to do anything other than “examine” the process and find a way to make some change. In my opinion, when you look at the words: “in a manner consistent with the collegiate model” you start to see the problem?

You have visions of enforcement nightmares and the bureaucratic inefficiencies of the NCAA coming to mind. Most people in sports (and elsewhere) agree that the collegiate sports model is broken. So now you have the leading organization telling us that the Name, Image and Likeness issues need to be handled in a manner consistent with a broken model? Obviously, that makes little sense.

The NCAA is hardly perceived as a bastion of fairness when you see how much trouble it has enforcing relatively simple regulations like transfer waivers. Some players like Ohio State’s Justin Fields are granted immediate eligibility. Others like Wisconsin basketball player Micah Potter are now told to sit out what amounts to three semesters of basketball despite having the support of the school he was leaving in his the petition for immediate eligibility (which isn’t even really immediate eligibility because it is already after having sat out a full season).

Fortunately for us (and unfortunately for them), the NCAA even lays out the manner in which it intends to treat this initiative. You can see in its own language, how difficult it is going to be to enforce these guidelines:

Take a look at all of the wiggle room that is identify in each of these guiding principles

NCAA GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON NAME, IMAGE, LIKENESS COMPENSATION

►Assuring student-athletes are treated similarly to non-athlete students unless a compelling reason exists to differentiate.

Wiggle room: “treated similarly” and “compelling reasons” Who is going to make these evaluations?

►Maintaining the priorities of education and the collegiate experience to provide opportunities for student-athlete success. 

Wiggle room: “priorities of education”–Whose priorities? “opportunities for success”–What type of success? Defined by who?

►Ensuring rules are transparent, focused and enforceable and facilitate fair and balanced competition.

Wiggle room: “transparent, focused and enforceable” and also “fair and balanced” These are virtually impossible to enforce fairly.

►Making clear the distinction between collegiate and professional opportunities. 

Wiggle room: What exactly is that distinction in the current world?

►Making clear that compensation for athletics performance or participation is impermissible.

Wiggle room: Of course you are getting paid for performance or participation. You only have value if you are on the field and being seen by the consumer! So the better you play and the more you play the higher your market value.

►Reaffirming that student-athletes are students first and not employees of the university.

Wiggle room: This is a pure CYA (cover your ass) move by the NCAA and the universities. They don’t want student-athletes positioned as employees because that causes all kinds of tax issues, liability issues and potential health-care issues.

► Enhance principles of diversity, inclusion and gender equity. 

Wiggle room: How is any of the name, image and likeness going to address these larger issues? Nice as a theory, not practical as a way to determine what is permissible.

► Protect the recruiting environment and prohibit inducements to select, remain at, or transfer to a specific institution.

Wiggle room: Recruiting environment already a problem and played on an uneven landscape. This will only make it worse. Virtually no way to distinguish what is a payment to select, remain at or transfer to a particular institution compared to what is a payment for “name, image and likeness” while you are at that institution (i.e. an athlete has no value to a business in Columbus, Ohio unless they are playing in Columbus and not in Tuscaloosa).

Can you honestly imagine the NCAA finding a reasonable way to enforce these issues? I could literally come up with 100 problems with these guidelines but let me just share a few of them to highlight the difficulties the athletes, schools, conferences, NCAA and businesses are going to have with this process:

PROBLEM #1

Problem #1: Do you trust the NCAA to handle the intricacies and nuances of regulating this process?

Answer: No chance. The NCAA has not proven itself to be transparent and explain its rulings. I believe that the hidden nature of the NCAA proceedings has been an enormous detriment to the organization and more importantly to the goals of the organization. It seems to be against its own interests to keep the rationale secret because that uncertainty undermines the process. If you really look at the multitude of issues that will arise under any potential legislation, you are now asking multiple parties to be part of the process, further complicating an already complex set of issues. The student-athlete, his/her university, the conference, the NCAA, the state laws and the business desiring to contract with the athlete all have their own interests. Toss in sports agents, attorneys, marketing agents, financial advisors and many other and you will quickly see how implausible it will be for the NCAA to properly govern these issues.

You don’t believe me? How about NCAA President Mark Emmert? The USA Today article above quote him as saying that threading those general principles into meaningful rules changes for for Division I schools will be challenging.

PROBLEM #2

Problem #2: When are the players going to get paid?

Answer: There is no guidance on this issue. Some people suggest that the NCAA’s solution is going to be that the funds go into some form of trust until the player either graduates or leaves school. That somewhat defeats the purpose of allowing an athlete to have a stream of income that they might need for their survival or to help support their family members (or even–GASP–for them to be able to enjoy the fruits of their own labor). Paying them immediately does not necessarily remove the problems because now you have teammates competing together, only some of whom are getting paid (see below). What happens when the star QB, WR, RB are getting some lucrative endorsement deals, but their offensive linemen are not? Does this internal jealously create rifts on the team? Are the stars allowed to “share” their compensation with teammates? In the NFL, QBs and other stars are more highly paid than their teammates. But the teammates are still pulling in mid-6-figure incomes (or more). Additionally, there is no restriction on the QB buying dinners, vacations, watches or other luxuries for the guys who help them succeed. Leaving this in the NCAA’s hands to monitor this process is just going to create a mess.

PROBLEM #3

Problem #3: Who is representing the players?

Answer: Historically, the NCAA has prohibited (with a few exceptions), college athletes from having proper representation. The NCAA’s perspective has been that the representation of the athletes makes them a professional and therefore, no longer eligible for college sports.

With the array of regulations and drama that is going to accompany a change of this magnitude, it only seems fair for us to allow the student-athletes to retain an agent or an attorney to help understand and manage this process. If we are moving towards a free-market solution, then why not go all of the way to the free market. Asking student-athletes to navigate these murky waters alone is entirely unreasonable, especially given that everyone else in the process has extensive representation.

PROBLEM #4

Problem #4: How many players really merit compensation on the open market?

Answer: It depends on how you define “merit”. If you truly use the concept of “name, image and likeness” then only a few college athletes would reap benefits. Take out QBs, RBs, WRs and a few high profile defenders, and the estimate is that fewer than 10 players on a Power 5 football team would have “true marketability.” Others that are paid compensation would be getting it in order to attract them (or retain them) at a university. These payments may be disguised as Name, Image and Likeness payments, but they would violate the NCAA’s own guideline language.

PROBLEM #5

Problem #5: What happens when some players on a team get paid and others do not?

Answer: What happens when the star QB, WR, RB are getting some lucrative endorsement deals, but their offensive linemen are not? Does this internal jealously create rifts on the team? Are the stars allowed to “share” their compensation with teammates? In the NFL, QBs and other stars are more highly paid than their teammates. But the teammates are still pulling in mid-6-figure incomes (or more). Additionally, there is no restriction on the QB buying dinners, vacations, watches or other luxuries for the guys who help them succeed. Leaving this in the NCAA’s hands to monitor this process is just going to create a mess.

PROBLEM #6

Problem #6: This process will not help protect the athletes or the universities

Answer: Correct. Athletes can still be taken advantage of. Unscrupulous boosters and agents will still have ways to get at the athletes. Unrepresented athletes will be susceptible to entering into contracts which are not in their short or long term interest.

From the university side, the competitive landscape will become more ruthless. Instead of negative recruiting or recruiting players previously committed to other schools, the universities will have to contend with a whole array of compliaance issues, booster issues and competitive issues. The recruiting process will start looking like a bidding war, only it will be diguised to fit within whatever parameters the NCAA establishes.

The bottom line, is that I could keep going and going and going. There are more problems in this NCAA statement than what possibly is solved. We are going to be in for huge changes ahead in the college sports system. Many people will not like them because there is really no middle ground.

Tune in tomorrow to read our next article when we look at the reality of the landscape in college sports. Truly, there are only two options: 1) Try to maintain a level playing field; 2) Completely open up college sports to the free market.

Neither solution is perfect and each has its own pitfalls. Check back and read our analysis tomorrow and then tell us which side you choose. Remember, there is no middle ground and you are forced to choose one side of the other! It will be interesting to see how you all vote!

Inadvertent Side-effect of NCAA Redshirting Rule.           People rarely feel that the NCAA has an athlete’s best interests in mind. Yet, when the 4 game participation rule was passed last year for football, it seemed like a good way to balance the interests of the players and the universities by allowing athletes to get a bit of experience without losing an entire year of eligibility.  Unfortunately, from what you are seeing this year, the inadvertent side effects appear to be reaching epidemic proportions.  In the past few weeks, we have had players at Houston and players at Rutgers decide to sit out starting in the middle of the season.  Players are deciding after a “poor” start to the season, a mid-season coaching change or a potential coaching change, that they should “stop” playing until the following year so as not to “waste” a year of eligibility.  This leaves the team and interim coaches in a really difficult situation where players they were relying on now have the ability to decide not to be part of the team.  I am sure that this problem will only grow and ultimately coaches and universities will have to figure out a reasonable (and legal) way to prevent this from happening in the future.  UPDATE OCTOBER 8, 2019: NOW EVEN SPORTS ILLUSTRATED IS COVERING THIS SAME ISSUE!!

• California Name Image and Likeness Law.            While almost all of us agree that college athletes are exploited in many respects. However, you have to question whether the “solution” is the proposed Name, Image and Likeness law that was passed in California and is now being proposed in many other states.  You can see a more detailed look that I wrote in this article which takes a peek at some of the difficulties which would be involved with enforcing this law. Well intentioned–absolutely. But it is a going to be an enormous change in college sports, and not in the way that people are expecting!

• Targeting, Helmet-to-helmet and Vontez Burfict.              Targeting is bad.  Taking cheap shots at players heads is bad.  Failing to control your aggression and causing potentially life-changing injuries is something both the NCAA and NFL need to prevent.  But the trouble comes about when they penalize a result or a repeat offender way beyond the actual offense.   You will be hard pressed to find someone to defend Vontez Burfict’s typical behavior and on-field aggression.  He has served multiple suspensions and most of them are well deserved. Suspending him for the remainder of the year for a hit that occurred within the scope of the play seems excessive even given the escaxlating punishments. But his reputation has a major impact here.  Here is a link to Burfict’s hit.   For comparison, take a look at this hit on Green Bay Packer Running Back Jamaal Williams by Eagles’ Derek Barnett.  The hit on Williams was FAR later in the play and completely unnecessary to bring Williams down.  It is hard to understand how the NFL can look at that play and not believe he should have been tossed from the game and suspended. To my eyes, the hit on Williams was much more of the hit you are trying to eliminate, especially since it is not really in the scope of the play.

• Inadvertent Side-effect of NCAA Redshirting Rule.           People rarely feel that the NCAA has an athlete’s best interests in mind. Yet, when the 4 game participation rule was passed last year for football, it seemed like a good way to balance the interests of the players and the universities by allowing athletes to get a bit of experience without losing an entire year of eligibility.  Unfortunately, from what you are seeing this year, the inadvertent side effects appear to be reaching epidemic proportions.  In the past few weeks, we have had players at Houston and players at Rutgers decide to sit out starting in the middle of the season.  Players are deciding after a “poor” start to the season, a mid-season coaching change or a potential coaching change, that they should “stop” playing until the following year so as not to “waste” a year of eligibility.  This leaves the team and interim coaches in a really difficult situation where players they were relying on now have the ability to decide not to be part of the team.  I am sure that this problem will only grow and ultimately coaches and universities will have to figure out a reasonable (and legal) way to prevent this from happening in the future.  UPDATE OCTOBER 8, 2019: NOW EVEN SPORTS ILLUSTRATED IS COVERING THIS SAME ISSUE!!

HUMOR FOR THE WEEK

MOTIVATION FOR THE WEEK

While almost all of us agree that there are some exploitations in the way college athletes are compensated, you have to wonder whether the “solution” is the proposed Name, Image and Likeness  (NIL) law that was passed in California and is now being proposed in many other states. 

The concept of the law itself is superficially appealing because it appears to create an avenue for athletes to get compensated for their Name, Image and Likeness, something that has been prohibited up to this point. The challenge in this situation is going to be how the NCAA attempts to regulate the manner in which the athletes can be compensated.  Up to this point, the NCAA has struggled to consistently apply its regulations.  While the attempts by states to influence the NCAA to change are noble, let’s take a look at whether they will really achieve the articulated goals.

Reading through the California law, the proposed New York law and the proposed Florida law, none of them account for the very real challenges and potential for abuse.  While the pressure from the states will ultimately force the NCAA’s hand and require it to allow NIL compensation, what the state laws do not address is what “other” ways the NCAA can regulate compensation for athletes and influence athlete eligibility.

The goal of most fans, most college athletes, as well as the critics of the NCAA, is to find a mechanism to allow the athletes to be compensated during their athletic careers. Some people want to call their scholarships compensation, which in and of itself would cause problems with workers compensation, insurance and much more.  While people often say that the scholarship is “not enough”, at many schools, the total cost of attendance is in the range of $40,000 to $50,000.  In addition, nobody can deny that the athletes (for all sports), get an array of services that is far beyond what the typical student would receive (food, supplements, tutoring, academic support, athletic training, medical treatments, strength and conditioning, use of facilities and more).   At the recent Chicago Sports Summit, DePaul University Athletic Director Jean Lenti Ponsetto estimated the total allocated cost for supporting an athlete at $250,000 to $300,000.  Included in this total was an allocation of all of the support services for the athletes, other than the out of proportion salaries for head coaches for football and men’s basketball.  So essentially, her number includes salaries for assistant coaches, athletic trainers, strength and conditioning coaches, academic support services, nutrition, sports information directors, team managers and more. 

When we hear athletes complain that they are not getting “enough”, one question that is frequently raised is what type of compensation these athletes would get if they walked out of high school and tried to get a “normal job.”   In today’s world, I think we would all be hard pressed to find a situation where a high school grad would be able to get a job paying $50,000 per year absent some special skills.

So while we applaud the state’s for pushing this issue and forcing the NCAA’s hand, we have to remember that there is going to be a lot of work to handle this enormous change in college sports, one which neither the NCAA nor the states are equipped to handle.

THE PROBLEMS

Some of the problems with these laws include the following:

• No restriction on how the athletes can be paid
• No restriction on when they can be paid (i.e. before enrolling or playing in actual games)
• No requirement of reasonableness or market rate (see below)

WHERE THE ABUSE WILL COME INTO PLAY

The state laws simple make it illegal to invalidate the eligibility for players who are compensated for their name, image and likeness.  However, without a mechanism to handle the anticipated abuses, we are simply going to see some “legitimate” compensation to high profile athletes and a lot of underground payments to athletes who truly have no marketability.

For example, look at the NFL.  Very few players have actual endorsement deals.  VERY FEW.  On a national level, the number is probably lower than 25.  On a local level on each NFL team, with a few exceptions, you might have a dozen players that are actually being paid for endorsements and perhaps another dozen that are getting something in trade (restaurants, car dealerships, bars, etc.). 

Under the proposed state regulations, any “payment” to an athlete can be disguised as a NIL payment.  Hey, you are a good looking kid, if you are here in Columbus playing for Ohio State, we could put you on our car dealership calendar or give you the use of a vehicle.

How would that be regulated?  Should it be regulated at all or should we let the free market forces take over entirely in this space?  The challenge is how we are going to make this an allegedly level playing field.  If you were to take “true market value” of college athletes, there would be less than a dozen players on any college team that merit consideration for NIL compensation.  It is easy for us to earmark payments to an athlete when they are a Heisman contender or star player.  We can take a percentage of their jersey sales or we can figure out the media value of them being used on a billboard or in a promotional advertising campaign.  But going into to college, how many athletes have that power?  I would hate to see a restriction on when a player can get paid because they will create too much subjectivity. 

My skeptical side says cheating will still go on.  Underground payments will still occur.  They will just be disguised differently.

It will be interesting to watch the NCAA’s reaction.  With other states jumping on board with California, the NCAA is definitely running out of time and I would anticipate seeing some response from them before the end of 2019.

Each week I take a quick look at some of the stories and news that I found most interesting.  This space will include some sports, but not all of the sports stories that I normally follow in the areas of sports philanthropy, sports law, sports business, Jewish sports, concussions and otherwise.  If you want to see more of what I am following in those areas, let me know and I can point you to the best spots on my blogs and websites.  You will see that I love to find some of life’s little absurdities and point those out as well as other interesting stories that I follow.

GRAPHICS OF THE WEEK

WEEK ENDING APRIL 14, 2019

• Tiger’s win at Augusta. Obviously one of the biggest stories this weekend. An impressive feat. I have never been a Tiger fan, but it was an incredible win and a comeback for the ages. Despite my feelings about Tiger, you can read here about how I do give him credit for two very impressive accomplishments. My other question about Tiger, or more his audience, is whether they would give others the same second chances Tiger has received. I routinely see sports related people fired, shunned and shamed for far less than cheating with 100+ women. Seeing all of the joy and redemption stories made me wonder about this double standard. It was fun to see a strong leaderboard the last couple days.

• Concussion research advance.   One big story this week was the study released by Boston University which seems to bring us closer to being able to diagnose CTE in living people. While the diagnosis alone will not get us where we need to be, it will allow a much more rapid progression in the identification of the disease and give us some ability to work on treatments.

• Daylight Time vs. Standard Time.             So if you are in Chicago, in April, does an invitation for 7 p.m. CST mean 7 p.m. CDT? Or is the person sending a stealth invitation for 7 p.m. MDT?  I am not sure why this concept is so difficult.  But there are a large number of people (and media) that incorrectly publish times for an event in Standard Time when we are in Daylight Time.  Part of me always wants to email back to them to ask whether 7 p.m. CST really meant that, or whether they meant 7 p.m. Central Daylight Time.  I am sure they are only confused because we spend many more months on Daylight Time than we do on Standard Time

• Night for Victory.                             The Northwestern Gridiron Network held a beautiful event at the Godfrey Hotel on Saturday night.  Fantastic venue on the rooftop lounge.  Impressive turnout to raise money that they were targeting for customized helmets, allegedly to reduce concussions.  While better equipment can help, I am always wary of players feeling unduly” safe in particular equipment.  The rooftop setting itself was beautiful and the Purple Arch Venture hosts did an impressive job with the decorations.  Take a look at these photos.

• Alley-Oop to Alliyah. My friend David Goldstein from Toronto was in Chicago for a couple of Lunch and Learns” where he spoke about his book Alley-Oop to Alliyah. It is an impressive piece of work about the trail of African-American basketball players that have moved on to play professional basketball in Israel, and how their presence in Israel has made an impact on their lives as well as on the lives of the Israeli’s around them. Many of them have chosen to remain in Israel after their playing careers because they felt that they were treated better in Israel than in most other places that they have lived. If you would like to have David visit your community, let me know and I can put you in contact with him. I think you will enjoy the presentation and I know that I am looking forward to reading the book.

• Diverticulitis.    Typically spending a whole day in the urgent care clinic and the ER are not fun.  And this past Tuesday was spent in that fashion.  But instead of being aggravated with the slow” service, I was thankful for how quickly things were handled, how fortunate I was to be able to receive that type of medical care and how ultimately they only found something that was a short term issue.   Diverticulitis is much better than a burst appendix or dozens of other options that it could have been.  The biggest problem was not the pain, but the effect of two heavy anti-biotics that knocked me out for much of the week.  I rarely take any type of meds for pain so I was surprised to feel so sluggish and lethargic.  I dragged myself out to a few meetings, but really didn’t start feeling better until Sunday.

• NCAA Men’s Championship Game.         I was happy to see Virginia win the National Championship because I am a fan of Tony Bennett.  A tremendous turnaround from last season when Virginia became the first #1 seed to lose to a #16 seed.   I like Bennett’s leadership style and have followed him since his playing days at UWGB.  Virginia had two of the most improbable wins that I have ever seen in their Elite 8 win against Purdue and semifinal win against Auburn.   When Purdue poked that ball into the backcourt and less than 5 seconds remained, the odds of Virginia pulling that out had to be under 5%.  With 10 seconds left in the Auburn game, the odds might have been even lower.

• Illinois Boxing Hall of Fame.       I have never been to this dinner event before, but with my friend Al Bernstein being inducted, it was fantastic to see over 600 people in the crowd to honor him.   The energy in the room was impressive and this was one of the best limos that I have ever seen.

• JNF Lawyers Breakfast. Held the day after the Israeli election, this breakfast took a bit of a detour to examine the results of the election and challenges that will be faced in putting together a new government.  Israel always has political challenges but this particular election may hold the fate of some of the biggest decision’s in the country’s history.

• Traction.              I was invited to an interesting lunch presentation by a company called Insperity.  The presentation focused on a book called Traction and the system for helping a business analyze how to prepare themselves for growth.   The presentation took us through a process called EOS (Entrepreneur Operating System) but the presentation itself was probably better suited to a small group for a working session than for a lunch presentation.  But the substance of the presentation had some terrific content and if you are interested in hearing more about it I can connect you to my host.